STREET TRAGEDY
BRUTAL ASSAULT ALLEGED.
ELDEELY MAN DIES IN HOSPITAL
BROTHERS ARRESTED ON MINOR CHARGE.
ONE AT LEAST UNDER SUSPICION
An affray at the comer of St. Andrew street and Cumberland street shortly after 7 o’clock last night had a grave ending. A man, at first unidentified, received injuries which, it is alleged, caused his death in the Dunedin Hospital shortly afterwards.
The body was later identified as that of John James Ryan, a laborer, aged 53, who has been working for the Public Works Department in various parts of Otago for the past twelve years. An inquest was opened at the hospital this morning, Mr J, R, Bartholomew, S.M., sitting as coroner. After hearing evidence of identification and the medical evidence, proceedings were adjourned sine die. A post mortem examination was to have been held to-day.
BROTHERS ARRESTED.
Two brothers — Albert Norman Sutherland (23) and Philip Gordon Sutherland (21) — have been detained by the police in connection with the affair. The older man was (as he himself said) released from Mount Eden Prison last Tuesday week after serving a term of imprisonment on another charge.
The police supply only meagre details of the affray. It is stated that the unfortunate victim of the occurrence accidentally bumped into one of the Sutherlands. It is alleged that the latter instantly knocked him down and kicked him about the body, and it is stated that there were eye-witnesses of the affair. A small boy ran to the Fire Brigade station at about 7.30 p.m. and reported that a man was lying on the footpath badly injured. The ambulance motor was despatched, and the man was taken to the hospital. He was admitted shortly before 8 o’clock, but ins injuries were such that he died just afterwards.
The police were notified of the affair, and a bright look-out was kept for the two men, who, in the meantime, had disappeared. They were found at about 10 o’clock in St. Andrew street, and were taken into custody on a charge of fighting with each other at about 6 o’clock at the corner of St. Andrew and George streets.
STREET BRAWL.
The two men were seen to dash aboard a Normanby tram at 6 o’clock last night at Rattray street. The tram was already in motion when the two rushed out from the footpath, and, after a short run, hoarded it. The older man was pulled aboard by a passenger, and the younger man (whose hand was bandaged, and whose nose showed evidence of a fray) swung on behind him. They talked in loud voices and their conversation was plainly audible to many of the passengers in the open portion of the tram. The older of the two was stating that he had served two years in prison, and from the conversation it appeared that he was denying having hit someone else with a beer bottle. The other man evidently considered from the tone of his brother that he was insinuating something, and by mutual consent the two got off at St, Andrew street.
“Have a go at me,’’ said the younger man, after taking a hasty drink at the water fountain by the corner. The other went up to say something to him, but was repulsed with a wild swipe that knocked his hat from his head. He returned to the fray, and tried to grab his opponent 'round the middle. Much wild punching followed. The crowd on the tram, which during this time was stopped at the corner, was greatly tickled at the sight. A loud guffaw went up from the male passengers as the car moved off.
THE MEN IN COURT.
As a result of the affray with each other the two men appeared in the Police Court this morning before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., charged with fighting in St. Andrew street last night. The older of the two —Albert Norman Sutherland, aged twenty-three — appeared first. Chief-detective Lewis asked for a remand till Saturday. It was necessary, he said, to have some inquiries made concerning this man in regard to another matter that had occurred.
Philip Gordon Sutherland then appeared. The Chief Detective asked for a remand also in this case.
The Magistrate: What is the reason of the application? Chief-detective Lewis said it was alleged that another man was struck and kicked, and he had died in the hospital as a result of that. It was alleged that at least one of the Sutherlands was engaged in that affair. The man was taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition, and died as a result of the kick or injury he received.
The Magistrate (to the accused): What do you do for a living?
The older accused said he had just been released from Mount Eden Prison, last Tuesday week.
The other man said he was a horse driver.
The Magistrate said he proposed to grant the remand asked for by the police.
“Is there any bail, sir?” asked the younger accused.
Chief-detective Lewis: It would possibly interfere with the ends of justice, if that application were granted. It is only a short remand, and I don’t think any hardship is inflicted.
The Magistrate: If any information comes to the police releasing either or both of the accused on any other charge, the matter will have to be brought before the court at once. Bail will be refused in the meantime.
