THE RESULT OF HIGH WORDS.
ROXBURGH, April 4,
A man named Bernard O’Neill was shot in the side of the face this afternoon by a person named Charlesworth. It appears that the two men had been drinking together, and the wounded man had given some offence, which is supposed to be the cause of the deed. An inquiry will probably he held to-morrow. It is possible that O’Neill will recover. -Evening Star, 4/4/1888.
HOW AN INDIGNANT FATHER REBUKED AN INSULT.
The usually quiet little town of Roxburgh was thrown into a state of consternation on Wednesday by an occurrence the like of which we are, fortunately, not very often favoured with in these parts. Sometime between one and two o'clock, a rumour got abroad that one man had shot another man in the face when in an inebriate condition, and that the person who was shot was at death's door. The statement barely received credence at first; but it was not long before the facts were generally known. It appears that Isaac Oharlesworth, who carries on business as a cordial manufacturer at Roxburgh, and Bernard O'Neill, formerly well-known about Roxburgh, but latterly engaged in mining pursuits at Pomahaka and Bald Hill Flat, were drinking together at Heron's hotel. They left there, and after calling at Ormand's hotel, where they had a couple of drinks, proceeded to Charlesworth's house at the invitation of the latter. When standing somewhere about the premises, Charlesworth's daughter appeared at the door, when O'Neill made some indecent remark about her. This appeared to annoy her father, and O'Neill having made some farther observation of a similar nature, Charlesworth lifted a loaded gun, which was standing near by, and, referring to O'Neill's remarks, deliberately raised the gun and shot him in the face. Charlesworth's son had been out shooting rabbits, and had left the gun down with a charge of light shot, and this entered O'Neill's head near the mouth, lodging in great part in his jaw and neck. On being shot, O'Neill ran out into the road and fell down, the blood flowing from his wound in large quantities. Pulling himself together, he ran down the road to the residence of Dr Dunn, who did his best for the sufferer. As the wound was of a serious nature, a telegram was despatched to Lawrence to Dr Blair, who at once drove up; and Father O'Leary was also summoned from Lawrence. Mr Jabez Burton, J.P., at the request of the police, took the man's depositions, as it was feared he would bleed to death. We understand that there is still a prospect of O'Neill's recovery, but his condition is considered critical. Charlesworth was at once placed under arrest. -Tuapeka Times, 7/4/1888.
THE ROXBURGH SHOOTING CASE.
[From Our Own Correspondent.]
LAWRENCE, April 19.
Barney O'Neill, who was recently shot in the face by Isaac Charlesworth at Roxburgh, is in a very low state, and it is now feared that he will not recover. Dr Dunn, who is assisted by Dr Hyde, of Clyde, intends to operate on the man unless the bleeding at the back of the left ear discontinues. O'Neill has lost a great quantity of blood lately, and in consequence is in a very low state. Dr Dunn is obliged to stay with O'Neill the night through. -Evening Star, 19/4/1888.
THE ROXBURGH SHOOTING CASE.
THE INQUEST.
The inquest on the body of Bernard O'Neill, who was shot by Isaac Charlesworth on the 4th inst., was held at Roxburgh on Saturday last, before a jury of six, of whom Mr Thos. Andrew was chosen foreman.
Mr Jabez Burton acted as coroner, and requested the Mayor to take a seat on the bench and assist him, to which his Worship acceded.
Inspector Hickson (of Clyde) conducted the proceedings on behalf of the police.
