Charge of Murder

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21336, 5 February 1941, Page 8

Charge of Murder

LONGLEY STANDS TRIAL NEW JURY EMPANELLED EXPERT EVIDENCE CALLED ACCUSED'S STATE OF HEALTH The trial of Charles Harold Longley, aged 39, invalidity pensioner, of Manunui, on a charge of murdering Jeremiah O’Sullivan at Manunui on September 22, 1940, was commenced in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, before Mr Justice Smith, this morning. Mr H. T. Gillies and Mr J. R. FitzGerald appeared for the Crown. Longley was represented by Mr W. J. King and Mr D. H. Hall. Following the unexpected discharge of the jury yesterday because of the omission of a juror to inform the court that he was in a special position, a new jury had to be sworn in this morning. The following jury was empanelled and sworn in:—Messrs J. E. Peace (foreman), A. W. Carter, R. W. Diamond, W. H. Crabbe, K. Johnstone, W. E. Baldwin, G. Fisher. W. N. Ford, G. C. Clough, T. Dufty, G. Wood and S. C. Hawkins. The starting point of the tragedy, said Mr Gillies in his opening address to the jury, was January 11, 1940, when Longley took up occupancy of O’Sullivan’s cottage. Relations between landlord and tenant were cordial until the O’Sullivans received an order to vacate their house. They in turn had to put out the Longleys to gain occupancy of their own house. The Longleys made request to have their house repaired before they would leave. On September 22, a Sunday, the notice to quit had already been served. Battens on Garage Longley had been out shooting rabbits, while O’Sullivan was working on his property. The Longleys kept their car in a shed, and while the family was away looking for another house O’Sullivan came and put three battens across the doorway of the garage. Longley, feeling his rights were infringed, knocked the battens away and put the car into the shed. O’Sullivan then came to the door of the cottage and shouted out, “Hey, Mrs Longley.” After some slight dispute with Mrs Longley, O’Sullivan said, “You mongrel.” Longley walked to a recess and picked up a pea-rifle. There was a “plop” and O'Sullivan was shot through the eye, the bullet flattening against the skull. Death was instantaneous.

Mrs Longley, who was at the door, afterwards said she could not see what had happened. Longley’s first act after the tragedy was to restore the rifle to its former position. Longley then went across to MacKenzie's, a neighbour’s place, to telephone for the police. As soon as he reached the MacKenzies’ home the accused collapsed on the floor in a faint.

Remark Stressed Mr Gillies said that what happened next was of the greatest importance. Mrs Longley followed her husband over to the place. “I did not mean to hurt him,” was Longley’s first remark when he recovered. It seemed strange, said Mr Gillies, that accused’s remarks were not of surprise. There was no expression of terror at what had happened. The pea-rifle was an old one, continued Mr Gillies, and had to be cocked before it could be discharged. Hence, at the time it was aimed at O'Sullivan it must have been not only loaded but cocked. It seemed, therefore, certain that accused had intended to fire it. What told against Longley was the fact that he was a good shot. Further, the shot was the perfect shot of a perfect mark. If the jury had any belief that Longley fired tne rifle accidentally, it could acquit him. The only question was wnether Longley intended to kill O’Sullivan. Mrs Longley, concluded Mr Gillies, as the accused’s wife, was not obliged to give evidence, but by arrangement with defending counsel she would appear.

First Evidence The first witness called was Arthur Preston Haign, draughtsman, of Taumarunui, who described tne plan of the Longley’s cottage. Inside the only door, wnich was at the oacK of the house, was a narrow passage in which there was a small recess measuring about a foot each way, formed by a cabinet and the partition where the passage widened. Senior-Sergeant G. G. Kelly, arms advisory officer, Wellington, said he examined the rifle, the spent shell and the mutilated bullet. No identifiable finger-prints could be found on the rifle but there were marks of receni powder-fouling. Witness explained the structure of the rifle, a lyu4 Winchester. He said tnat the cocking-piece had to be drawn before the trigger could be pulled. The trigger-pull registered «slb. but should not have been less than 41b. for that type of rifle. The pull of the rifle in question, however, could not exactly be called dangerous. It would not be easy to explode the weapon by bumping it on a wooden floor. Handling of Rifle In answer to'a question from Mr W. J. King, witness said the average man picked the rifle ud at tne “small,” and, as a matter of course, usually laid his finger on the trigger. A tap on the cocking-piece, pernaps only of a pound weignt, could discharge the rifle. The next witness to be called was Dr. A. B. Sturtevant. medical practitioner, of Taumarunui. In answer to a ’phone message he arrived at MacKenzie’s house on the afternoon of September 22 at 4.42 p.m. Longley was lying cn the floor with a pillow under his head. His eyes were screwed up and all his muscles were tense. Accused’s condition was not serious and nothing was said to him at this stage. He then went to Longley’s cottage, where he found O'Sullivan's body lying in the doorway. There was a puol of blood beside the head, show-