SUSPICIOUS CASE.
The Timaru Herald of September 1 says: On Saturday afternoon two boys, Joseph Rowley and William Nelson, each of the mature age of from seven to nine years, were seen together with a horse going in the direction of the windmill. Between halfpast two and three o’clock the lad driving Cullmann’s cart saw the boy Rowley lying on the waste bit of ground near to the disused well just north of the windmill. The poor boy was quite unconcious, the back part of the skull being frightfully battered in, the wounds showing as if done by some blunt instrument. A large stone lying near was found to be covered with blood, and it is said that there is an odd similarity between the shape of the stone and the wound on the head. He was carried to Dr Mclntyre’s house, which is in the immediate neighborhood. Whilst the doctor was examining the boy, Bennett’s express passed by, and the wounded lad was placed in the express and conveyed to his father's residence in the Main south road, where he was attended by Drs McIntyre and Campbell. Whilst being carried down the poor lad moaned out, “Oh, Willie Nelson, don’t strike me again.” Nelson, who denies having any hand in the sad affair, but says that Rowley was kicked by the horse, was brought up before the Resident Magistrate on Saturday and remanded for a week. As his Worship had an objection to imprison the boy for that time he was released upon his uncle, Mr Nelson, entering into a bond for £200 for his appearance when required. The boy Rowley was in a very precarious state up to a late hour last night, and no hopes were entertained of his recovery. -Evening Star, 5/9/1873.
Correspondence.
THE LATE INQUEST.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMARU HERALD.
SIR, — I should be much obliged by your inserting this letter, relative to the case of the poor little boy, the cause of whose death was the subject of the late inquiry, as I wish to make public my reasons for forming the opinion which I hold on the matter: —
The wound which proved fatal to the late Joseph Rowley was a compound comminuted fracture of the skull, just above and behind the right ear, with contusions extending not more than one eighth of an inch beyond the free edges of the broken skin; the fracture extended lengthwise nearly an inch beyond the opening in the skull, which was somewhat eliptical in shape, about three and threequarter inches in length, and about one and a-half inches in its widest part, with the edge of the bone slightly irregular, the skin retracted, and the brain exuding.
From the nature of the wound, I am of opinion that it was not caused by the stone produced, had it been from the size, shape and weight off the latter, and the force required to hurl it with sufficient violence to cause a compound comminuted fracture of the skull through a felt hat, there would have been greater contusion of the parts around the wound than exists. On the other hand, the kick of a horse would from the shape of the front part of its hoof and shoe, naturally cause such a fracture, viz. — one long in proportion to its breadth, and from the sharpness of the blow owing to the rapidity of the kick would bruise little beyond the free edges of the skin, where it is broken through.
I will not further encroach upon your space, and remain, Yours faithfully, Samuel Hammond. -Timaru Herald, 17/9/1873.
SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (abridged)
Monday, October 6. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Gresson.]
The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court was opened yesterday at eleven o'clock.
At that hour his Honor the Judge, preceded by Dr Back, Sheriff, and Mr E. S. Willcocks, Registrar, entered the Court and took his seat. The following gentlemen were then sworn as the
GRAND JURY.
Messrs Robert Wilkin (foreman), Julius Haast, George Williamson Hall, Henry Gray, John Johnston Fletcher, Thomas Maberley Hassal, Alexander Lean, Henry Cockade Adams, Henry Sawtell, Charles Tipping, George John Leach, J. V. ColborneVeel, George Stead, Wm. B. Robison, George D. Lockhart, Edward Dobsoh, Frederick William Delamain.