The following sworn statement of deceased, made to Mr Jabez Burton, J.P., on the 5th inst., was read to the jury: — I left Heron's Hotel about 11 a.m. in company with Isaac Charlesworth yesterday morning. (Wednesday, 4th instant.) We called at Ormond's hotel, and had two drinks each. From Ormond's we went to Charlesworth's house, and both of us went inside. His wife, a young lady, and some children were present. I had a flask of spirits with me, and asked them to have a drink. I said nothing more particularly to them. Charlesworth and I left the house together and went outside, and had some conversation about horses and a dog his son had brought from town. Charlesworth had a grey horse which he let into the stable to get some feed, and then came to the front door of the house where his son was sitting. His son had the portrait of a young lady in his hand, and held it so that I could see it. I left Charlesworth and his son sitting at the front door and went round the house and entered through the kitchen door. I saw a young lady working about the kitchen fire and asked Mrs Charles worth, if that was her daughter. She replied that it was not her daughter, but a Miss Green from Victoria. From the way in which Mr Charlesworth, his son, and Mrs Charlesworth were acting, I thought the young lady was of loose character, and that anyone wishing could make love to her. I came outside from the kitchen-door and met the young lady going into the house with something in her hand. I said [The deceased here admits having made indecent proposals to Miss Green, telling her that he mistook her for Charlesworth's daughter.] She made a bow with her head. I then touched her on the shoulder and repeated my overtures. At this time Charlesworth was outside near the ginger-beer machine. I went over to where he was. He was in the act of going into the gingerbeer house when a pig came round the corner of a fence. Charlesworth said, "Get the gun and shoot the b----y pig." He then went into the ginger-beer house and I followed him. He said, "This is where I make my stuff." or words to that effect. I then went and looked at the machinery, standing up against a bench at the right-hand side of the door, my left side being towards the door. I said to Charlesworth, "I thought that was your daughter that I saw inside, but the missus told me it was a Miss Green. I think I have made it all right with her. I think I will stop all night." When I made this remark Charlesworth was standing nearer the door than I was, and he said: "I believe in making money if I can." I then saw Charlesworth lift a gun and fire at me. It was about a foot from my mouth. After the shot was fired, when I was passing out at the door, Charlesworth said, "I won't allow anyone to take liberties with my daughter." After passing out of the door, I felt that I was wounded, and said: "My God, is this a friendly trick to do to a man?" I went towards the road, and fell down in some hollow. While lying down, Charlesworth came and caught me round the arms and said: "Come back, you b----y fool, it's only powder." I am quite confident that the wound I received was from the gun that Charlesworth held in his hand. I am sure that when I went into the place Charlesworth had not the gun in his hand. I walked down with assistance to where I met Constable Pool from the place where Charlesworth had spoken to me. As I was passing out to the road I heard Mrs Charlesworth exclaim: "My God, you will get hung." I am forty years of age. Crossexamined by accused, Isaac Charlesworth: When I was standing at the bench I did not ask Charlesworth for his daughter for immoral purposes. I did not say to Charlesworth: "Those are your two flash daughters inside." I did not say I would go into the house.
Bernard O'Neill, further examined on the 20th April, said: I identify Isaac Charlesworth, the person now present, as the man who fired the gun at me on the fourth day of April last. —Crossexamined by Charlesworth: When you fired the gun you were between the angle of the corner of the building and the post. The gun did not strike the post. It was fired direct at me, as I saw you take your eye from the stock of the gun. I went with you to your home for the purpose of your driving me to Parker's. When you fired the gun at me you held it in the same position as the stick I am now holding. I saw you draw the trigger with your fore-finger. My reasons for thinking the young lady was of loose character was that you spoke about making money, and when I offered the young lady the pound note she bowed to me. I have known you for the last fourteen years, and we have always been on good terms of friendship.
George Ormond, called, said that deceased came to his father's hotel on the 4th inst. in company with Alex. Grey and Charlesworth. The three had whisky at O'Neill's invitation. They appeared to be on friendly terms. Grey called for the next drinks, and they had whisky again, excepting Charlesworth, who had tobacco. Deceased and Charlesworth then went up the road together. Both were a little intoxicated, but not much.
