ALLEGED MURDER AT SOUTH DUNEDIN.
What appears to be a case of manslaughter, if not premeditated murder, has occurred at South Dunedin. The victim is Georgina Butler, a woman over fifty years of age, who has been living with her daughter, Mrs Edward Brown, in a small cottage in Argyle street. The latter is about thirty years of age, and has two young children, and her husband is at present at Ashburton. The pair appear to have been drinking together on Friday evening, and on Saturday morning Mrs Brown alarmed the neighborhood by a report that her mother was dead. The neighbors, on going to the house, found the woman lying dead in bed, with her clothes on and a pool of blood around her head; but their suspicion does not appear to have been aroused to the fact that her death was other than natural. The conclusion was generally arrived at that deceased, being notoriously intemperate, had broken a blood-vessel and bled to death during the night. The police, however, after an examination of the house and the deceased, deemed a post mortem necessary, and this was performed by Mr T. M Hocken. The result was that he discovered a fracture of the skull, which could not have been self-inflicted or received by a fall. This injury, considered in conjunction with the fact that the wall at the head of the bed was bespattered with blood, leads to the presumption that the woman was struck with some blunt instrument while lying down. That she attempted unsuccessfully to ward off the blows aimed at her is also apparent from abrasions and bruises which were discovered on her hands. Mrs Brown cannot give any intelligible or connected narrative of her actions on Friday evening; simply saying that her mother and she retired about nine o'clock, and that she did not see the deceased afterwards until she discovered her dead next morning. The police have been making active inquiries into the case, but nothing like a definite clue as to who is the perpetrator of the deed has been gained. Rumor hath it that mother and. daughter were not on the best of terms. It may be mentioned that Mrs Brown was a principal witness in the celebrated Wain child-beating case.
An inquest on the affair was opened by Mr Coroner Watt at the Railway Hotel, South Dunedin, this afternoon. There were six jurymen, of whom Mr Roseveare was chosen foreman.
Mr Inspector Weldon appeared on behalf of the police.
The Coroner, addressing the jury, said they were met to investigate the circumstances in connection with the death of Georgina Butler. She and her daughter (a married woman named Brown), it appeared, were sleeping together in a house on Friday night, and on Saturday morning Mrs Brown reported to the police the death of her mother. The sergeant of police thereupon visited her house, and reported the circumstances to him (the Coroner), and he ordered a post-mortem examination, which was made by Mr Hocken. The injuries which he found were of such a serious nature that he desired a corroboration of his evidence by another medical man, so that another examination was made by him in conjunction with Dr de Zouche. The time at the disposal of the police for clearing up the apparent mystery in connection with the case was so short that probably an adjournment might be asked for.
Police-sergeant Macdonell deposed: On Saturday morning I was called to Mrs Brown's house in Waverley street by a boy named Patrick Fanning. He said he was told to inform me that Mrs Butler had died from the bursting of a blood vessel. On I going to the house I went into the kitchen, where I found Mrs Brown and some neighbors. In a corner of the room I saw the deceased, Mrs Butler, lying on a stretcher. She had her clothes on, but her boots had been taken off. She was lying on her back, and her face, neck, and head were covered with blood, together with her pillow and bedclothes. There was also a good deal of blood on the wall of the room, the lower part being smeared. It looked as if either the head or hand of the deceased had been up against it. Spurts of blood were visible on the wall about 2ft or 2 1/2ft above her head. The left hand, which was black and swollen, was clenched and full of blood. Both elbows were turned outwards. The right hand was also clenched and covered with blood. The right eye was closed and bruised; the left was partly open and did not appear so black. On the left temple there was a small wound over half-an-inch in length and oval shaped. The right ear was torn and was hanging down. I remarked to the women present, "She has got a black eye, and the ear is torn," and I asked Mrs Brown — "Do you know how this happened?" She replied "No." and added that she had not noticed the injuries before. I afterwards saw Mrs Brown, and she made a statement, which I took down.
The Coroner here requested that Mrs Brown should be present.
The witness continued: Mrs Brown told me her mother was much given to drink, and was troubled with palpitation of the heart. She had been going about in her usual state of health on Friday, but in the evening she got very drunk, and fell in the scullery, the kitchen, and the backyard. She (Mrs Brown), however, had not noticed any marks or blood on her. At nine o'clock she had left the deceased lying on the stretcher in exactly the same position as she was discovered in the morning. At the same time she herself went to bed in the front room. Shortly after going to bed she had heard a little noise, but she had paid no attention to it. On getting up next, morning at halfpast seven o'clock she called to her mother to get up. She said "Mother, get up, and don't be lying there; open your eyes and speak to me." Receiving no reply, she ran out, and told Mrs Patterson to come. Mrs Patterson wont over, and said her mother was dead. I asked Mrs Brown again if she did not see the marks of violence on her mother before, and she said: "No. Of course she fell three times, and she might have hurt herself." I said "But you saw no blood on anything?" and she said "No. I asked her about the doors, and she said she locked them before going to bed and found them the same in the morning. I asked her if she took the key out of the back door, and she replied that she did not; she simply turned it and left it in the lock. I searched the house to-day with the assistance of Constables Loose and Walton. In a cradle I found a pillow-slip with a spot of blood on it, two inches in diameter. It was at the foot of the stretcher in the kitchen. In the box near the door I found a girl's pinafore with a good deal of blood on it, especially the lower part. There were some clothes on the top of it. In Mrs Brown's bedroom, underneath some clothes, I found a "dress-improver" with some blood on it. The police had possession of the house since mid-day yesterday, and Mrs Brown had been stopping at Mrs Patterson's.
To Inspector Weldon: No part of the house presented the appearance of a struggle having taken place. The body did not seem to have been moved from the position in which it was when it received the fatal injuries. Constable Walton handed to me a dusting brush which appeared to have been recently washed. [The brush was produced, and on it were distinctly visible the remains of bloodstains. The hair of it presented the appearance of having been washed.] [Left sitting.] -Evening Star, 5/10/1885.
The adjourned inquest on Georgina Butler was concluded yesterday, when the jury returned a verdict that she was murdered by some person or persons unknown. The only fresh evidence of interest was that of Dr Hocken, who stated that the hairs found in deceased's hands were apparently from her own head. He stated that he had not compared them with those of the daughter. -Mt Ida Chronicle, 8/10/1885.
NEW ZEALAND TELEGRAMS
THE DUNEDIN MURDER
Dunedin, October 14. Mrs. Brown was charged at the Police Court to-day with the murder of Georgina Butler, her mother, on the 20th inst., and at the request of the police was remanded till tomorrow. -Taranaki Herald, 14/10/1885.
THE COURTS TO-DAY.
SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SITTINGS.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)
THE SOUTH DUNEDIN MURDER CASE.
The hearing of the charge against Margaret Brown of murdering her mother, Georgina Butler, on the 2nd October, was continued at ten o'clock this morning. Mr Haggitt conducted the case for the Crown; Mr Stuart, with him Mr Solomon, for the prisoner.
Dr de Zouche stated that he assisted Dr Hocken in making a second examination of the deceased's body on October 5. He agreed with that witness's evidence as to the wounds found on the body. He saw the body a day later than when the post-mortem examination was made. The wounds had d; .d, and were slightly larger. He attributed death to blows inflicted chiefly about the head. There were a number of combinations of wounds to account for death, but the scalp wound would alone have been sufficient. The brush produced could have occasioned the wounds with something intervening. Some of the wounds might have been occasioned without anything intervening. He agreed that the ring (produced) intervening would account for the fractures. Death would have resulted speedily from the wounds. When he first saw the hand-brush it appeared to have on it blood stains which had been washed. Washing would break up the corpuscles of the blood, but it might not remove the coloring matter.
To Mr Solomon: He thought several very violent blows had been inflicted on the head. It was probable that the deceased caught hold of the instrument with which the injuries were inflicted. It was probable that the person who inflicted the wounds would have received blood stains. A great deal would depend on the direction of the blows and the direction which the blood took. He thought the assailant ought to have had some blood about his or her clothes.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Jessie Patterson (recalled): When prisoner said to Sergeant Macdonell that one of the doors was unlocked Mrs Morrison was present. The conversation took place in the passage near the scullery. If the sergeant denied that prisoner said the door was unlocked she would contradict him.
His Honor: The importance of this is obvious. It is strange you did not think of it before the Coroner or before the Magistrate.
Witness: I thought Sergeant Macdonell had that down in his statement, and I heard that it was contradicted.
His Honor: Contradicted by whom?
Witness: I cannot tell you by whom. But I heard Mrs Brown saying that the door was not locked.
His Honor: We will get Mrs Morrison and see what she has to say.