The Grand Jury having been sworn, his Honor proceeded to deliver the following
CHARGE. "Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, — "I am sorry to have to inform you that the calendar is unusually heavy. There are twenty-two cases, including forgeries, embezzlement, horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, aggravated assaults, bigamy, and frauds of various kinds. It is deplorable that so many frauds should have been committed at a time when there is such a scarcity of labor that all who are able and willing to work may find employment at highly remunerative wages. I am persuaded that so long as the present demand for labor continues (and I have no reason to doubt its continuance), an agricultural laborer, of sober and provident habits may, in a few years, become a small farmer — the owner of a freehold acquired by his own savings, with more of independence and of the comforts of life about him, and greater facilities for educating his family, than he could have acquired in any part of the United Kingdom by a long life of unremitting toil and privation. I must admit that there is another side of the picture too often witnessed in this colony, for which however the individual himself and not the colony is responsible. It very often happens that the laborer and mechanic, finding that they can earn here much more than enough to support their daily wants, either work only half time or spend their earnings in the public house, thus wasting their substance, injuring their health, and putting families in a much worse position than if they were receiving the whole of their earnings at lower wages. I think that the forgeries and embezzlements which have become frequent in this and other districts, are mainly attributable to this spirit of self-indulgence and extravagance which are caused by the abuse of high wages. Not that I desire to see the standard reduced below the highest rate that farmers and other employers can afford to pay. What I do earnestly desire, in common with those who have at heart the best interests of the colony, and of the working men, whose interests are identified with it, is that they would avail themselves of the opportunities which this country undoubtedly affords, of realising an independence, by steady industry and frugality, and of educating their children in such a manner as to fit them for the honorable position to which they may reasonable hope to attain in this most promising colony. Gentlemen, of the many cases in the calendar, there are only two, to which I think it necessary to direct your attention particularly. One is the case of a child, between eight and nine years old, charged with manslaughter under the following circumstances: — It appears, from the depositions, that this child, William Nelson by name, was sent by his uncle to tether a mare, which he had got from Christchurch a few weeks before. That he was seen leading the mare in company with the deceased (Rowley) a boy nine years old, with whom Nelson was in the habit of playing and associating on good terms. That while Nelson was leading the mare, Rowley being behind with a stick, was going to hit her, whereupon Nelson let the mare go, went and got a stone, threw it at Rowley, and hit his head just above and behind the right ear, that he fell down, and Nelson kicked the stone from where it fell into the tussocks, and then ran and tethered the mare to a tussock, and went away. That Rowley, on being struck, cried out, but did not speak; that Nelson was about a yard from him when he threw the stone; that Rowley was found lying with his head on his right arm, with blood on his head, and a wound above and behind his right ear; that, on being removed to Dr McIntyre's and subsequently to his father's house, Dr McIntyre, in company with Dr Campbell, removed several pieces of bone from the skull, which was found to have received a compound fracture, which Dr McIntyre thinks was the cause of the boy's death. That the wound, in his opinion, might have been caused either by a stone or by the kick of a horse. Another medical practitioner, who examined the wound, thinks it impossible that it could have been made by a stone thrown by such a young child as Nelson. And expressed his belief that it was caused by a violent blow — such as a kick by a horse with shoes like those produced, which the mare was proved to have had on at the time. The evidence of Hatfield, a child of eight years' old, the only witness who deposed to having seen Nelson throw the stone, is shaken by that of another child of like age, who says he saw Hatfield first, when Rowley was being carried into Dr McIntyre's, and that he had been ten or twenty minutes there before Hatfield came; that he saw him come past as Rowley was being carried. A man named Fisher says he saw Rowley and Nelson, at a place described as within twelve or fourteen yards of the spot where the accident occurred, together, leading a horse, both holding to the rope, and the horse looking as if trying to get away, and that he did not notice Hatfield or any other boys near at the time; that the boys were not quarrelling. Gentlemen, before you can find a true bill in this case, you must be satisfied on two points — first, that the boy Hatfield's evidence is trustworthy; and secondly, if you think it reliable, that the accused boy, when he threw the stone, had acquired such a discretion as to make himself responsible for the consequences of his act. Between the ages of seven and fourteen years, an infant is deemed prima facie doli incapax — that is, that he has not sufficient capacity to know that he is doing wrong. That presumption may be rebutted by strong and pregnant evidence of a guilty knowledge that he was doing wrong — but such evidence ought to be clear beyond doubt or contradiction. -Press, 7/10/1873.
Supreme Court. — At the Supreme Court, yesterday, Edwin White, charged with sheepstealing, was found guilty; sentence was deferred. William Nelson, a little boy against whom an indictment for manslaughter was thrown out by the Grand Jury, was discharged. -Lyttelton Times, 8/10/1873.
No comments:
Post a Comment