INQUEST OPENED.
At the inquest on the victim, Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., sitting as coroner, heard evidence of identification and medical testimony as to the cause of death. Chief-detective Lewis represented the police.
Evidence was given by Thomas Joseph O'Sullivan, a laborer, residing at 13 Surrey street, lie said that he knew deceased as Jack Ryan. He worked with him at Chatto Creek and Catlins River. He had worked with him on and off for about fourteen years. As far as he knew Ryan was a single man. He understood that he was going to work at Tarras.
Dr Champtaloup, house surgeon, Dunedin Hospital, said that deceased was admitted at about 7.40 last evening. He was then in a state of extreme collapse, almost pulseless. He was taken to the casualty ward, and witness administered a stimulant and commenced a hurried examination, patient died before it was completed. The examination revealed a contused wound about 3in behind the ear. There was no hemorrhage from the ears, nose, or mouth. There were some blood stains on his undergarments which could not be accounted for by the presence of any wound.
To the Coroner: There was a certain amount of hemorrhage from the wound behind the ear.
Constable Harvey said that he identified the body as that of John James Ryan. He had known the. deceased for the last twelve years. He was a Laborer, fifty-three years of age, and came from England. For years past he had worked for the Public Works Department in the Beaumont, Catlins, and other districts. He did not know whether the deceased was married or not. At this stage the inquest was adjourned sine die. -Evening Star, 24/12/1924.
MURDER CHARGE
SEQUEL TO A STREET AFFRAY.
(BY TELEGRAPH. — PRESS ASSOCIATION.)
DUNEDIN, This Day.
At the Police Court this morning, Philip Gordon Sutherland, aged 21, was charged with the murder of John James Ryan, aged 53, the charge arising from a street affray on Tuesday night, as the alleged result of which Ryan died in the hospital.
When a remand was asked for, Mr White, counsel for the accused, asked for bail, characterising the affair as a street affray with an unfortunate ending. A murder charge, in the circumstances, was simply a judicial farce.
The Chief Detective, however, stated that the allegation was that deceased accidentally bumped into the accused and apologised, but that accused, nevertheless knocked him down, kicking him. Moreover, an older brother of accused made a statement to the police taking the blame on himself, this being, no doubt, a ruse to enable the accused to get away. -Evening Post, 27/12/1924.
MURDER CHARGE
JOHN JAMES RYAN'S DEATH.
CASE AGAINST SUTHERLAND.
A murder charge is not of frequent occurrence in Dunedin courts of justice, and a curious crowd filled the Police Court this morning when the young man Philip Gordon Sutherland appeared to stand his trial for having caused the death of John James Ryan. It was not anticipated that there would be any sensational details arising from the hearing, but a murder charge is a murder charge, and the crowd stayed on.
Chief-detective Lewis handled the case for the Crown, and Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the defence. Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., was on the bench.
THE EVIDENCE.
Wilson Jefferson, a farm laborer, residing at Lynnburn Station, Central Otago, said that he left Ranfurly on December 23 last in a second class smoker. His attention was drawn to a man lying on the lefthand side of the carriage. He was stretched out. There was a good deal of drinking going on. He saw the man on the seat having a drink. He was still in the carriage when the train arrived at Middlemarch, but a good number of passengers left. The man lying on the seat attempted to leave the carriage here, but as soon as he got on his feet he fell forward, and bumped up against a man sitting next to witness. The passenger remarked “My word, he has hurt my head with his teeth.” After striking the passenger, he swung round and fell on the floor of the carriage, and witness thought that his head struck the spittoon. He cut his head above the left ear, and the wound bled very freely. The man was put on the seat again, and passengers endeavored to stop the bleeding. The injured man stayed on the seat for some time, and after about an hour seemed to revive, and partook of refreshments at Hindon. Witness saw the man just before the train arrived in Dunedin, He visited the Dunedin Hospital at about 6 p.m. on the following day, and saw a body in the morgue. That was the body of the man he had seen injured in the train.
