The "Waikiwi tragedy" - the Witting family.

 Invercargill.

(From our own Correspondent.) 

The week since my last has been productive of the most horrible tragedy it has ever been my lot to come into contact with. The record, in the simple circumstances of the case, without the corroboration which judicial investigation has given to the horrible affair, would be to most minds a something which must inevitably be rejected as grossly and literally untrue. Within three miles of Invercargill, a German settler, named Witting or Vitting, has resided with his wife and a family of children for the last eight or nine years past. The man was formerly the possessor of a homestead and fifty or more acres of land, upon which he worked, and was reckoned to be getting along comfortably. Some three or four years since he got into difficulties, and his land passed from him. He then removed to a short distance, where he has since remained on sufferance. The loss of the property induced the man to go away from home in search of work, and he has been frequently away for a considerable time, his wife not hearing of or from him in the interval. It is supposed that the first trouble of the loss of the homestead preyed upon the mind of the wife, and the further trouble of the husband's absence, with a bad state of health for some months recently, had brought about melancholy, and perhaps uneasy forebodings as to the future. Be that as it may, there is good reason for believing that for long past the reasoning powers have not been balanced, although the perception of the difference between right and wrong may have existed. The woman appears to have thought much of her family and to have striven to do all in her power for her children. On Saturday afternoon last she left her horne — taking with her four children, the youngest being eleven months, and the eldest (girl) nearly if not quite 9 years — on pretence of going down the tramway to look for a cow. The dwellinghouse being in the face of the Waikiwi bush fronting the Riverton road from Invercargill, the bush had to be gone through before the Waikiwi river could be reached, and the woman and children had thus to travel a mile and a half. When the river was reached Mrs Witting said she would like to go and examine her son's eel pot there; he being in the habit of going to this place to fish. After examining the pot and reporting to the children — who were upon the bank, which at that place is steep, the river itself being then high — that it was empty, she suddenly pushed the eldest girl into the stream, and threw the youngest in. The eldest girl was carried down by the current and was providentially able to scramble out by means of some drift wood which had lodged across the river a little lower down, and upon reaching the bank, saw her mother holding her two brothers in the river. There were men working near, and probably, if the child had thought of this, the calamity might not have been as fearful; but her first thought, and that upon which she acted, was to run home and tell an elder sister. The alarm was raised, and the bodies of the three children were recovered, but of course too late. The mother, who, after perpetrating the deed, had taken to the bush, was found about midday on the following day (Sunday). On Tuesday the coroner held his enquiry, and the jury returned their verdict against the mother of "Wilful Murder." I think — the evidence of premeditation to the contrary notwithstanding — that my own idea as to the diseased condition of the poor woman's mind is the correct one, and that physicians skilled in the phases of mental disorders and their development, will pronounce her insane; but this is a point wluch I may be excused taking upon myself to settle. There is plenty of employment here, and a great dearth of labor, the public works now in progress absorbing so much. Private enterprise is by no means flagging. New buildings and improvements are still the order of the day. The weather has, during the past week, been very cold and stormy, with heavy showers of rain and large hail.  -Bruce Herald, 30/10/1872.

SUPREME COURT

MURDER.
Caroline Witting was placed in the dock, charged with the wilful murder of her three youngest children, Frederick, Carl, and John Witting, at Waikiwi, on 19th October last. 

The prisoner pleaded not guilty. 

The prisoner being undefended by counsel, the task of watching the case on behalf of the prisoner was assigned by His Honor to Mr Wade. 

Mr Harvey, having briefly addressed the jury, describing the nature of the evidence to be adduced, called: 

Annie Witting, 13 years of age, a daughter of the prisoner, who stated that on the morning of the 19th October, the family had breakfast at seven o'clock, her mother going about her duties as usual. Her mother and father had some words. Her mother wanted her father to take a constant job at Mr Richter's. Her father said he did not want it. There was no quarrel. Her father and mother had been living on good terms. (Being admonished by the counsel to tell the truth, the witness said in reply to the Judge that they quarrelled sometimes.) A few angry words passed. His manner was angry when he spoke to her, and her manner was angry when she spoke to him. He was swearing, and cast up things that had happened before. He said she had been spending more money than she had need to. Was quite certain he said nothing about tha baby. After breakfast her father left for his work. Her mother went about her work as usual all day, and made no unusual remark. At four o'clock she said she was going down the tramway to look after a cow. She told the little children to go with her, Augusta, Freddy, and Charley; and Johnny was in her arms. There was nothing unusual in her manner. Witness and her sister Lina remained in the house. Augusta returned, more than half an hour alter, all wet, and frightened. She told what had happened. Witness went and called some men to her assistance. About 10 o'clock at night saw her three little brothers brought home, Freddy, Charley, and Johnny, all dead. 

Cross-examined by Mr Wade — Had no talk with her father about what she was to say. Never knew her father ill-use any of the children. Never heard the father say that the baby was not his. Her father and mother were often quarrelling. Her mother, a week or two before the occurrence, said that but for the children she would do away with herself. She said that without any apparent cause. Remembered her mother having to stop out of the house all night in the bush, four or five years ago, because her father had been ill-using her. Her mother was in the hospital after the birth of the baby. Augusta Witting, nine years old, daughter of the prisoner, said that she remembered her mother taking her with baby, Charley, and Freddy out for a walk. They went down to the fishing stand at the Wailkiwi creek. Her mother put her into the water, pushed her in, but she got out. Saw mother holding the two boys down in the river. She put the baby in. She threw him in. He sank down. He was out of sight. The next one she put in was Carl. When she was holding the two boys down she was kneeling down on the side of the river. She told the boys to go down, and she would come too. She said "Good-bye" after she had put them in. Went home. (At this point, the prisoner, appearing tired, was, at the request of Mr Wade, accommodated with a chair). 

Cross-examined — There was a quarrel between her father and her mother in the morning. Noticed something unusual about her mother that day. Could not describe it. 

John Sinclair deposed that in consequence of what the eldest girl Witting said to him, he and two men named Cahill and Trainer went to the Waikiwi creek, about a mile in a northerly direction from where they were working, near Witting's house. The creek was flooded, running a little over its banks. As soon as he came to the creek, he saw one of the bodies floating in a standirg position, with the head hanging down. It was the body of the second youngest boy. Got a long pole, drew it to the bank, and took it out. It was quite dead, not quite cold. The creek might be seven or eight feet in parts and in other parts about five feet. Saw some spars stretched across the creek further down. The body of the baby was caught by the spars just about the centre of the creet, floating with its back up, just below the surface of the water. Tried to get it out with the pole, but could not; it was stuck among the spars. Made a noose on a flax line and put it on a pole. Got it at last round the baby's wrist, and pulled it out. The creek was deeper there. The baby was quite dead, but not so cold as the other. Then Witting's eldest son, Albert, came. After a time the body of the other boy was found by Albert Witting and Trainer. Left the bodies on the bank, went into town, and gave information to the police. 

Samuel Morton described finding the prisoner in the bush next day, standing by a fallen tree, between Russell's and Mair's fences. Had three dogs with him. Found her by the dogs barking. She looked wild, like a wild animal, with a glare in her eyes. Her superior faculties appearad to be suspended. Witness mentioned his name and asked if she knew him. She said no. She had known witness for many years. Asked if she were not cold, being in the bush on such a wet day. She said she was. Offered her something to eat which he had with him, but she refused it. She then said that witness had one of her son Albert's dogs, looking at one of his. The dog was just about as dissimilar to Albert's dog as could well be. She then asked for her eel-bag, which she said she had left on the track. She asked witness to go and look for it. Witness said "Never mind," and asked her to come with him, which she did. Took her to Mr Russell's house. 

