MAN FATALLY SHOT
TRAGEDY IN OTAGO.
MAN ARRESTED FOR MURDER.
SHOT FIRED AFTER MIDNIGHT.
NO MOTIVE REVEALED SO FAR.
RETURN AFTER FRIENDLY TALK.
(Per Press Association). DUNEDIN, This Day. Tomahawk, a seaside resort near the City, was the scene of a tragedy early this morning, when Mr Findlay Douglas Buchanan, a married man, aged 25, a relief worker, was fatally shot.
Louis William O’Connor, a married man living at Anderson’s Bay, has been arrested on a charge of murder.
The police were informed at 1.40 this morning that Buchanan had been admitted to the hospital suffering from a severe wound in the abdomen caused by a shot-gun fired at close range. He died at 7.45.
When arrested, accused was at home in bed.
It is stated that the Buchanan and O’Connor families were well acquainted. O’Connor, who had been out shooting, called at Buchanan’s house at midnight. He obtained a cigarette and after a friendly conversation was advised by Mrs Buchanan to go home. He went, but returned later when Mr Buchanan was in bed. Mr Buchanan answered his knock and his wife heard a shot. She found her husband lying inside the door. He was conscious but was unable to speak. O’Connor was standing alongside with a gun.
No motive for the alleged act is at present ascribed, but it is suggested that O’Connor had been drinking.
He appeared at the Court this morning on a charge of murder, and was remanded until Friday, April 8.
It is stated that O’Connor called at Mr W. J. Taber’s store, near Buchanan’s, for cigarettes, which were refused. He returned, evidently after the tragedy, for hammering on the door he left bloodstains. Mr Taber threatened to come out to him, whereupon O’Connor is alleged to say “Come on out, and I’ll fix you as well.” Mr Taber threatened to call the police, and accused dropped out on to the verandah and decamped.
Accused is an unemployed carter. His victim was a barman who was also unemployed. -Ashburton Guardian 30/3/1932.
THE TOMAHAWK TRAGEDY.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In your report of the Tomahawk tragedy you state: “Buchanan was well-known as a barman at the Grand Hotel until seven months ago.” Findlay Douglas Buchanan was never employed in any capacity in the bars of the Grand. He was employed at a night porter, from July 23, 1929, and finished on January 2, 1930. Consequently he was not well-known.
— I am, etc., Arthur A. Paape. March 30. -Evening star, 31/3/1932.
CHARGED WITH MURDER.
DUMEDIN SHOOTING TRAGEDY.
O'CONNOR BEFORE COURT.
REMANDED TILL WEDNESDAY.
(By Telegraph. — Own Correspondent-.) DUNEDIN, this day. Charged with the murder of Findlay Douglas Buchanan, married, an unemployed barman, aged 25, at Tomahawk, near Dunedin, on March 30, there appeared in the Police Court this morning Louis William O'Connor, married, aged 25, an unemployed carter, whose home is at Anderson's Bay.
On the application of the police O'Connor was remanded till Wednesday. It was stated that the case would then be proceeded with.
The circumstances of the recent tragedy will be recalled.
The Buchanan and O'Connor families are said to have been well acquainted. On the day before the tragedy O'Connor had been out shooting and he called at Mr. Buchanan's house at midnight. He obtained a cigarette, and, after a friendly conversation, was advised by Mrs. Buchanan to go home. He went, but returned later when Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan were in bed. Mr. Buchanan answered a knock at the door, and his wife heard a shot. She found her husband lying inside the door. He was conscious, but was unable to speak.
O'Connor, it was alleged, was standing alongside, and a gun was subsequently found.
No motive for the alleged act was given, but it was suggested that O'Connor had been drinking. O'Connor, it was stated, was asleep when the police called at his home, and gave himself up quietly. He did nut possess a shotgun of the type found on the store verandah. When a search was made of his possessions, cartridges were found in a pocket of his coat on which, it is understood, were bloodstains. O'Connor's finger had been bleeding. Blood marks were also found on a window, door and verandah of Mr. Tabor's residence, where O'Connor had knocked for some time.
