THE POMAHAKA MYSTERY.
This mystery, the particulars of which will be fresh in the minds of our readers, has now been cleared up so far as the body of the missing woman has been found, and under circumstances indicating that a foul murder has been committed. Towards the end of January Mrs Matson suddenly and mysteriously disappeared from the Pomahaka district. A few weeks previous to this she obtained in Dunedin a maintenance order against her husband, a native of Finland, from whom she had been living apart for some two years. The man at the time was engaged as a rabbiter on the Clydevale estate, and the fact that there was living with him in his hut a prepossessing young woman doubtless proved an incentive to his wife to seek some measure of redress in a court of justice. Matson for a while in obedience to the order, contributed weekly payments of 5s a week to his wife's support, but the remittances then ceased and the arrears accumulated. Some negotiation between the two appears to have ensued, as Matson is said to have offered to receive his wife and keep her. Advised that she must accept this offer or she would lose all claim on her husband, Mrs Matson left Dunedin about the middle of February, and, journeying to Clinton, proceeded thence to where her husband was rabbiting. On arriving at the Pomahaka estate she encountered Mr Maxwell, a settler, who good naturedly placed her on his horse and conveyed her across the Pomahaka river. Having deposited her, together with her parcels, on the other side, the settler retraced his steps. Subsequently, however, he saw her re-enter the river at the ford, and having safely reached the bank from which she had originally started with him, she proceeded to the house of Mr T. Chapman. Here she was accommodated with food and shelter for the night. Early next morning she once more set forth on her journey in quest of her husband. With the assistance of Mr Chapman she crossed the river, and having accompanied her on the way for some three miles he bade her farewell, leaving her to travel by herself the remainder of the distance. That was the last seen of Mrs Matson by the Pomahaka settlers. A short time afterwards some of the parcels which the woman was seen to carry were discovered in the Pomahaka river. The woman's sudden disappearance and the discovery of these articles in the river created a sensation throughout the district, but a very careful investigation by the police led to no satisfactory results. The husband being asked as to what he knew of the matter explained that on returning from his work one evening he found that his wife had taken her departure, he could throw no light on the mystery. She had left him before without warning, he added, and therefore he had deemed it unnecessary to report her disappearance. Many therefore, believed that finding it impossible to live at peace with her husband, Mrs Matson had suddenly resolved to leave him, and whilst fording the river encumbered by her bundles she lost her footing, and being swept into deep water met her doom. Some however, entertained pretty strong convictions of foul play, although no evidence of this could be obtained. It was known that Matson had been living with a young woman, and shortly previous to his wife's arrival Matson drove this woman to Clinton, from whence she left by rail for Dunedin. This young woman, is said to have joined Matson shortly after the wife disappeared, and has continued to live with him ever since. The mystery regarding Mrs Matson's fate had almost passed from people's minds, when on Saturday last a rabbiter named Bain found the body in a lagoon in a paddock adjoining the Pomahaka river, about three miles from where the parcels had been found. The body was tied up in two sacks. One sack had been pulled over the head and the other over the feet, the one sack overlapping the other. The sacks were tied tightly by a piece of rope. The sacks had been weighted with stones, but the constant rubbing on the bottom of the river wore a hole, the stones dropped out, and the recent flood had floated the body. The skull shows marks of violence, but whether inflicted before or after death is not yet known. The police were immediately instructed in the matter, and Sergeant Mackay and Constable McAllen, Lawrence, Detective Herbert, Invercargill, Constable Christie, Balclutha, Constable Broberg, Dunedin, and Constable Matheson Tapanui were speedily on their way to Pomahaka. After securing the body, and at 2 o'clock on Sunday, Matson and the woman Clark (who is 18 years of age) were arrested on a charge of murder. The police arrived at Lawrence with the prisoners an 1 o'clock on Monday morning. The prisoners were subsequently brought before Mr Francis Oudale, J.P., and remanded. On Tuesday Dr Sutherland of Milton and Dr Nicoll of Lawrence made a post mortem examination of the body of Mrs Matson. The full result of their examination will, however, not be made public until the inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of the deceased. Two wounds were found on deceased's head but the skull was not fractured. The inquiry will be conducted by Mr Richard Pilling, Acting-coroner on Wednesday first and the inquest will in all probability be followed immediately by a magisterial inquiry, which will be conducted by Mr Hawkins, S. M., and Mr S. Solomon has been retained as counsel to defend Matson. Carl Matson and the woman Hannah Bertha Clark were taken to Dunedin by train on Tuesday night. The woman's mother and step-father reside at Maori Hill, and she has a married sister living in Dunedin. -Clutha Leader, 10/7/1896.
THE POMOHAKA TRAGEDY.
INQUEST ON MRS MATSON.
(BY TELEGRAPH — PRESS ASSOCIATION.)