To Mr White: The man was fairly heavily-set in physique. The train arrived in Dunedin at 5.50 p.m. as far as he could say. At Middlemarch there was an hotel very convenient to the station, and this fact probably accounted for the general exodus from the train. The men in the carriage brought more liquor in after they returned, and they gave the injured man a little. The man seemed to be stunned for some time after the blow. He presumed that, as the train was late, there would be another rush to the nearest hotel on arrival in Dunedin. He did not think that the guard was sent for to see the injured man. The wound was 2in to 3in from the left ear, and a little towards the back of the head.
Florence Elizabeth Stewart, of 162 St. Andrew street, said she saw the accused earlier in the evening of December 23 in the section at the front of her house. He had his hand tied up with a rag, and blood was running down his face. Twenty minutes later, on her return from the railway station, she saw John James Ryan, whom she also knew, lying asleep in the section. She returned to this vacant section ten minutes afterwards. Ryan was then walking to the footpath in St. Andrew street. He spoke to witness. He had had drink, but very little. Witness did not notice any injury or blood about him, and he was in just the same condition as he was normally. The conversation lasted about ten minutes, then Ryan walked towards the corner of St. Andrew and Cumberland streets, and witness went home. Once more she came out, this time to call in her children, and noticed quite a little crowd at the street comer. She went along, and saw Ryan lying on the footpath with his head in St. Andrew street and his feet in Cumberland street. Witness lifted his head and spoke to him, but he did not reply; he did not appear to be conscious. Witness did not notice any marks of blood on him. She stayed until the ambulance came and took Ryan away. When witness was at her gate she saw accused cross the road towards the Victoria Hotel. He was joined by a lady and gentleman when he got to the Fire Brigade Station, and they all three walked towards Stuart street. Witness had known Ryan for about a year, and had always found him quiet and inoffensive, even in drink.
To Mr Whiite: Witness did not know where Ryan had lived, nor did she ask him that evening what he was doing down that way. When she saw Ryan lying on the footpath he was a few inches from Mrs Copeland’s shop.
Jeanie Copland, a storekeeper, 142 St. Andrew street, said that she remembered two men entering her shop at about 7.40 p.m. on December 23. The accused was one of the men, but she did not know who the other was. John James Ryan entered the shop they were there. Ryan asked where he could get the car for Opoho. Witness said that she did not know, but the accused Sutherland told him. Ryan appeared to be much the worse for drink, and the accused also appeared to be under the influence of liquor. Ryan said “something nasty” to the accused, and Sutherland replied “What are you coming at?” A little later Ryan came further up the shop and asked where he could get the car for Opoho. Ryan then struck the accused a blow and said “That is what I’m coming at.” The former ran out of the shop and was followed by accused. Hearing a shout about a minute afterwards, she went into the street and saw a man lying on the foetpath about 5ft from the shop door. He was quite still. Sutherland was near the accused, and witness saw him kick Ryan twice on the head behind the ear. She spoke to Sutherland and asked him to leave the man alone. At that time Sutherland had one hand bandaged, whilst his nose was bleeding. She did see anything that caused Ryan to fall. When witness spoke to accused he simply took off his cap and walked away up Cumberland street. He met two women just before reaching the Fire Station. She identified the accused next day as the man she had seen kicking Ryan.
To Mr White: The man who accompanied Sutherland into the shop was also drunk, and witness saw him standing near Ryan when she came out of the shop.
To the Magistrate: When she first saw the accused in the shop she noticed that his arm was bandaged and that he had a wound on his nose.
Mary Richards, of 421 Princes street, was the next witness. She said that at about 7.45 p.m. on December 23, when opposite the Victoria Hotel, she saw two men, who appeared to come out of a vacant section. Ryan and a man with a bandage on his hand bumped into one another. Her idea was that they were all coming up towards Copland’s store. The bigger man (afterwards identified as Ryan) knocked the other back, and then the man with the bandaged band went back and pushed Ryan. Ryan walked up as far as Copland’s corner, and the accused caught him up and struck him from behind. He was knocked down on to the asphalt, and the man with the bandaged hand then kicked him on the head and the ribs. He walked away for a yard or two and then came back and kicked him on the other side. The accused then walked towards the Fire Station, where he met a young woman and a man, and they both took him by the arms into Stuart street. Witness did not hear any angry words used. It appeared to her that one of the men had simply bumped into the other.
To Mr White: She was on the Victoria Hotel side of the road until after Sutherland went away. There was only one blow struck. She thought that Ryan was dead, and suggested that the police should be sent for; but somebody said: “Don't do that. It is only a ‘rough-up,’ and he’ll come to.”
Nellie McFarlane, residing in Castle street, said that she was at the corner of St. Andrew and Castle streets at 7.30 p.m. on December 23 last, in company with her sister-in-law. Looking up Cumberland street she saw a young man in a dark suit carrying a handbag. He looked to be very drunk. He went into Mrs Copland’s shop. Five or ten minutes later she noticed the same man kicking something on the ground, but she did not know what it was at the time. She knew later that it was a man that was being kicked by the fact that he put his arms up. The man went down the street for a few yards and then returned and kicked him again. She saw the deceased being kicked on the head. She was a block away from the scene of the occurrence, and she did not at any time identify the accused as the man who had done the kicking. She was too far off to identify him.
To Mr White: It was getting dark, and all that she could see of Ryan was a black object lying across the street.
Jack O’Donnell, a boy eleven years of age, said that he had known the accused for two or three years. He saw the accused at about 7 p.m. on December 23 last at Copland’s corner. There was a man with him. He noticed him coming out of the shop, and he went as far as the shop window. Ryan also walked out of the shop, and he saw Sutherland strike him a blow somewhere about the face. Ryan fell on the footpath and remained there. Sutherland kicked Ryan twice, and after going as far as the gutter came back and kicked turn again.
At this stage the court adjourned until 2.15 p.m.
The first witness taken after the luncheon adjournment was William Black, an ambulance driver. He deposed to responding to a call and finding a man stretched across the footpath at the corner of Cumberland and St. Andrew streets. He appeared to he unconscious, and was taken in witness’s ambulance to the hospital. The body shown witness subsequently at the morgue was that of the man taken to the hospital by him.
Dr Mary Anderson Champtaloup, house surgeon at the hospital, said that the deceased Ryan was brought to the institution at 7.50 p.m. on December 23 in a state of extreme collapse, totally unconscious, and almost pulseless. He was immediately taken to the casualty room for examination, and witness found the condition of shock described. The man had a recent wound about an inch long over the left occipital bone. The wound was not deep, but there had been a small amount of hemorrhage. There was a bruised condition of the head, neck, and hip, but no other signs of injury. The patient died about a minute after admission and while being examined. Evening Star, 26/1/1925.
The Police Court found that, in the death of John Ryan, there was a case to answer for by Sutherland. The prosecution's evidence in the Supreme Court was the same as to the Police Court. Then came the defence's reply.
Mr White, addressing the jury, dwelt on the seriousness of the charge, and stressed the fact that the onus of proof is on the Crown. He drew attention to the legal definition of homicide and of murder. A case of culpable homicide might be reduced to manslaughter if the act was done in retaliation in the heat of passion. The question of intent was vital in a charge of murder. The Crown had to establish that Ryan died as a result of injuries caused by Sutherland, and that Sutherland intended to kill him or knew that the blows struck might cause death. The first point on which they had to be satisfied was — Did Ryan die as the result of blows struck by the accused? He drew attention to the difference between the two men, one a youth with one arm disabled, and the other a middle-aged man powerfully built, and used to roughing it. Ryan stood out as the most drunken man in a carriage full of drunken men on the Otago Central line coming in to town for Christmas. At Middlemarch Ryan made a bold effort to stand up, but crashed backward and cut his head on the spittoon. The others returned to the carriage with more drink, but Ryan could not participate because he was stunned. Later he recovered, but he remained quiet. Ryan was not in the section by Mrs Stewart’s at 7 o’clock, but he was there when she found him at 7.20 p.m. They had no knowledge of what he had been doing from the time of the arrival of the train at 10 minutes to 6 till 20 minutes past 7. Mrs Stewart said that Ryan even in drink was a quiet, inoffensive man.
His Honor: She did not say anything about in drink. Please do not misrepresent things.