Accused is an unemployed carter, victim was an unemployed barman. -Auckland Star, 8/4/1932.
TOMAHAWK TRAGEDY
BUCHANAN’S CONDITION WAS HOPELESS
DYING STATEMENT TO POLICE DOCTOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING OF MURDER CHARGE
Evidence that from the time the doctor arrived the condition of Findlay Douglas Buchanan, who was fatally shot at Tomahawk early in the morning of March 30, was hopeless, and that the injured man, on being told that he was to die, made a statement that O’Connor shot him, was given in the Police Court to-day, when Lewis William O’Connor was charged with committing the murder.
The accused was allowed to be seated, his counsel stating that the man was not well. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., was on the bench, and the Crown Solicitor conducted the case for the police. Accused was represented by two barristers.
The Magistrate said he proposed to take the coronial inquiry concurrently with the preliminary hearing of the charge. The accused would not be prejudiced, as at the end of the hearing of evidence he would not return a verdict as coroner in the meantime if he found that there was a case for trial. Counsel agreed with the course proposed.
DYING STATEMENTS. Dr William Evans, police surgeon, said that on March 30, at about 1.40 a.m., in response to a police message, he proceeded in a car driven by Constable Parkes to Tomahawk, and on entering a dwelling saw a man propped up in bed, and he was afterwards informed that he was Buchanan. Mrs Buchanan and a neighbour were also there. Witness told the man in bed he was Dr Evans, and asked him what the trouble was. He said he had been shot in the side. He was dressed in pyjamas, and had two undergarments on. He made an attempt to show witness his injuries, and on lifting his coat witness saw a gunshot wound in the left side of the chest. It was circular in shape, and about 2in in diameter. The edges were blackened, and there were some points of discolouration of the skin, due apparently to the entrance of shot. The skin and muscles under the wound had been carried away, leaving a considerable opening into the chest and abdomen. There was a mass of fat protruding from the wound. Buchanan was suffering from shock. Witness dressed the wound. While waiting for the ambulance, which he had ordered immediately on arrival, witness sat on the side of the bed beside the injured man, and told him that, in his opinion, there was no hope of his recovery. That was, in fact, his opinion after seeing the extent of the injuries, which he was certain would cause death.
After a pause of ten to twelve seconds witness said; “You know you are going to die.” He replied: “I know.” Witness then said that under such circumstances he understood any statement he made might be used as evidence. Witness asked; “Who shot you?” and he replied: “O’Connor.” Witness asked: “How do you know? ” and he replied: “I saw him when I opened the door.” The ambulance then arrived, and Buchanan was placed on a stretcher, carried to the ambulance, and transported to the Dunedin Hospital. At 11.30 the same morning witness was present at the commencement of a post mortem conducted by Dr Watt on Buchanan’s body.
Dr Aubrey James Mason, resident surgical officer at the Dunedin Hospital, said Buchanan was admitted at 2.45 a.m., suffering from a gunshot wound involving the lower part of the chest on the left side. Buchanan was given a blood transfusion, but his condition sank. There was very slight hope for him from the beginning, and he died at 7 a.m. Buchanan was still conscious when the police superintendent saw witness, in whoso opinion the injured man was not in a fit condition to answer questions. In fact, Buchanan became unconscious shortly afterwards.
Dr Morris Netterville Watt, clinical pathologist attached to the Dunedin Public Hospital, said he had made a post-mortem examination of Buchanan’s body, there was a circular gunshot wound l 3/4in in diameter four inches below and slightly behind the left nipple. An inch above the wound was a small abrasion and bruise, and scattered round and within an inch of the lower margin were sixteen small shot punctures. There were no powder stains on the surrounding skin. There was a small surgical incision in front of the right elbow, but no other marks of injury were present. The cavity of the left lung was filled with blood, and the lower lobe was bruised. The lung was not punctured. The wound was found to have penetrated the lower extremity of the left thorax, and entered the abdominal cavity, making a hole in the diaphragm about l 1/2in in diameter. The spleen and the upper kidney were considerably lacerated. The lower portion of the stomach was perforated, and one or two pellets were embedded in the wall. The upper intestine was also perforated. The wound extended downward and backward, and terminated in the soft tissues behind the lumbar vertebrae. From his detailed examination witness was of opinion deceased died from haemorrhage and shock due to a gunshot wound. He produced some shot taken from the wound and the wad, and fragmented fibres, which came probably from another wad of from deceased’s clothing.
To the Crown Prosecutor, witness thought, from the nature of the injuries, that deceased would be between Oft and 9ft from the gun when he was shot. There was no sign of powder staining on any of deceased’s garments.
WIDOW’S EVIDENCE. Eileen Caroline Buchanan, widow of the deceased, said her husband had been on the relief works and they lived at Tomahawk, where they had been about six and a-half or seven months. They were married on July 22, 1931. She had known the accused for some years. She had a son named John, and O’Connor was the father of that child, who was three years and nine months old. She had taken proceedings against the accused with regard to that child, and he had consented to an order adjudging him the father. A maintenance order for the payment of 15s a week was made at the same time. That was in 1928. Accused had made some payments under that order. The child had been boarded since its birth, but was living with witness at her home in Tomahawk on the night of March 29 and 30. It had been taken from the place where it had been boarded out at Christmas time. Her husband knew the accused, and as far as she knew they were on friendly terms. She and her husband retired to bed at about 9.40 on the night of March 29. The house consisted of three rooms built one behind the other, and the bedroom was the middle room. That room opened into the front room, and you had to pass through that room to reach the front door, which opened on to the verandah. The son was sleeping in a cot in the front room. After going to bed witness and her husband went to sleep. They were wakened by knocking at the door. Witness woke first, but took no notice of the knocking at first. When her husband woke he put on the light and went to see who it was. When he was getting out of bed her husband called out “All right,” but she had heard no one call before that. After her husband called out she heard O’Connor call out to her husband, but she forgot what he said. It was just after midnight by the clock, which she thought was about right. She thought the clock showed ten minutes past 12. Her husband went to the front door and O’Connor came in. The minute he came in witness could see he was drunk, and she asked what he wanted at that hour of the night. O’Connor asked her husband for a cigarette. He was almost in the bedroom then, and he later came into the bedroom, and witness thought he sat on the side of the bed. Her husband gave him a cigarette and said: “Now you go away home,” and witness thought he added that his wife would be worrying about where he was. Witness was still in bed. She asked O’Connor if he knew what the time was, and she thought he said it was 1 o’clock. Witness asked him where his wife was, and he said she was at home. He did not say where he had been. Her husband was making a cigarette, but witness did not see him give it to the accused. Her husband took O’Connor to the front door and told him to go home. He said: “Now you get away home. It is late.” He added he would hold the door open till O’Connor got to the gate. Accused said: “Are you putting me out?” The two men were then at the front door, and witness did not think the accused appeared to be angry as he said it. She did not see if her husband had to help him to the door. She did not know if O’Connor could get to the door by himself or not. She was half asleep. The accused, when going out, said he wanted to see the boy, but her husband said: “You go home now. You can come and see him when you are sober.” He said the boy was asleep. O’Connor showed no anger or ill-feeling towards her husband. When O’Connor had gone her husband returned to bed and went to sleep. Witness did not sleep, and she was disturbed again at about 1 o’clock by loud knocking at the front door. She thought the man was mumbling as well as knocking. Her husband was asleep. The noise wakened the boy, who called out that there was someone knocking at the front door. She then heard O’Connor ask if “Fin” was there. The exact words were: “Is Fin there, John?” Her husband had wakened by this time, and he put on the light in the bedroom and went to the door. There was no light in the front room, which had a fitting but no bulb.