Dunedin, Tuesday. The inquest on the body of Mary Matson, found in a lagoon on the banks of the Pomahaka river, was formally opened at Lawrence to-day, and adjourned to the 15th inst. A post mortem was made by Drs. Sutherland and Nichol. The body is much decomposed, and it will be a difficult matter to identify it. Matson and the woman Clark admit that the body is that of Mrs Matson, and it is intended to take up a sister of Matson to Lawrence in the hopes that she may identify it. The post mortem revealed two wounds on the head, but the skull was not fractured. It is probable that the theory will be set up that the woman was first stunned and then tied up in the two sacks and thrown into the river.
Carl Matson and Hannah Bertha Clark, the prisoners, were brought to Dunedin tonight and locked up in the gaol. It is understood that the evidence gathered so far is somewhat slender. -Auckland Star, 8/7/1896.
The floods in the Pomahaka explained the mysterious disappearance of the poor woman Mary Matson, her body being found enveloped in two sacks a short distance from the river. Coming nearer home, the floods threw some light on what is known as the Mataura safe mystery. The safe was stolen from the post office about eighteen months ago, and no trace of its whereabouts was found till Tuesday last, when the door was discovered in the race attached to the freezing works. It had evidently been washed up from the river. -Southern Cross, 11/7/1896.
THE MATSON CASE.
[Special to the Stab.]
LAWRENCE, JULY 7
The prisoners Carl Matson and Hannah Bertha Clark, and also the body of Mrs Matson, arrived here in charge of Sergeant Mackay and Constable McAllan at 1 a.m. on Monday. The prisoners were brought before a justice on Tuesday and charged with the murder of Mary Matson on or about the 22nd of February, and at the request of the police were remanded for eight days. They were sent to Dunedin by the afternoon train, the accommodation here being insufficient.
An inquest was held this afternoon on the body before Mr R. Filling, sen., acting-coroner. The jury viewed the body, and the inquest was adjourned for eight days to give an opportunity of calling evidence and of having the prisoners represented by counsel.
Inspector Purdy and Detective Herbert are here in charge of the case.
It has been stated, says the ‘Tuapeka Times,’ that Hannah Bertha Clark left Matson prior to his wife joining him, but that is not so. She remained several days, and it is said here that Mrs Matson was not averse to her staying, and, in fact, asked her to do so, the reason given being that the place was lonely and she was very much by herself. This the girl would not consent to do, as there were constant quarrels between Matson and his wife, and she decided to return to her home in Dunedin. The girl Clark belongs to Dunedin, and has previously lived with her parents in Wolker street. Her mother is a country woman of Matson’s, who is a Norwegian or a Dane (not a Finlander as has been stated). Her father is an Englishman, and the prisoner was in the habit of visiting his house for years past. The girl is about nineteen years of age and of prepossessing appearance. Matson’s hut is built on a part of a section of sixty acres, held on perpetual lease, and the scene of the tragedy is described as a lonely place, Matson’s tenement being the only building for a considerable distance round. The unfortunate woman’s maiden name was Mary O’Shea, and at the time of her marriage with Matson she was a widow, her name being Mrs Kingate. She was a native of Ireland, and was about forty or forty-five years of age. She has some relations in the colony — a sister in Dunedin, a brother in Wellington, and a grown up daughter in Invercargill. Mr A. C. Hanlon has been retained to appear on behalf of Hannah Clark. -Evening Star, 8/7/1896.
THE MATSON CASE.
THE INQUEST.
[By Our Own Reporter.]
LAWRENCE, JULY 15,
The question how Mary Matson, or Mathieson as she called herself, met her death was the subject of inquiry before Mr Richard Pilling, acting-coroner, commencing at two o'clock. Inspector Pardy conducted the inquiry. Mr Solomon watched the case on behalf of Carl Matson, and Mr Hanlon did the same for Hannah Bertha Clark, who attended in custody. Mr Peter Skinner was chosen foreman of the jury. At the suggestion of counsel, the coroner ordered all witnesses out of court.
John Bain, rabbiter, residing on the Clydevale Estate for six years, knew Carl and Mary Matson. She lived on the estate with him, but left a little time ago. He could not say how long it was since Miss Clark came to live with Matson. He did not remember seeing Matson the day before Clark came. He gave Matson some letters, but that was after his wife returned.
Inspector Party pressed witness to try and remember the occurrence. Witness answered that he remembered giving Matson only one lot of letters; that was after his wife returned. He (witness) read the letters to him, as he could not read. One from Mrs Matson commenced "Dear Charles," and said that she was living with Mrs Nelson at Clinton, and it was expensive, costing 4s a day. She wished Matson to send Clark to Clinton and take her back, as they were man and wife, and she did not wish any woman to come between them again. That was all witness recollected of the letter. After reading, Matson said she was back and she would not be there long. He said this in a desperate tone. Matson had driven to his (witness's) place that day. He returned that night, leaving his trap at my place till next morning (Thursday).
Mr Solomon: What date?
Inspector Pardy: This witness remembers days but not dates.
Mr Solomon: Was it before the woman was missed ?
Inspector Pardy: Yes. I will give you dates presently. