SECOND DAY OF TRIAL

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21336, 6 February 1941, Page 8

SECOND DAY OF TRIAL

ALLEGED MURDER FAMILY GIVES EVIDENCE STORY TOLD BY WIDOW ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL The second day of 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, today. Mr H. T. Gillies and Mr J. R. Fitz-Gerald appeared for the Crown. Longley was represented by Mr W. J. King and Mr D. H. Hall. The first witness called this morning was Charles Ronald Longley, aged 16, son of the accused. Witness, who was a veneer-worker in September, 1940, said his father did some repair work to the cottage which they rented from O’Sullivan. On September 22, continued witness, his parents went out in the car about 2 o’clock in the afternoon to look for another house. O’Sullivan was working on the cow-bail in an adjacent paddock. Witness described finding the battens nailed across the door of the garage, which his father knocked down on his return. When the family went inside he saw O’Sullivan walk ing along the road. While they were in the kitchen witness heard O’Sullivan call out, “Hey, Mrs Longley.” Conversation Heard Clearly The conversation that followed could be heard quite clearly in the kitchen, where witness was with a friend and the rest of the family. O’Sullivan asked Mrs Longley why the doors had been taken off the garage. She replied, “We put up that shed.” O’Sullivan then called witness’ mother a mongrel. His father, who was inside the kitchen near the door, went out into the passage. There was the sound of a report, which witness later learned was a rifle-shot. He heard his mother exclaim, “Oh, you have shot him.” Witness then went out into the passage, where he saw his father in the act of putting the rifle down in the place where it was usually kept. Witness’ mother then said: “I will have to go for the police.” His father said: “No. 1 will go.” before he hurried out of the door. The rifle was kept in a recess in the passage. Witness had never used the rifle except in the presence of his father, who taught him how to load and fire the weapon.

Repairs to Cottage Witness’ father had carried out extensive repairs to the cottage in accordance with the agreement with O’Sullivan, as well as building the shed. Mr W. J. King: Did your father leave the room again before the word “mongrel” was used? Witness: No. Only a short time had elapsed, a matter of seconds, stated witness, between the time he saw O Sullivan approach and the time when he heard his mother abused. His father, who was standing in front of the kitchen range, movefi quickly when he heaid the word “mongrel.” Witness nearly collapsed at this stage and had to be assisted from the box. He recovered after being given a drink of water and resumed his evidence, sitting on a chair in the body of the court. However, in a few" minutes he asked be be allowed to go outside, and both counsel agreed to forgo any further examination of him. Eunice Sylvia Longley, aged 12, sister of the previous witness, gave evidence along similar lines. She repeated the conversation that took place between her mother and O’Sullivan at the door up to the point where her mother was called a mongrel. . Her father then went out into the passage and picked up the rifle. Witness said she was standing at the curtain in the passage when her father hurried past. Friend in House Thomas William McGovern, a friend of Longlev’s son. detailed the happenings of the afternoon, which he spent in the company of his friend. He remembered the word mongrel used by O’Sullivan, and then Longley hurried from the room. Next came the report of a rifle. Kathleen O’Sullivan, widow of Jeremiah O’Sullivan, ‘was called as a Crown witness. She stated her husband was 52 years of age at the time of the tragedy and had enjoyed good health. There were three children. aged 16. 8 and 6 years. Condition of Tenancy After their original home was burned down they occupied a cottage on the Taumnrunui race course property at Manunui. A cottage which they owned about a quarter of a mile from the race-course, near the Domnin, was occupied by the Longlev family, free of rent, on condition that they carried cut certain repairs. Witness claimed that her late husband was a kindly man and very fond of the children. There was little contact between the two families from April. 1940. onward, though witness was aware that her husband was trying to evict the Longlevs. She described an interview with Mrs Longley which “was not too pleasant.” when the question of the installation of electric light in the cottage was discussed. Accused had no authority from O’Sullivan to pull down the cow shed and rebuild it as a motor-shed, said witness. The evidence of Mrs O’Sullivan concluded the case for the Crown. Defending counsel intimated that he did not intend to call evidence. Crown Prosecutor’s Address The important question, said Mr Gillies, addressing the jury, was shoot O’Sullivan. It was significant that there was an ominous silence by ail the Longley family concerning the events from the moment of the MaoKenzif i- heme, and some lime