THE SHOT. When her husband went into the front room nothing was said, but she heard him open the door and heard nothing else till she heard the shot. She did not know at the time that it was a shot, and she jumped out of bed to see what the noise was. Her husband had left her room only a short time, and would have had no more time than to open the door. Witness ran to the door of the bedroom and saw her husband lying on the floor and O’Connor with the gun. O’Connor was actually standing inside the door near her husband. As witness appeared at the door O’Connor himself and looked at her. It was light enough for her to see him. He had the gun in his hands and he jerked it as he straightened himself. When she saw the gun witness slammed the door and ran out. She did not know where the gun was pointing as she slammed the door. Witness ran for a neighbour — Mr Newton. She did not hear her husband speak after he left the bedroom. Mr Newton went with her to the house, entering through the back door. Her husband was still lying on the floor, but the accused was not there. She did not see him again that night. She and Mr Newton picked up her husband, carried him to the bedroom, and placed him on the bed. She could not say exactly how her husband lay on the floor. She did not look at the clock at that time, but judging from the time that passed between O’Connor’s first and second visits she thought it would be about 1 o’clock. She could not say whether the gun in the accused’s hands was anything like the gun produced.
GUN LEFT ON VERANDAH. William James Taber, a storekeeper at Tomahawk, said he had known the accused for three or four years. O’Connor had lived at Tomahawk for about six months. He was disturbed at 0.30 a.m. on March 30 by a knock at the shop door. His wife answered the knocking, O’Connor went to the door and asked for cigarettes. He recognised O’Connor’s voice. O’Connor said he was returning to live in the district, and asked to be served with cigarettes. Mrs Taber refused to serve him at that hour of the night, and after considerable talk accused went away. From O’Connor’s speech, he thought the man had taken drink. He formed the opinion that he was under the influence of liquor. At about 1.30 the accused came running down the hill and bounced on to the verandah. Knocking on the door and the bedroom window, accused, who said then that he was Lew O’Connor, said that he wanted cigarettes. At first witness did not answer him, but when the knocking persisted he jumped out of bed, saying that he would “fix” O’Connor. He told O’Connor through the front window that he would send for the detectives to have him arrested, even if he had to pay for the detectives coming out. O’Connor said: “I want to see you. I’ll wait for you.” O’Connor was standing on the verandah, but all of a sudden something seemed to strike him. He dropped something with a loud crash on the verandah and ran fifteen yards beyond the shop. He then doubled back and headed towards town. A few minutes afterwards Albert Newton arrived on the verandah. In consequence of what Newton told him he telephoned the police. Later Newton drew Mrs Taber’s attention to a gun on the verandah. Witness first saw the gun in Newton’s hand. At daylight he found spots of blood on the verandah and door and near the letter box outside.
Jessie Lindsay Tabor said that O’Connor became noisier on his first visit when she refused to sell cigarettes. She thought O’Connor was drunk by the way he spoke. O’Connor returned at 1.30 o’clock, and she told him to go away. She corroborated her husband’s evidence. His threat to call the detectives could have been heard by accused. O’Connor must have heard it, as he said: “I’ll wait here. I want to see you, Taber.” When her husband said ho was going out, she said: “You are not going out — the man is drunk.” During the second visit O’Connor was standing at the bedroom door, on which he was continually banging.
Albert Nathaniel Newton, a coachbuilder, residing at Tomahawk, stated that his home adjoined that of the Buchanans. Some time during the night of March 29 he was wakened by a loud noise, resembling a gunshot or a motor tyre bursting, which appeared to come from Buchanan’s house. Shortly afterwards he was summoned by Mrs Buchanan and he accompanied her to her home, where he found Buchanan lying on his right side in the front room, close to the outside door. He did not then know the time, but he later ascertained that it would be about 1.30 a.m. On examining Buchanan, he saw no sign of wounds, and, with Mrs Buchanan, witness lifted him on to the bed. Mrs Buchanan then asked him if he would like to see. the wound, and on his replying in the affirmative she lifted Buchanan’s pyjama jacket and showed it to him. Witness left the house and went to Taber’s store to ring for the police, and whilst standing on the veranda he found the double-barrelled gun (produced) lying near him. The gun was closed, and on opening it he found it to be empty, but when he examined it later he found that the left barrel appeared to have been fired, and be noticed that the barrels, above the grip, were covered with blood. He took charge of the gun, and handed it over to the police when they arrived.