Cross-examined. — She appeared as if she had lost her reason. She always broke the conversation, and turned to something else. She said she would get into trouble with her husband for staying away so long; that he would beat her. Thought she was mad, and treated her somewhat like a lunatic, speaking in a soothing manner. Nothing was said about the children. She said she had gone down to get some eel-lines out of the water, that she had put them in the eel-bag, and lost the bag, and she seemed in great trouble about the bag. She had no gown on, it was a petticoat, no stockings, a pair of sheepskin slippers, and flannel tied under her chin and pinned on the top of the head. She was in a great state of mud and wet. 

Albert Witting, eldest son of the accused, stated that on the morning in question, his father and mother had a quarrel. His father told his mother that she liked other men better than him. He made no remark about the children. His father and mother often quarrelled. Came home between five and six, or a little later. Heard what had occurred, went to the river, and saw the body of his little brother lying on the bank. Sinclair and Trainer had just found the baby; it was dead too. Witness and Trainer found the other brother further up the river, in the water, lying on his back, under the bank, with his hands up, and one of his feet in the mud. Got him out; he was dead. Went with Sinclair to the police; went back with the police to the river, and saw the bodies carried home. 

Cross-examined. — Thought that in general his father was the cause of the frequent quarrels between his father and mother. Remembered his mother being out of the house all night on several occasions, because his father was in suuh a temper that she went out of his road. Ihe children used to get out of his way then, very often, for fear of violence from him. His mother was crying that morning when he went away. Very often heard his father tax his moiher with liking other men better than him. 

Augusta Witting, recalled, stated that on the way to the creek, her mother took off her (the mother's) outside frock, and left it on a stump, not very far from the house. She had stockings on when she left. She had leather slippers, not boots. She had a round hat on her head, had it on when witness last saw her. 

Sub-Inspector Fox described the finding of the bodies, and the arrest of the prisoner. 

This closed the case for the Crown. It being then a quarter from one o'clock, the Court adjourned for an hour. 

On the Court resuming, Mr Wade opened the case for the defence. He admitted it was quite possible that even at that stage of the case the jury might be satisfied that the prisoner had caused the death of the three children who were drowned, and in any case he was not provided with any evidence to the contiary. But the actual defence — what was meant by pleading not guilty — was not that the prisoner had not committed the act with which she was charged, but that at the time she was not in a state of mind to be held accountable for what she was doing. If this defence were established, the jury, even though satisfied that the death of the three children was the act of the prisoner, would still be justified in bringing in a yerdict of "Not Guilty," on the ground of insanity. The issue was not whether the prisoner was insane at the present time, but whether the death of the children was the act of the prisoner, and whether, if satisfied of that, the jury held that the prisoner, at the time of the act, was of sound mind, and responsible for what she was doing. To establish this plea of insanity at the time of the offence, he weuld call witnesses, whose testimony, he had no doubt, wrould be convincing to the jury. From this evidence, he would be able to show that the prisoner's mind was unhinged, and that she was in such a state as to be held irresponsible, legally, for any act she might have committed in such a condition. 

William Panton Grigor, medical practitioner, residing in Invercargill, attended the prisoner in her confinement, twelve months ago, and about three weeks or a month subsequent to her confinement, when she was suffering from inflammation of the liver. There were no traces of puerperal fever. Noticed nothing at that time of her state of mind. She was under treatment in the hospital subsequently, for a month or six weeks. She seemed very depressed, dull, and desponding. Suspected nothing wrong with her intellect, although the depressed state in which she was attracted his notice. 

Janet Harrop, matron of the Invercargill hospital, deposed that when the prisoner was in the hospital, she was very low and dull in spirits for the first three weeks. She complained a great deal of her stomach and her head. Found her twice in the night sitting up in bed crying; she said she could not lie down for giddiness in her head. She could not eat. She said more than once that her head would bring her to something that she was not aware of, by the way she felt. 

Thomas Perkins, accountant in Invercargill, and one of the Hospital Committee, stated that about twelve months ago the prisoner was very ill, that he and his wife often called on her at that time, that she evidently had great trouble on her mind just then, and that he came to the conclusion that her mind was not properly balanced. In the hospital afterwards, he observed the same flightiness and inability to connect two ideas. 