Wm. Henry Charlesworth said he went to Bowden's workshop for the gun on the day of the occurrence, his father having lent it to Bowden. Bowden was not in the workshop when he called, but seeing the gun hanging up, he took it. He thought it was loaded, as he saw a cap on the nipple. When he brought it home he put it behind the door in the ginger-beer house. His father came home about a quarter of an hour after and a man with him, whom witness did not know. The man opened the door and walked into the house. After harnessing the horse, witness and his father sat down on the door-step outside their dwelling, and the stranger shortly after came out and sat beside them. They had been sitting on the doorstep a few minutes when a pig came into the yard. On seeing the pig, his father said to him, " Go and shoot that pig." Witness then chased the pig away. Before he went after the pig, his father asked him where the gun was, but he made no reply. At the same time his father went into the ginger-beer house, and when witness was coming back he heard a shot fired. He was just at the corner of the ginger-beer house at the time, distant about three or four yards. On coming to the door of the ginger-beer house, he saw the man previously referred to bleeding from a wound in the left cheek. His father was standing against a post in the shed. The man crossed over the fence on to the road. When he looked into the ginger-beer shed after having heard the shot, the gun was then lying on a bench about 1 1/2 yards from where his father was standing. It was not in the same place where he had previously placed it. He saw the man who had been shot lying in the ditch subsequently on the opposite side of the road. Witness and his father then went to where he was lying and washed the blood off his face; and his father tried to lift him, but did not succeed. Constable Pool came for his father about half-an-hour after. When the constable asked for the gun there was blood on it. There were no other persons within view of the premises when the shot was fired. He recognised the body of O'Neill as that of the man he saw on their premises. On the day before the occurrence, his father told him he had not brought the gun home from Bowden's as it was loaded, but told witness to go for it. He did not see either of his sisters come in view when his father was attempting to lift the man out of the ditch.
To the Foreman: O'Neill was in the house from twenty minutes to half-an-hour when my father and I were outside attending to the horse. The door was closed, and we did not hear any conversation that passed inside. My father had been in the house for about ten minutes when O'Neill was there, and when he came out appeared to be greatly excited, but said nothing that would account for his excitement. I did not enter the dwelling house when O'Neill was inside. Did not notice any bad feeling between my father and O'Neill.
Isabella Murdoch, residing next door to Charlesworth's, deposed that on the day in question she heard a shot, and on looking out saw that there was something the matter at Charlesworth's. The children were looking in and screaming at the door of the ginger-beer house. Saw a man leave Charlesworth's with his face bleeding and walk out on to the road. Heard Mrs Charlesworth call out: "Get some one to go for the doctor." One of Charlesworth's children said that her father had shot a man. Saw O'Neill lying in the ditch when there was no one near him, and when witness went up to him he told her to go for a policeman or some one. After going for assistance, she returned to O'Neill, and then saw Charlesworth and his son coming towards them. When Dr Dunn came up, Charlesworth told him to take O'Neill to his house and keep him away from Pool if he could. Charlesworth did not appear to be under the influence of drink.
William Tucker Bowden gave evidence as to having borrowed Charlesworth's gun on Good Friday. He loaded the gun on Easter Monday for rabbit shooting, the charge being 2 1/2 drachms of powder and 3/4oz of shot, or thereabouts. Charlesworth declined to take the gun home with him on the day before the occurrence, saying that he was not accustomed to loaded firearms, but said he would send his son for it. Young Charlesworth took the gun away loaded.
Adam Hamilton, an employe of the previous witness, said he believed that the gun was loaded when young Charlesworth took it away. There was a cap on the nipple.