Mr White: It was in the lower court. I beg your Honor’s pardon. He asked why an inoffensive man should suddenly become so violent and aggressive. He would show the reason later. Counsel proceeded to describe what had occurred in Mrs Copland’s shop, and dwelt on Sutherland’s evident friendly intention towards deceased. Deceased was evidently dazed and did not grasp what Sutherland said to him. Mrs Richards said that Ryan pushed Sutherland two or three yards, so that that was twice that accused had been struck by this powerful adversary before the accused had struck him at all. When Sutherland gave the blow he pushed Ryan down and so started the old haemorrhage that had been slowly forming in the brain. Mrs Copland said that Sutherland kicked Ryan twice, not very hard. The man was lying unconscious on the pavement before any kick had been given. He suggested that the whole circumstances were consistent with the man having been knocked out when he struck the pavement and this bringing on the internal haemorrhage.
His Honor: There is no evidence of any internal haemorrhage. There is not a tittle of evidence of any internal haemorrhage at all. It is useless your talking to the jury in that fashion, Mr White.
Mr White said the medical evidence showed that the man suffered from almost every ill one could think of. Yet the medical evidence said that this was the body of a healthy man. That was how fair the medical evidence was. Any kicking that was done to the head was done immediately. Was the man Ryan suffering from a lucid interval? They had the fact that he was irritable, that he was wandering about the streets, that he said nasty things to a man trying to do him a good turn, and actually struck him. He ignored the information given him by Sutherland. All that, he submitted, was consistent with a man suffering from a lucid interval. Why should it take ten ounces of blood at that vital spot to kill the man? That was enough to kill an elephant.
His Honor: It did kill him.
Mr White said his suggestion was that the blood must have flowed from the top of the skull to the base. He submitted that there had been no evidence of any evil intent on the part of the accused against the deceased. It was clearly a drunken melee, and evidence in those circumstances was not reliable. He suggested that when Ryan came at the accused with his second blow, Sutherland, in self-defence, struck a blow and brought on a haemorrhage which resulted in Ryan’s death. If they believed that that disposed of both the murder and manslaughter charges. They must come to the conclusion that the accused had no intention whatever of killing Ryan.
His Honor, summing up, explained to the jury the nature of the two indictments, and said that in the first the jury could convict the accused either of murder or of manslaughter or find him not guilty. It would only be necessary for them to consider the second indictment if they found him not guilty on the first. The case for the Crown was that the kick or kicks which the accused gave to Ryan on the ground caused his death. He would go through the evidence as to the circumstances in which the injuries were inflicted. He reviewed Jefferson’s evidence as to the fall of Ryan at Middlemarch at about halfpast 2 in the afternoon and also the evidence of Mrs Stewart and Mrs Copland. Apparently Ryan struck the blow and ran away. Sutherland went after him. There was no necessity for him to do so. As a matter of law he should have let him go. Mrs Copland swore definitely to seeing accused kick Ryan twice on the left side of the head. He thought Mrs Richards must have seen the two men after they came out of Mrs Copland’s shop. The blow the accused struck, according to Mrs Richards, was not in self-defence, but when Ryan was going away and the accused was plainly the aggressor. His Honor said that it might be assumed in his favour that the accused was justified in giving Ryan a knock-down blow, but he did not see how in any circumstances the jury could say he was justified in indulging in the cowardly brutality of kicking the man when he was on the ground. Mrs Richards said that the accused came back and kicked Ryan again. Miss Macfarlane corroborated Mrs Richards as to the return to the unfortunate man for the purpose of kicking him again. Apparently he was not unconscious, for he was using his hands in an endeavour to protect his head. The boy O’Donnell also said that the accused returned for the purpose of kicking Ryan a third time. There was the evidence of Drs Evans and D’Ath, and in their opinion the death of Ryan was due to injuries which he had about the neck and skull. There was a lacerated wound about 2 1/2in long on the neck on the left side. In the opinion of Dr Evans there was nothing to connect the wound at Middlemarch with the cause of death. If they accepted the medical evidence then the only reasonable conclusion to which they could come was that the direct cause of the man’s death was the kick or kicks inflicted by the accused while he was lying on the ground. That was the only conclusion they could come to. If they accepted the evidence of the doctors they could disregard the wound received earlier in the day. It was a matter of common sense that the death must have been caused by the injuries given by accused. Within less than 15 minutes after the kick was given the man was dead. If they were satisfied that the death of Ryan was caused in this way then it was their duty to find the accused guilty of murder or of manslaughter. It then became a question of the intention of the accused. If it was culpable homicide the question was whether it was culpable homicide amounting to murder or to manslaughter. In order to return a verdict of murder the jury would have to find that when accused kicked Ryan he meant to cause his death. He did not suppose they could say that. He also was in a drunken condition, and probably did not realise the seriousness of what he was doing. There was nothing to show that he had any grudge against the man or that he did intend to cause his death. If they considered the other section of the definition there was nothing to show that this man realised that kicking the man in the neck as he did was likely to cause his death. Unless they could say that he must have known that, they would not be justified in finding the man guilty of murder. If they did not think he came within either of those sections then they could find him guilty of manslaughter. It was only if they found him “Not guilty” on the first indictment that they would have to consider the second at all. It was perfectly plain that at the very least he must be convicted on the second count, because the evidence was so perfectly clear that he did assault Ryan so as to cause him actual bodily harm.