William Dunford, a carrier, residing at Aroha street, Anderson’s Bay, stated that he had known the accused for nine or ten years. He saw the accused about 10.30 on the morning of March 29. The latter was quite sober, and they arranged to go out for a day’s shooting. They left about 11 o’clock, taking with them witness’s gun (which was the one produced in court) and a box containing between 20 and 25 cartridges. They went in witness’s trap, intending to go to Pukehiki, and passing the Shiel Hill Hotel they procured two bottles and a gallon jar of beer. They went over the hills at the back of Sandymount School, but witness looked for mushrooms and let the accused have the gun. The beer was left in the trap. They had two drinks on the way out and two where they camped. They entertained a couple of men while they were still in the trap. These men each had about three medium glasses. No beer was left when witness and O’Connor left for home at about 5.30. The accused “polished off” what was left in the jar before witness got back to him. The accused seemed quite all right at that time. They called at the Shiel Hill Hotel on the way back and got the jar and the two bottles filled with beer. It would be between 8 and 6 o'clock that they got this beer. They then went to Mr Scott’s place at Tomahawk. O'Connor asked him inside, taking in the jar of beer. Scott and his wife were present Scott and witness had a drink at intervals, and O’Connor also had some. They finished the jar of beer between 11 and 12. It might have been later. By that time witness was “merry.” Scott was playing the violin, and they were having a “sing-song.” The accused was rolling about a bit.
The Crown Prosecutor: Was he drunk?
Witness: It is a hard thing to say.
Counsel: It is not much good asking him. He was drunk himself.
Witness: He was able to walk about, and I wouldn’t reckon he was tight. Witness added that the gun was out in the trap all the time so far as he knew. They stayed some time together after the beer was finished. When witness rose to go O’Connor was not there. He had been gone half an hour. He had said nothing before going. After putting the horse in the trap witness sang out a couple of times for O’Connor to come home. Receiving no answer, he went away. On the way home he heard O’Connor sing out from long distance away, “I shot him.” The shout came from the direction of Taber's store.
The Crown Prosecutor: Could you recognise his voice?
Witness: I thought it must have been him. It sounded like his voice.
Witness did nothing when he heard the call. He thought that O’Connor might have been shooting ducks. The gun was not in the trap when witness went away from Scott’s. He missed it on going out to yoke up. He heard no sound of a shot. The gun was not defective in any way, and the triggers were quite firm. As far as he knew, it was a safe gun.
Constable Macdonald Brown, the police photographer, produced photographs which he took at Tomahawk on March 30 under instructions from Detective Sergeant Nuttall.
Gilbert Gray Scott, a labourer residing at Tomahawk, said that his house was commonly known as the old farm house. At 10.30 at night he heard men talking in a loud voice. He heard his name called and went outside and found that the men were O’Connor and Dunford. They said that they had been away shooting and had had nothing to eat all day. They asked if witness would give them a cup of tea. O’Connor handed him a sugar bag containing a jar of beer. Then the accused put his hand in the trap and pulled out a bottle of beer, which he also gave to witness. They all went inside, witness making the men a cup of tea and a meal. The accused was in a very drunken condition when he entered the house. They proceeded to drink the beer. Witness had five cups and felt no effects. The two men stayed at the house an hour and a-half or an hour and three-quarters. All of the beer was consumed except about three cups, which witness tipped out because he wanted to get rid of the two men. The actions of the accused were those of a man who was stupidly drunk. Witness thought it peculiar that the accused should have gone in and out of the house so often. At one time he seemed inclined to shed tears. That time was of very short duration, and witness took no notice. Both of the men left at the same time, but not by the same door. The accused said nothing before going out of a side door. After the horse had been yoked up witness called to O’Connor that his mate was waiting for him, but got no reply. A short time afterwards witness heard a shot and later heard two men speaking. He went out to the gate and stood behind the hedge. Just then a man came across from the gig towards the gate fairly fast. Just as he came across witness shut the gate and O’Connor walked up against it. He said that he wanted to get in. Witness told him to join his mate, who had been waiting half an hour for him. O’Connor did not answer, but walked towards the city, Dunford at this time was opposite the gate. Dunford sang out, “Where’s my gun? ” Witness heard no reply. This would be between 12 and 1 in the morning. Witness had had a conversation with the accused on Good Friday, but the Buchanans were not mentioned. They were mentioned, however, in a conversation about two weeks before. The accused said that Buchanan was going to dump a child on his doorstep. He also said that Buchanan had told someone that he would not keep any of O’Connor’s b.....s. The accused told him that he was the father of the child, but did not mention the mother’s name. On various times before this O’Connor had spoken of the child, but witness could not repeat the words. O’Connor did not seem troubled when he repeated what Buchanan had said and did not speak of doing anything about it. Witness did not see any gun on the night of March 29.