elapsed before accused said: “I never meant to do it.” It seemed a belated attempt on the part of Longley to explain what had happened. Further, the evidence showed that Longley was a very good shot. He had been out shooting blackbirds the day before. Accused picked up his rifle, pointed it and fired past his wife to reach a “bulls-eye.” Mr Gillies said if was hardly a matter of importance that O’Sullivan allegedly called Mrs Longley a mongrel. It would require more than that to cause a man to kill. The question of insanity had not been raised by the defence, concluded Mr Gillies, so that accused’s actions would have to be judged in the light of those of a sane man. Grounds of Defence Opening his address to the jury, Mr W. J. King, defending counsel, explai 1 d the grounds on which the defence was based. Longley denied all intention of doing bodily harm to O’Sullivan, and he did not know the rifle was loaded. Its discharge was purely accidental. Longley was a neurotic man and his actions differed from those of an ordinary man. The evidence of Senior-Sergeant Kelly seemed to show that the rifle had .not been cleaned before it was fired. Hence the Crown could not say that Longley knew the rifle was loaded when he picked it up. There was no witness, said Mr King, who could prove that Longley aimed the rifle at O’Sullivan. Nor was it likely that Longley would risk firing a shot intentionally in a narrow passage at the risk of striking his wife, a big woman, who was between O’Sullivan and himself. Under such circumstances Longley could not be convicted of murder, claimed Mr W. J. King. The jury would only have to consider the question of manslaughter. Undoubtedly there had been provocation by O’Sullivan, while it had to be remembered that Longley was a ii. -i f./tic ana impulsive man. The defence, therefore, challenge even the charge of manslaughter. (Proceeding.) STORY OF THREATS MRS LONGLEY IN BOX Further evidence from Constable George Edwards, stationed at Manunui, was heard when the trial was continued yesterday afternoon. Mrs Longley called at the Manunui police station on September 21 and claimed that O’Sullivan had been annoying them because they would not quit the house, continued Constable Edwards. He mentioned an alleged conversation with O’Sullivan in which he had threatened to set fire to the cottage or to otherwise render it unfit for them to live in. As the cottage had only one door she was worried lest some harm should come to the children in the event of fire. She told witness that she and her husband had made every effort to secure another house but up till then had been unsuccessful.

Senior Sergeant Abel, of the Taumarunui Police Station, described visits to the MacKenzies’ and Longleys’ houses on the afternoon oi September 22. The first words that Longley said were: “I didn’t mean to do it. I only intended to frighten him ” Visit To Neighbour’s Ethel MacKenzie, married woman, and a neighbour of Longley’s, said she saw accused coming through the front gate, late on that Sunday afternoon. She went to the door to meet him and found him clinging to the side of the door. He looked very ill. Witness asked him if he was ill and should she call a doctor. Longley replied: “No, I have just blown Jerry’s head off.' She knew he meant Mr O’Sullivan. • Accused then slipped to the floor ! before she could help him. Latei jhe told witness in disjointed senI tences that O’Sullivan had called his I (accused’s) wife a mongrel and had lifted his hand to threaten her. “I i picked up the rifle to frighten him,” said accused. “I didn’t mean to do it.” I Christopher George Jarvis, a car- | penter, oi Manunui, said that on 1 the day of the tragedy he called at | the MacKenzies’ home on a business i matter. As witness approached I the house Mrs MacKenzie shouted to I him to come quickly. He saw a man, j whom he later learned to be Longley, standing at the door on the point oi collapse. Nothing further was said until after Mrs MacKenzie returned from telephoning for the doctor, when accused stated: “I have just shot Jerry O'Sullivan. 1 did not intend to kill him.” Wife Gives Evidence j The wife of the accused, Mabel ; Longley, was then called. Mr i Justice Smith remarked that it was j most unusual for the wife of an accused man to give evidence. In this case, however, this was at the express request of the accused, who i had waived all his privileges in this | respect. Mrs Longley said there ! were three children, aged 15, 12 and | 8 years, of their marriage, which j had lasted 17 years. Witness out- : lined the terms of the agreement ■by which Longley had taken up occupancy of O’Sullivan’s cottage, i In April last O’Suliivan promised | to instal electric light in the cottage, i a promise he did not keep. Dur- | ing the winter conditions were no ! longer cordial between the two 1 -amilies and the deceased accused j the Longleys of appropriating some ! gardening tools which he had been ! using on the property. On Septem- ! ber IS. continued Mrs Longley, she i and her husband received notice to ! quit. In a conversation with O’Sullivan three days later, O’Sullivan threatened to set fire to the cottage unless they got out by the end of the week. Witness protested that j her husband was ill. i ••111 or not ill, I'll smash him,” was i O’Sullivan’s reply. Hand Grazes Face When witness and her husband returned on that Sunday they found three battens across the door of the car-shed. They removed the battens later; while sne was in the I kitchen, witness heard O’Suliivan i bnout, “Hey!” When she went to ! the door deceased said: “What did | you take the doors off the garage ! for?” Witness replied “There were no doors on the garage. There were mice battens naiiea across. cea>ed said he wanted the garage : ior manure. Mrs Longley t#.id: j “Wc put up that shed.” i O Sullivan then . aid: “You nion--1 greh i-nrl ra.c-ed his hand to strike r.Ci. ilio hand just grazed her lace.