The jury retired at 4.44 p.m., and returned at 5.55 p.m. with a verdict of manslaughter. The jury agreed, at the invitation of the Crown, to dispose of the second indictment by returning a verdict of “Not guilty” upon it.
The foreman (Mr G. Nelson) handed in a rider asking his Honor in passing sentence to consider the fact that accused and deceased were both under the influence of liquor during the day.
His Honor: Thank you, gentlemen. Due consideration will be given to that.
Accused was remanded for sentence until Friday. The jury which acted in the case were discharged from further attendance. -Otago Daily Times, 12/2/1925.
GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER
SUTHERLAND SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS.
“PIECE OF COWARDLY BRUTALITY.”
Philip Gordon Sutherland, who on Wednesday was found guilty by the jury of manslaughter in connection with the dentil of John James Ryan on December 25, appeared before His Honor Mr Justice Sim this morning for sentence.
Mr G. J. L. White, who appeared for accused, said that Sutherland spent his twenty-first birthday in gaol last week. He was really the only support of his mother, the father having been disabled some years ago. Learned counsel said he would ask His Honor to take into consideration the fact that the affray took place at Christmas time, that the accused was a mere youth strongly under the influence of drink, and that he came across Ryan quite accidentally. There seemed no question that Ryan was looking for trouble. Accused had only one hand free, and he was struck twice by Ryan, as well as being insulted, before he attempted to retaliate. It must have been a drunken brawl, in which, unfortunately, one of the participants was killed. Accused had never been in trouble before, and it was most regrettable that he had blasted his life in that manner. Mr Herbert, secretary of the union to which accused belonged, said he was a good man and had never given cause for complaint as far as his work was concerned. Learned counsel asked His Honor to take into consideration the rider added by the jury, and also the fact that accused had already been imprisoned for two months with a murder charge hanging over his head — a thing which in itself was no small matter.
The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F, B. Adams) said he had nothing to add to what had been said at the trial.
His Honor: The jury was quite right in bringing in a verdict that the accused was guilty of manslaughter, and I accept their recommendation for mercy. There is this in favor of the prisoner; he did not begin the quarrel which ended in Ryan’s death. According to Mrs Copland’s evidence, accused told Ryan how to find his car, and Ryan’s attack seems to have been quite unprovoked. If accused had followed Ryan into the street and knocked him down the matter would probably have ended there. Although the assault would not be justified in law, most people would have said that Ryan deserved all he got. But the prisoner did not stop there; he proceeded to kick Ryan while lying helpless on the footpath, and kicked him in a vital spot. If he had been sober he would probably not have indulged in this piece of cowardly brutality, but, being drunk, he did not realise what he was doing. “In view of the circumstances, and having regard to the recommendation of the jury, I think it will be sufficient punishment if the prisoner is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and kept to hard labor.” -Evening Star, 13/2/1925.
Sutherland seems to have been released on probation and, when the full sentence had expired, was under the impression that the alcohol prohibition order which was part of his probation had also expired. He was convicted of breaching his order in the Police Court in May, 1927. He was found guilty on similar charges the following October and December.
He was acquitted, due to lack of evidence, of fighting in Stuart st in 1928, and convicted of bicycle theft, theft of a bicycle lamp, and assaulting the bicycle owner in Christchurch in 1930. In 1941 he was convicted of assaulting his wife and that seems to be his last appearance before a court. He died in 2008, aged 6, and his remains are in Andersons Bay Cemetery.
No comments:
Post a Comment