Robina Nicholson Scott, wife of the previous witness, said that the accused seemed very drunk when he went to the house with Dunford. Dunford seemed just as had.
Arthur Errol Tilbury, a son of the licensee of the Shiel Hill Hotel, said that he knew the accused very slightly. At 11.30 in the morning of March 29 the accused was served with liquor. At 8.50 at night he returned, going to the back door. Witness answered the knock and O'Connor and Dunford asked him to fill the jar and bottles. Witness stood there for five or ten minutes, but thought that to give them the beer was the easiest way to get rid of them, and gave them the beer, Both men seemed to be quite sober.
Frederick Newborn, a labourer of Tomahawk, living opposite the old farm house, said that on the night of March 29 he heard a gig stop outside his gate at about 10.30 or 10.45. Francis James Farquhar, a labourer, residing in the same house as the previous witness, said that he saw a gig in front of the house at 10.45. It was not there at 9.45.
Charles Hewitt, a baker, residing in Luke’s road, Tomahawk, said that on the morning of March 30 last he left home at 0.25, going through a track leading from Luke’s road to the main road. Just as he was approaching the main road he saw the shape of a man in front of him. When witness came up to him he was crouching down at the side of the track. He had a double-barrelled gun across his knees. Witness said, “Good morning,” and the man said something in reply. Witness could not say who the man was.
John Kenneth Robert Begg, a gunsmith, said that on April 1 last a gun was handed to him by the. police. Both barrels were fouled and both had been fired, in his opinion, within a week. It was quite a safe gun. It would be very hard to discharge the gun by a jar if the hammers were cocked. He could not say that it would be impossible. This he had discovered as the result of tests. A cartridge case was also handed to him. It was of a type loaded with smokeless diamond powder. When he received the gun he discovered that ordinary beach sand had prevented the breech from being properly closed. There were markings on two shells produced which were consistent with the gun having been in the condition in which he received it. He also fired some cartridges from the gun after he had cleaned the sand from it. They did not show the same swelling of the brass. The average number of pellets in each cartridge was 151 Witness produced the results of tests made of the spread of the pellets when the gun was fired at various ranges.
Mary Ford, a married woman, residing at Roslyn stated that at the present time she was looking after a child named John Lewis White for the mother, Mrs Buchanan. The mother was in the habit of visiting the child fairly often at first, but latterly her visits were not so frequent. Witness thought that Buchanan sometimes came to see the child with her.
Francis Stothart Little, a licensed surveyor of the Lands and Survey Department, Dunedin, produced a plan showing measurements taken in and in the vicinity of Buchanan’s house, and also a plan of the house and the locality, which showed that the shortest route between Buchanan’s house and that of the accused was one mile 51 chains. Acting Detective Gibson said that on March 30 he accompanied Superintendent Eccles and Detective Sergeant Nuttall to the accused’s house in Cranston street, Anderson’s Bay, where they arrived about 3.50 a.m. They were admitted by Mrs O’Connor, but the accused was in bed asleep. With some difficulty he was awakened, and whilst dressing himself he remarked to witness and the others, “I done the murder,” and added: “I was not alone, but I will not say who else was there; It was my hand that pulled the trigger. He then said he was alone, and shaking hands with Detective Sergeant Nuttall, he remarked that they were not bad sports, and that he would tell them the truth. He then told them that his hand had pulled the trigger and that he had heard Buchanan fall. On the way to the Police Station the accused took from his pocket a cartridge smeared with blood and handed it to witness. At 4.45 a.m. the accused, after being given the usual warning, was charged with attempted murder. He made no reply at the time, but after the charge had been entered in the charge book he asked what he was charged with. Witness again read the charge, and the accused remarked, “Is that it?” Later in the morning witness found a discharged shotgun cartridge smeared with blood in places, about 150 yards from Buchanan’s house. This was the case first handed to the gun expert. When the accused was arrested there was blood on the clothing he had been wearing the previous. day. There was a cut on the tip of his thumb, and there was blood on his hand.