Dr Dunn deposed that on the 4th inst., about one o'clock p.m., he was called by a son of Charlesworth's, who said that a man had been shot at their place. When he went to the place he saw O'Neill walking towards the township, with a handkerchief to his face and blood dripping from a wound. When in the surgery, he put O'Neill on a form and sent for some Friars balsam. He saw some holes in his cheek, and after putting a bandage over his face O'Neill fainted. On coming round, witness had O'Neill removed to the Commercial Hotel. He then examined the wound more minutely, and found a large hole near the left nostril and above the lip. It was large enough to put his finger in. It pierced the upper jaw, and communicated with the throat. There was another passage which turned to the left in the cheek, caused by the shot, which broke the jaw at the lower angle. He plugged the hole with lint saturated with Friar's balsam. Some blood oozed from it during the evening. The interior of the face was perfectly black with powder. On the following morning there was no bleeding, but the face was very much deformed. O'Neill took nourishment, and progressed pretty fairly for nine days, when severe bleeding commenced. Witness plugged the wound again, and the bleeding stopped; but several severe bleedings subsequently took place. On the Thursday previous to O'Neill's death, Dr Hyde and he decided to tie the wounded artery, and having made everything ready before commencing the operation, O'Neill fainted on being carried out of the bedroom. He was in a low state all the evening, so they abandoned the operation. The patient continued sensible during the day, and took nourishment; but on Friday he gradually sank, and died in the evening. Witness made a post mortem examination of the body. Beyond the jaw there was a lot of decomposed matter, discoloured by powder. Under the left ear there was a small pocket of shot, which he took out. There were seventeen pellets. He was of opinion that no operation could have saved deceased's life, as about his left ear and jaw was a mass of pulp or brokenup flesh and gangrene. Death resulted from exhaustion consequent upon loss of blood and mortification, caused by a gunshot wound. Deceased was a powerfully-built man of strong constitution, and was about forty years of age. The cause of a shot wound being so fatal was that the shot was adulterated with arsenic; and the shot scatters and lacerates the flesh more than a bullet. There were several holes in the left cheek caused by shot, and the left ear was slightly wounded. Witness was of opinion that the muzzle of the gun must have been from a foot to eighteen inches from deceased's face. Before he dressed O'Neill's wound at the surgery, he must have lost fully a hand basinfull of blood, which indicated that some artery had been severed.
To the jury: I did not consider it prudent to operate on the wound for the first nine days, nor did I consider him in a fit state to be removed to the Hospital, especially as he was being well nursed at the hotel. Dr Blair wished to have the plugs taken out of the wounds, but I objected, as I believed the bleeding would come on again. I do not think that Dr Blair was aware of the extent or the serious nature of the wound when he requested O'Neill's removal to the Hospital. I consider deceased's life was in danger when the depositions were taken, and that he was not likely to recover.
Constable Pool gave evidence to the effect that shortly after two p.m. on the 4th inst., a Chinaman came to him and said that two men were fighting at the Chinese Camp. Witness started to go there, and on the road met Dr Dunn, who told him that a man had been shot at Charlesworth's, that he was coming down the road, and that he (Dr Dunn) feared he would bleed to death. Between the Bank of New Zealand and Steel's shop in Scotland-street, witness met O'Neill with a young man named Fitzgerald, who was holding his arm. O'Neill was bleeding profusely from a wound on the left cheek. Witness said to him: "What is the matter with you, Barney ?" He replied: "I want you to take a note of what I am going to say in case anything should happen me." Witness answered "All right." O'Neill then said: "I have been shot, and it was Charlesworth who shot me." He said he had gone from Ormond's Hotel with Charlesworth with the intention of going to Campbell's, and that when at Charlesworth's place, inside the ginger-beer house, he remarked to Charlesworth that his (Charlesworth's) wife had told him that the young lady whom he mistook for Charlesworth's daughter was Miss Green from Victoria, and that he thought he had made it all right with her to stay for the night. He (O'Neill) then said he received a shot in the face. This conversation took place as witness and O'Neill were walking along the road. He left O'Neill at Dr Dunn's surgery, and then proceeded to Charlesworth's place. Mrs Charlesworth told him that her husband was in the back garden. He found Charlesworth there, lying on the ground, face downwards. Witness touched him on the shoulder, and Charlesworth, on looking up, said: "I expected you to come for me." He then arrested him on a charge of