The witness further stated that no one had asked her concerning what took place between the sergeant and Mrs Brown in the scullery, nor had she spoken to anyone on the subject.
Barbara Morrison (recalled) said that when Sergeant Macdonell was in the kitchen at Mrs Brown's house on the Saturday morning he asked her if the doors were all locked. She said that when she got up she found all the doors locked but the back door. That door, she said, was shut, but unlocked.
His Honor: When did you first remember that these questions were asked?
Witness: I remembered them from the time.
His Honor: You appeared before the Coroner, and also before the Magistrate.
Witness: No, sir; I was not before the Coroner.
His Honor: I beg your pardon. You were before the Magistrate?
Witness: Yes.
His Honor: You were asked what she said then?
Witness: No. This is the first time I have been asked regarding the conversation.
His Honor: Sergeant Macdonell denies that any question of the kind was ever asked in the kitchen, or that any such answer was given there.
Witness: Well, it is a mistake. That answer was given. Mrs Ritchie was in the kitchen as well as Mrs Patterson, and we all heard it distinctly.
His Honor: You have not been mentioning this to Mrs Ritchie? Of course you understand that there would have been no harm in your doing so.
Witness: I have not spoken concerning it to Mrs Ritchie, though I have spoken about the matter to other people. The witness stated, in answer to another question, that she had known the prisoner, as a neighbor, for about six years, and that they had been on friendly terms.
No witnesses were called for the defence.
Mr Stuart, in addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said the most important point, perhaps, presented in the case was that which had occupied the attention of the two witnesses who had just left the witness-box. It would be recollected that the crucial point made by counsel for the Crown — in fact, almost the only point he relied on — was the fact that he expected to satisfy them that Mrs Brown had stated that when she went out on the morning after the murder she found all the doors locked. The importance of that was so apparent as to almost call for no comment. If, as had been represented by the prosecution, the prisoner had locked the doors at night and that she had stated she found them locked when she got up at 7.30 next morning, then the murder must either have been committed by someone in the house, or by some person who had gone out after the deed, and had contrived to lock the doors. The only evidence they had on that point was what purported to be a statement by Mrs Brown herself, and which was given second-hand by Sergeant Macdonell. This witness stated clearly, distinctly, and unhesitatingly, that Mrs Brown had told him that she locked the doors at night, and found them locked in the morning. He (the learned counsel) had not the least hesitation in asking them to disbelieve that statement — it was nothing more nor less than an actual, though perhaps not deliberate, falsehood. Against his evidence was that of Mrs Morrison and Mrs Patterson — two perfectly independent witnesses — who, to-day on being questioned for the first time, had stated that they distinctly heard Mrs Brown tell the sergeant that she found the back door open when she got up in the morning. These two women both stated that that question was asked and that answer was given, while Sergeant Macdonell denied that any such question had been asked in the kitchen. The jury would recollect that the women were merely actuated by a desire to tell the truth, and, further, that they had a clear, distinct recollection of the whole matter. This statement of Mrs Brown's apparently did not appear to them of that importance which it actually was; nor did it to the sergeant, who did not take it down as part of the prisoner's statement. The sergeant was a policeman, and no doubt, from the fact of the unpleasant occupation he followed, an evident partisan. He stated that the first thing he had heard of the door being found open was Mrs Brown's daughter saying that her mother had told her to say to him that it was. He (Mr Stuart) asked them to disbelieve that also, as not only false, but a deliberate falsehood. Even if it were as true as the Scriptures itself, the witness knew that he was outraging the laws of evidence by repeating such hearsay statements. The evidence had been given solely for the purpose of throwing discredit on the testimony given before the Coroner by the prisoner; but the jury had only to read that testimony in conjunction with the evidence given by the women Morrison and Patterson for the purposes of corroboration. Before leaving this question he wished the jury to remember that it appeared from the Crown Prosecutor's opening — and he did not suppose that gentleman saw any reason for change of front — that the closed doors was the only point on which suspicion could be traced to Mrs Brown. Let them contrast the evidence and manner of Ser- j geant Macdonell with that of the two Female witnesses, and he had no doubt that they would come to the conclusion that the two women had given the true account of what took .place. If they did so the case presented for the Crown c illapscd absolutely. Mr Haggitt had told them that Mrs Butler went to bed at nine o'clock, that the prisoner closed the doors and windows, and on the following morning found them locked, and that the deceased and her daughter being the only persons in the house, the facts pointed to the prisoner as the person who had committed the murder. But he (Mr Stuart) asked the jury