Samuel Dyer, teacher, living at Waikiwi, said that about six weeks after the baby was born, the prisoner sent for him, being very ill. She seemed to think that her children were starving, and was troubled about what the baby was to take. She had nothing to give it. Found that the children had enough, and that they were milking six cows, so that the baby had plenty. 

Cross-examined.— It did not strike witness that Mrs Witting was out of her mind at that time. 

Mr Wade, in a speech of great ability, which we regret our limits do not permit of our reproducing, then addressed the jury. He dwelt on the unnatural and improbable character of the act attributed to the prisoner, if the evidence as to the facts were to be believed, and contended that in itself it was a presumption that she must have been of unsound mind at the time it was committed, if it had been committed at all. This presumption, he further contended, was strengthened by the evidence produced for the defence, as to the prisoner's state of mind, both before and after the death of the children, to such an extent as would justify the jury in returning a verdict of not guilty, on the plea of insanity. 

Mr Harvey, for the Crown, went over the evidence as to the facts, which he considered was convincing, and analysed in detail the evidence for the defence, pointing out in what respects and to what extent it appeared to fall short of a justification of the plea of insanity, as a ground on which a verdict of not guilty could be based. The unnatural and terrible character of the crime proved against the prisoner was not in itself sufficient to establish such a plea, nor had it been established by the direct evidence adduced as to the prisoner's state of mind, either before or after the ocourence. The jury had undertaken to find a true verdict, according to the evidence; and that duty he appealed to them to discharge, irrespective of any other consideration whatever. 

The Judge, in a most elaborate and lucid manner, summarised the evidence as to the facts of the occurrence, and also as to the defence, on the ground of the alleged insanity of the prisoner. The acts attributed to the prisoner he held had been conclusively proved. The law, he explained, required that to justify a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity, it should be shown to the satisfaction of the jury that the prisoner was at the time of the act, either in euch a state of mind as to be incapable of understanding the nature of the act itself or of knowing whether it was right or wrong. If the jury were satisfied that sufficient evidence had been adduced to prove that the prisoner's state of mind at the time justified either of these suppositions, it was their duty to return a verdict of acquittal, on the ground of insanity. If not, there was no middle course. The crime attributed to the prisoner could not be designated as other than wilful murder. 

The jury retired to consider their verdict. After the lapse of an hour and a half, the jury returned to Court. Great interest was manifested in the result, and before the Judge took his seat on the bench, every available portion of the building was crowded; and perfect silence prevailed throughout the numerous audience when the foreman, after the usual formalities had been gone through, returned a verdict of "Guilty." 

The prisoner (who appeared for the first time to realise her position), exhibited manifestations of great nervousness, and in reply to the usual question, said that she remembered going out in the afternoon with the children, but that after that she remembered nothing more. 

His Honor, who seemed much affected, then addressed the prisoner, in scarcely articulate tones, as follows: — Caroline Witting, the jury have found you guilty of the murder of your three youngest children. Concurring as I do in the verdict, I have to say that the question was raised as to whether you were in a sound state of mind at the time you committed the act. The jury have negatived that defence; and, I think, properly. They could hardly have come to the conclusion that you were so deranged as not to know what you were doing; or knowing it, not to know that it was wrong. I have to pass upon you the sentence of the law, which is that you be taken to the place from whence you came, and thence to the place of execution, and there be hanged by the neck until you be dead, and that your body be buried within the precincts of the gaol. May the Lord have mercy on your soul! 

The prisoner was removed in a hysterical condition.   -Southland Times, 22/11/1872.

Caroline Witting was "removed with difficulty" from the prisoner's dock.

Owing to the great interest which has been taken in the trial of Mrs Witting for the murder of her three children, we regret that our issue of Saturday last failed to meet the demand. We therefore propose to publish on Friday a verbatim report of the speeches of the prisoner's counsel, the acting Crown Prosecutor, and the Judge's summing up, which our limits prevented us from producing at the time. 