shooting with intent to murder Bernard O'Neill. On coming through the garden towards the ginger-beer house, witness asked Charlesworth where the gun was? His son (William Henry) was close by, and Charlesworth told him to bring the gun out of the ginger-beer house. The gun was besmeared with fresh blood. The boy went to wipe off the blood, and accused and witness simultaneously asked him to leave it as it was. Going down the front paddock towards the gate, Charlesworth said: "This is [referring to the crime] a terror." Witness replied that it was a serious charge, and cautioned him not to make any statement as it might be used in evidence against him. When going towards the police station, accused said: "I am very sorry this has happened; but I thought the gun was empty. I only held it at him to frighten him from going into the house." A little further along, accused said it was a pity the affair had happened, but he thought witness would have treated O'Neill in the same way if he had used the same language towards his (witness's) daughter. After locking Charlesworth up, witness went to his house, and found a considerable quantity of blood on the bench in the ginger-beer factory, also on the wall and floor. Witness traced blood from the ginger-beer factory through the paddock, over the fence, and across the street to the opposite side of the road to accused's house. Thence he traced it to where he first met O'Neill — a distance of about a quarter of a mile. There was an extra quantity of blood on the fence and on an ash-heap on the opposite side of the road to the house, and also in the ditch close by the fence. When witness first saw O'Neill he had a considerable quantity of ashes on his forehead (yellow coal ashes). He examined the ash-heap and found traces as if a man had fallen thereon. The gun now produced was given witness by Wm. Henry Charlesworth in the presence of the accused. It is in the same condition as when he received it. It bore the appearance of being newly fired. He recognised the body of O'Neill now lying at the Commercial Hotel. He had known deceased, who was a goldminer, about seven years. He was a native of Ireland, about forty years of age, and had no relatives in the colony excepting two cousins residing at Speargrass Flat. Witness was present when Dr Dunn made a post mortem examination of the body. He assisted the doctor in taking several pellets of shot (produced) from the back of deceased's left ear. The vest and shirt produced were taken off O'Neill immediately on his arrival at the Commercial Hotel, and were completely saturated with blood. O'Neill did not appear to be under the influence of drink when he first spoke to witness, nor did Charlesworth when arrested, although he was somewhat excited.
To the Jury: The length of the factory is about 15ft, and the breadth 10ft or 12ft. A good deal of the space is taken up by machinery and cordials. The enquiry closed at ten o'clock, and the jury returned into court about eleven o'clock with a verdict of "Wilful murder" against Isaac Charlesworth.
The accused was then formally committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, Dunedin. -Tuapeka Times, 25/4/1888.
THE ROXBURGH SHOOTING CASE.
At the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court on Friday, before Mr Justice Williams and a jury of twelve, Isaac Charlesworth was charged with having on the 20th April last feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought killed and murdered one Bernard O'Neill.
Accused, who was defended by Sir Bobert Stout, pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Geo. Qrmond, I. Charlesworth, Isabella Murdock, William Bowden, William Poole, Dr Dunn, and Charles Nicholson, the latter as to character.
Sir B, Stout then addressed the jury on behalf of accused, submitting in the first place that the offence could not in any view of the case be treated as one of murder, the act having been committed when accused was in a state of sudden passion, and had not, therefore, his reason about him. Then came the question: How did the deceased die at all? He (counsel) was not afraid to say, after hearing the maundering statement of Dr Dunn in the witness-box, that if Dr Blair's advice had been followed the man would have been alive to-day. If even the ordinary treatment for gunshot wounds had been followed the man would now be alive. He submitted that the jury could not find him guilty of either murder or manslaughter, for it was not the wound inflicted by him that caused deceased's death, but the subsequent treatment of it. Then, again, how was the wound delivered? The accused's statement was that he did not know that the gun was loaded, and that he simply held the gun up to frighten deceased from going into the house. Even supposing that the wound had been intentionally inflicted, counsel urged the jury to consider the gross provocation that the accused had received. Could they imagine greater provocation to a father than for a man to inform him that he purposed that night seducing his daughter. He entreated the jury to return the accused to the bosom of hia family — a family which he had brought up well and faithfully.