to believe that the back door was open in the morning. Now, seeing that Mrs Brown admitted that she had locked the door after placing her mother on the bed, some explanation might be expected as to how the door came to be open. Mrs Butler, the deceased woman, appeared to have been drinking on the day of her death; there was in Mrs Brown's statement evidence that she had frequently gone for beer on that day; she wanted to go out again at night, but was dissuaded by her daughter. She fell down in the scullery and in the yard, and ultimately was persuaded to go to bed. When she was found in the morning there was a quart bottle of beer about hall-full standing under the bed where she was lying, so it appeared clear that as she had been traced, to be without beer she must have gone out in search of it. Money was found on the deceased, so she had not only the sinews of war wherewith to get liquor, but the thirst of a drinking bout for it. No doubt she did not go, and on coming back neglected to lock the back door. The law was that killing was prima facie murder, and as the facts had been presented to the jury in this case; it was double murder - murder of the most foul description that could possibly be conceived. He did not wish to temporise with them, and to tell them they could bring in a verdict of manslaughter; in this case it was a verdict of murder against the prisoner or a verdict of not guilty. There was not a ghost of a suggestion of a quarrel between the dead woman and her daughter.. It appeared that the deceased had drinking habits which annoyed her daughter's husband, but the prisoner always endeavored to hide her mother's weakness, and acted with uniform kindness towards her. There was not the slightest feint of a suggestion that anything approaching a harsh word had I ever passed between them. To convict, the jury had to come to the conclusion that the blows and many acts which caused the woman's death had been struck by her daughter; there was no alternative than to return a verdict of wilful murder or an acquittal. He wished they should understand each other on that point. Now, the evidence of Dr Hocken as to the blow or blows which inflicted the wounds was this; That they were struck while Mrs Butler was lying on the stretcher. Now putting it that the prisoner was the worse for drink — which appears to have been inferentially suggested, though there was not a tittle of evidence in that respect — was it reasonable to suppose that a quarrel could take place while one woman was lying down on a stretcher, and the other standing over her beating her with a brush. If there was a quarrel it would be a quarrel in the middle of the floor, and such blows as had been inflicted could not be the outcome of a moment of passion, as would be struck by a daughter annoyed, as might be suggested by her mother's drinking habits. The notion was too preposterous by far. On that point Dr Hocken's evidence was perfectly clear, though it might have been unsatisfactory on other points. It seemed altogether repugnant to what they had heard of Mrs Brown's treatment of her mother to imagine any conceivable circumstances in which she would strike her when lying down as described. They might puzzle their brains, but they would be unable to suggest any motive for such an assault, considering the treatment Mrs Brown had invariably extended towards her mother. A great deal had been made of the fact that Mrs Brown had uniformly professed to know nothing of the affair. It must be apparent that suspicion of the murder naturally pointed to her as the sole occupant of the house; and what was more reasonable than that her lawyer should advise her to hold her tongue, and not say anything to friend or foe, in case any conversation might be misinterpreted and used against her. That disposed of her silence on the matter. They might safely rest assured that if the individual who was defending her, and had undertaken her defence, knew anything of his business he would tell Mrs Brown to hold her tongue, and not listen to the blandishments of the police, the detectives, her neighbors, friends, or. anyone else. Now, if they would look carefully at the statement the prisoner had voluntarily made at the Coroner's inquest, and which might, therefore, be used in evidence against her, they would notice that she was deaf in one ear. The jury would further remember that it was a blowy, rainy, and squally night, and that the prisoner's husband was by occupation a hotel waiter, and was necessarily kept out late at night. They could thus understand that the woman was in the habit of sleeping soundly. As to the experiments subsequently made in the house, it must be recollected that the men had gone there purpose of listening, and were trying to hear. Mr Nicholson, the only man not in the police business who was experimenting, said he could readily understand any person sitting in the bedroom not hearing a conversation carried on in an ordinary tone in the kitchen. It was unlikely that, unless there had been a struggle or great out-cry in the kitchen, Mrs Brown would not have heard it. The doctors had told them that after the first of the blows had been struck deceased would be incapable of further resistance beyond a mere automatic waving of her hand, and that it would be her death struggle. Now, if the doctors were to be believed, it was unlikely there would be any scream or cry, and it was probable that the first blow stunned her and prevented her from making any resistance. The learned counsel admitted that the small brush produced had played a prominent part in the murder, but he contended that