The memorial in favor of commuting the sentence of death passed upon Mrs Witting has already received over 500 signatures, and the first portion of it has been taken in charge by the Judge, for presentation to the Government. The remaining sheets when received will be forwarded to head-quarters at once. The prisoner, since her return to gaol, has exhibited a quiet and composed demeanor, and sleeps well at night, although thoroughly understanding the nature of her position. She has been attended, in compliance with her own request, by the Rev. Mr Stobo.   -Southland Times, 26/11/1872.

THE case of the unhappy woman Caroline Witting, now lying under sentence of death, claims from the thoughtful mind more than a passing attention. Whatever may be the conclusion ultimately arrived at by those who may take the subject under consideration, as to tbe propriety or otherwise of allowing the law in this instance to take its course, it will probably be admitted by all persons that the gravest reasons exist that the subject itself should be calmly, dispassionately, and carefully discussed (if possible) under its every phase and aspect. We admit in approaching the case a tendency, for which we do not expect to be blamed, to err on the safe side, conceiving at the outset, that the interests of society are in no way likely to suffer by this admitted tendency. It is not intended to connect with the case the discussion of the question of capital punishment, yet even here we have no hesitation in asserting that there is what very many well-trained minds agree to consider a sufficient reason for doubting the propriety of the ordinary acceptation of that which is relied upon by the advocates of capital punishment as to the intent of the Divine declaration, "Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." There exist in the instance now under consideration reasons which may be urged as recommendations to mercy apart from the abstract question of capital punishment, and unless the decision has been already arrived at to show no mercy whatever in any case in which human life has been taken, the prisoner now under sentence is entitled to the benefit of these reasons. Perhaps, after all, it is scarcely fair to the convicted to take this ground, because it appears like assuming what is by no means a certainty, the sanity of the prisoner. Were this assumed, what then are the circumstances which may be pleaded, that in some degree appear to tone down the atrocity of the offence? For that a tragically horrible event has transpired, which, as a record, after the event itself has passed from the memory of living witnesses, will be sufficient to thrill the breast of everyone reading it with horror and amaze, there is no denying. It is an admitted fact, that for years the poor creature has led a miserable life at the instance of her husband, being shamefully neglected and cruelly ill-treated. Yet, with all this, the testimony of the neighborhood is uniform as to the fact that until the day of the death of the children, the said children had been carefully tended and kindly treated by her, and this notwithstanding her own weakness from bodily ailment, and the painful fact that for months past she had been deserted by, and was wholly ignorant of the whereabouts of, the man (her husband) whose duty it was to support them and to comfort herself. But for the intervention of neighbors, who discovered the man, and brought a certain amount of pressure to bear upon him, there is not much reason for supposing he would have returned to her, but would have left her still to bear her burden as she best might. The fact is also admitted, that, after the return of the husband, his treatment of her was still harsh and unkind. It is worthy of note, too, that the quarrel which occurred on the morning of the death of the children, arose out of the refusal of the husband to accept permanent employment, which was offered him in the neighborhood, and the inference is that the woman believed he was again about to leave his home and go none but himself knew whither. Without committing ourselves to the theory of insanity set up as the defence, may it not be reasonably inferred that a person of the prisoner's nervous and excitable temperament, with a mind pointed at by independent testimony as evidently not well balanced, should if she were able to argue at all, argue thus — "There will be a repetition of the misery through which we have already passed; I do not see how these little ones are to be provided for, and I cannot bear to see them want; is it not far better that I should at once end their misery and my own at the same time?" This mode of reasoning cannot (as a matter of course) be accepted as a justification of the act, but it is nevertheless the most likely to have been adopted, and certainly does to charitable minds relieve the act to some extent of its darkest features of turpitude. As a reasonable presumption that this was the course adopted by the prisoner, we may take the evidence of one of the witnesses who had noticed that the burden of her mind was fear lest her children should suffer, or rather an impression that tbey were actually suffering. The verdict of the jury has disposed of the defence, yet it by no means follows that we are compelled to accept their conclusion. We do not need to fall back upon the other assumption so frequently put forth, that a crime of peculiar magnitude necessarily supposes insanity, and yet there is a class of crime which, in respect of its outraging natural instincts, does to a very considerable extent warrant the inference; and the crime now under review certainly belongs to that class. The question of holy writ, "Can a mother forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of ber womb?" is thus answered, "Yea, she may forget;" but the answer is intended to convey to the mind the idea of its extreme improbability, except under very peculiar circumstances. The verdict of a jury is an utterance so sacred as not to be lightly impugned, and it is very far from our intention to impugn it, but we are none the less at liberty to express a decided conviction that the unhappy woman was at the time of the occurrence in such a state of mind as to render it exceedingly doubtful as to whether she was able fully to comprehend the character of the act she was committing. Under these circumstances we conscientiously recommend the condemned woman, Caroline Witting, to His Excellency's clemency, and in thus recommending her we doubt not we are sanctioned by the judgment of by far the majority of the community, and without any misgiving as to the answer to the question, "Whether the interests of society will not be best served by the exercise of clemency?"  -Southland Times, 3/12/1872.