Counsel: How did you awaken the accused?
Witness: The superintendent rubbed his bead, and his face was smacked by his wife and Detective Sergeant Nuttall. There was a strong smell of drink, and he impressed me as being in a very deep, drunken sleep, and for a little while after he awoke he appeared to be in a stupid condition.
Detective Sergeant Nuttall corroborated the previous witness's evidence, and stated that the accused, when arrested, had asked him if Buchanan was dead. He smelt strongly of liquor, and was in a semi-drunken condition. When witness took possession of the clothes the accused had been wearing on the previous night he found in the pocket of a cardigan jacket six shotgun cartridges. He had no hesitation in saying that the accused must have consumed a considerable quantity of liquor. When witness visited Buchanan’s home later in the day he found a number of bloodstains and two wads from a shotgun cartridge on the floor of the front room, but otherwise the room was in perfect order, This evidence concluded the case for the Crown.
The accused pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The inquest on the body of Buchannan was adjourned sine die. -Evening Star, 13/4/1932.
In late April, O'Connor appeared in court charged with murder and pleaded not guilty.
ALLEGED MURDER
THE TOMAHAWK TRAGEDY TRIAL OF O’CONNOR
(Per press Association.) DUNEDIN, last night. At the Supreme Court to-day, Lewis William O’Connor was charged with the murder of Findlay Douglas Buchanan, of Tomahawk, on March 30. In his address to the grand jury, His Honor Mr Justice Kennedy said that here might be evidence of the consumption of much liquor by the person accused, but they would bear in mind that, until the contrary was proved, every person was presumed to intend to know the natural consequences of his own act. If a man under the influence of liquor intended to shoot another, and did shoot another, his drunken intent did not make it less a crime than if he was sober.
The accused pleaded not guilty.
Counsel for both the Crown and the accused freely exercised their right of challenge in the selection of the jury. Evidence was led to show that, shortly after midnight on March 21, the accused went to the deceased’s house and asked for a cigarette. The deceased gave him one and advised him to go home, parting, from all accounts, on good terms. Shortly afterwards the accused returned, and shot Buchanan when the latter opened the door to him.
Witnesses spoke of the drunken condition of the accused about the time if the occurrence.
The case will be continued, and probably concluded to-morrow. The jury was locked up for the night. -Poverty Bay Herald, 27/4/1932.
HARD LABOUR
TERM OF FOURTEEN YEARS.
MAN GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER
THE TRAGEDY AT TOMAHAWK.
(Per Press Association). DUNEDIN, This Day. At the Supreme Court this morning, Lewis William O'Connor, found guilty of manslaughter in killing Findlay Douglas Buchanan at Tomahawk on March 30, was sentenced to 14 years' hard labour.
Mr Justice Kennedy inflicted the sentence without comment.
When the evidence for the prosecution had been concluded yesterday, counsel for accused urged that when O'Connor admitted he had committed the crime he was in such a condition through drink that he did not know what he was saying. Under the circumstances, the killing of Buchanan was not murder. Counsel referred at length to the evidence, showing that O'Connor was so drunk that he was behaving like a madman. He submitted that O'Connor was maddened by drink, and that he had lost his sound reasoning quality. Counsel could not plead insanity, but he did plead drunkenness to such an extent as to dethrone accused's reason.
The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter, and accused was remanded for sentence until this morning.
The Crown Prosecutor, in urging the necessity for a severe penalty, said that the man killed was prisoner's friend. Within an hour of the killing prisoner had been hospitably received, but went back and shot him, practically in his wife's presence and in the same room where his own child was asleep. -Ashburton Guardian, 28/4/1932.
No comments:
Post a Comment