there was nothing in its appearance to show that it had been washed with a view of removing blood-stains. It had been carelessly left in the back yard, and water from the barrel ran over it. So far as the brush was concerned there had been no attempt at concealment. It was not for him to tell them how the deed was committed; no duty was cast on him nor on Mrs Brown to account for the deceased's death. The prisoner had been charged with murder, and the jury had to consider whether they could face the question and come to the conclusion that no other person could have possibly done it. The law was that if they found that another person might have committed the crime, then it was their duty to acquit Mrs Brown. The jury might canvass the whole matter for themselves, and different theories might occur to their minds as to how the crime was committed. For instance, Mrs Butler evidently did go out for the purpose of getting more beer, and did get it. It might be that she, being the worse for drink, was followed home by some man, who entered the house shortly after she had laid down, for some purpose of his own. There was the fact that Mrs Butler was of drunken habits, but there was no suggestion whatever that she was of immoral habits. She appeared to have been a respectable woman when not given up drink, and at the times of her sobriety was a comfort to the Brown household. Perhaps, as he said, she was followed into the kitchen by a man, and after she had lain down there was no resistance on her part, and during this time the blows were struck. They might understand any person having motives except Mrs Brown. What earthly motive could she have, except a quarrel had taken place? Before they could convict her they must be satisfied that every other possible motive for the crime had been removed, that the circumstances were consistent with the fact that the act was committed by Mrs Brown, and they must also be satisfied that the facts were inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the prisoner was the person guilty of the murder. Dr Hocken had told them that he would not expect to find blood on the clothes of the person who committed the act. What was his reason for saying so God only knew! The witness could not explain it yesterday; he (Mr Stuart) could not explain it; and the jury themselves could not explain it. That was on a piece with the evidence for the prosecution. The doctor had started with a theory, and had to get facts to square on with his theory. Could they imagine a person delivering a series of blows to another person lying on a stretcher eighteen inches from the ground, and yet escaping from the blood which was splashing all round. He put it to them that there must have been blood on the person who committed the murder. In conclusion, Mr Stuart said that he was as conscious as the Crown Prosecutor was as to the weakness of the case; but he was further conscious that the charge before the Court was a charge of murder, and he asked them to remember that it was murder or nothing. It was not a case which should be reduced to manslaughter, and he took the responsibility of putting it to the jury in that way. His Honor, in summing up the evidence, said: Gentlemen of the jury. The prisoner is indicted for the murder of her mother, Georgina Butler. What you have to decide is whether it is established to your satisfaction, beyond reasonable doubt, that the death of Georgina Butler was caused by the prisoner. If you find that, then I agree with what has been said by Mr Stuart that it would be your duty to find that the prisoner has been guilty of murder. It is quite true that on an indictment for murder the-jury are justified; if there is evidence to reduce the crime to that of manslaughter, in finding a verdict of manslaughter. In the present case, however, I cannot see, upon the evidence how such a verdict could possibly be found. Prima facie if one person kills another it is murder, unless there are circumstances appearing which reduce the crime to manslaughter, and in the present case I do not see myself that there are any such circumstances. Did, then, the prisoner kill her mother, Georgina Butler? And in order to convict her you have, as was properly told you by Mr Stuart, to find not only that the circumstances and appearances are consistant with the prisoner having committed the crime, but also that they are inconsistent with any reasonable supposition that the crime was committed by anybody else.
His Honor then referred to and commented upon the evidence. In conclusion, he said: The case is one not at all without difficulty but that is all the more reason why it should receive, in the interests both of the public and of the prisoner, the more grave consideration at your hands. If the prisoner is the guilty person it would be a very grave calamity if she escaped punishment; on the other hand it would be a great or even greater calamity if she were unjustly punished, for a crime which she never committed. You will be kind enough, gentlemen, to consider your verdict.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at 12.50 p.m., and returned into Court at 2.10 p.m. with a verdict of, "Not guilty."
His Honor: The prisoner is discharged. (To the jury): Seeing that you have been occupied a day and a-half, gentleman, in this important case, I think as there is only one more case to be tried I am justified in discharging you altogether. -Evening Star, 8/1/1886.
Nobody else was charged with the murder of Georgina Butler. She lies in an unmarked grave in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery.
No comments:
Post a Comment