His Honour, in summing up, said that it was as the Crown Prosecutor had stated, competent, subject to what he had to say, hereafter, for the jury to return a verdict of either murder or manslaughter; but to do either they must first be satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner. He would first dispose of one point raised by the prisoner's counsel, and that was the suggestion that the deceased might not have died from the wound at all, but of subsequent bad medical treatment. The law was plain on the matter — if a serious wound of this kind was inflicted, and if the person injured dies by reason of such infliction, then the person who inflicts it is guilty of murder or of manslaughter, notwithstanding that with more competent medical treatment it was reasonable to suppose that he would have recovered. After reviewing the evidence His Honour went on to say that it was of importance for the jury to consider that the accused knew the gun was loaded when he picked it up. All they knew of the actual occurrence was gathered from the respective statements of the deceased and of the prisoner. As to the law, it was clearly laid down that if a person, without sufficient provocation, intentionally fired at another and caused a wound from which death ensued he is, although the act may have been done on a sudden or in hot blood, guilty of murder, unless he shall have received sufficient provocation to reduce the offence to the lesser crime of manslaughter. If the jury were satisfied that the gun was intentionally fired by the prisoner at deceased, then, as the latter died from the effects of the wound, the prisoner was guilty of murdering deceased, unless there was sufficient provocation to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. The law as to provocation was not exactly satisfactory. Two views had been taken, one being that no words, however strong, insulting, or gross they might be, justified the infliction of a deadly wound — so as to reduce, that was to say, the crime to manslaughter. It was held that there must be, in addition to the words, assault or battery as well, to justify the infliction of such a wound. It had also been held that, under special and peculiar circumstances, the words might be of such a nature as to constitute sufficient provocation, with the addition of violence to the person. However, he would direct the jury on the lines of the case where the words were considered sufficient provocation, and would ask them to consider this: Would any ordinary man in his sober senses be so carried beyond himself by the words which the deceased had used, that if a gun lay immediately under his hand, he would pick it up and fire at the deceased. If they thought, looking at the relations of the parties, and at what deceased said, that an ordinary man in his sober senses might reasonably have done so, then, but not otherwise, they would be justified in finding that the offence be reduced to manslaughter. Of course, as a preliminary to finding that accused was guilty of either murder or manslaughter, they must bd satisfied that the gun was intentionally fired by him at deceased. If they found that the gun went off accidentally, accused would of course be entitled to acquittal.
The jury retired at a quarter to four o'clock to consider their verdict, and returned into court at 5.45 with a verdict of "Not guilty." The prisoner was then discharged. -Tuapeka Times, 11/7/1888.
FOR SALE,
AERATED WATER and CORDIAL BUSINESS, in Working Order.
Proprietor will instruct purchaser to manufacture goods, as he is leaving the Colony. No cordial maker within 30 miles. Two Quarter-acre Town Sections, Stone House, Stable, &c.
Apply to J. CHARLESWORTH.
Cordial Maker, Roxburgh, Otago. -Otago Daily Times, 20/7/1888.
"The law is peculiar," was the remark of many on hearing that Isaac Charlesworth (the man who shot Barney O'Neill at Roxburgh), had been acquitted, To the ordinary mind it is rather odd, to put it mildly, that a person can deliberately take up a gun and discharge its contents at a man who had committed the offence of uttering some improper remarks, and then, when the case is tried, the verdict of "Not Guilty" is brought in. Of course the supposition that Charlesworth was unaware that the gun was loaded, must have influenced the jury considerably, and, it is fair to assume, was the ground on which the prisoner was acquitted. -Lake Wakatip Mail, 27/7/1888.