It will be a matter of pleasure to our readers to learn that by telegram received by the Sheriff, H. McCulloch, Esq, the sentence of death passed upon the prisoner Caroline Witting has been commuted to that of penal servitude for life. The intelligence was conveyed on Wednesday evening last to the prisoner, who received it without displaying any emotion.   -Southland Times, 6/12/1872.

The commutation of the sentence of Caroline Witting, for child murder, is the subject of this week’s leader in the Bruce Herald; and it is treated in a fearfully sentimental way, as our readers may judge from the subjoined paragraph. After sketching the provocation the unfortunate woman received at the hands of her husband, the article goes on to say — “Some relief, some way of escape must be found. She may leave her home and fight the battle of life for herself; but then, go where she may, she will not be free from molestation, and greater trial still must be separated from her children and leave them behind her uncared for and exposed to much from which she might shield them. That door of escape to her then, is closed. She cannot thus leave her home — what then? A voice seems to whisper in her ear— ‘Death! think of that.’ The thought is put away and away, but as oft returns, and in her shattered state of body and mind comes back with less and less repulsiveness, and greater attractions, as her only, her effectual mode of relief. She may thus easily escape her own misery, but then her children - she clings to them. The older ones might be able to battle for themselves; the little ones, she cannot leave them. The voice of temptation is again heard and listened to, ‘Why not take them with her? —  they cannot then be taken from her.’ This awful melancholy yet fascinating hope of relief haunts her by day and by night, till at last all sense of crime in the matter is lost sight of, the deed becomes not merely lawful, but even virtuous in her perverted judgment, some extra pang of suffering is all that is needed now to rouse to the carrying out of the deed into act. The occasion soon comes; smarting under some renewed wrong, and with a mother’s love and perverted judgment she takes her little ones with her to the inviting stream. Through that open door she passes her children safely on before her beyond the reach of the cruel tormentor she is fleeing from; but her strength fails her to follow, she is paralysed in mind and heart, and crouches into the shelter of the bush riveted to the spot, her heart ready a few moments ago to burst in her agony of suffering, now chilled into a stone. There she sits and stares in vague bewilderment unable to realise what she has done, what her position is, or what the consequences of her act will be. Who does not pity the unhappy creature? Murderess must we call her; but who will lift the first stone to cast it at her and say that she ought to die? Nay, take her up tenderly, treat her with compassion. A stranger she to human kindness is for many a long year. A drudge, a miserable drudge; a wronged and white slave called a wife, who saw this only door of emancipation open to her for herself and loved little ones. Hounds of justice, seek ye for the real criminal? then look not here — go to the house she has fled from and perchance you will find him there.” The writer has mistaken his vocation; he should go in for novel writing of the sensational school at once.  -Evening Star, 12/12/1872.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. McCulloch, Esq., R.M.). 

This day, 4th March. Robert Walker, charged with being drunk and disorderly in a railway carriage on the 1st inst., did not appear. His bail, £3, was accordingly forfeited. 

Carl Witting, a settler on the North Road, husband of the woman lately convicted of drowning three of her children, was charged by the police with being a dangerous lunatic at large. Albert Witting, son of the accused, a lad 15 years of age, gave evidence to the effect that his father's conduct had been very strange for many years, and of late had become more so. On the previous Friday the accused had chased witness with a hammer, threatening to knock his brains out. He had given him no provocation. Witness was afraid to come back to the house, and slept in an out-house belonging to a neighbor. The other children had frequently been turned out of the house and kept out all night by the father. The accused was restless at night, and wandered about, instead of sleeping. He was very violent, and broke out  in a furious passion frequently without any provocation. The accused, who said he did not feel able to stand, and had been accommodated with a chair, was then asked whether he desired to put any questions to the witness, when he broke out in an ungovernable paroxysm of rage, violently shaking his fist in the direction of the bench, and denouncing his children, the police, and the magistrate in a torrent of broken English expletives. As he could not be prevailed upon to be slent, he was forcibly removed by the police, and locked up. 

William Russell, solicitor, residing on the Bay Road, stated that he had known the accused for ten years, and gave further evidence to the effect that his habits were such as to indicate mental unsoundness. He was under the impression that the public were conspiring against him, and particularly that people were always trying to steal his cattle. Mrs Witting once mentioned to witness that her husband had been in a lunatic asylum in Germany. Witness considered that the accused was of unsound mind and dangerous. 

Peter Myers, laborer, had known the accused for some years, considered him strange, and would not live alone with him for all New Zealand. 

The accused was remanded for medical examination.  -Southland Times, 7/3/1873.

The following particulars as to the mental condition of the Prussian named Carl Witting, whose wife lately murdered her children, are given in one of the Southland papers: — "Since the conviction of his wife the man has removed from the cottage he then occupied to one whioh he has had built for him, upon the north road, his son, of about 17 years of age, and three daughters living with him. Of late he has become very violent and dangerous — in fact, utterly unmanageable, and a terror to the neighborhood. Screams have been frequently heard from the house, and upon two or three occasions the children have been out of doors at night. This was the case on Saturday night, 1st inst., when Witting was so perfectly outrageous that refuge had to be taken with the neighbors, and the police were appealed to. It appeared from evidence that the threats of the accused, and his language and behaviour generally, had been of the most fearful character, and that, he brandishing an axe, it had been a wonder the lives of some had not been sacrificed. In the Court the accused was very violent, and had to be removed. These events have tended materially to prove that the tide of public sympathy in favor of the wife, after her conviction, was not misdirected, and go very far to point out the inflictions to which the poor woman must have been long subjected, and which terminated so tragically."  -Grey River Argus, 28/3/1873.

A woman named Caroline Witting, a native of Berlin, Prussia, was received into the Gaol on Saturday evening, escorted by Constable Sullivan, of the Bluff. Tlie prisoner was convicted at the Supreme Court, Invercargill, on the 20th November, 1872, of murdering three of her children (under circumstances detailed in our columns at the time), and was thereupon sentenced to death. Her case was represented, on the sth December last, to His Excellency the Governor, who was pleased to commute the sentence to penal servitude for life.  -Otago Daily Times, 21/7/1873.

Caroline Witting died in the Dunedin Hospital on July 12, 1890, aged 53.  Possibly by coincidence, a Mrs Witting (presumably her daughter-in-law) is reported as a passenger by train "from the south for Dunedin" in the Evening Star, on July 15.

Caroline is buried in Dunedin's Northern Cemetery.  I have found no similar information for her husband, Carl, except that he was admitted to Seacliff Asylum in 1873.

Albert Witting became a bushman and later manager of a sawmill in the Southland area.  He lost his son, Carl, to war in the Battle of the Somme, in 1916.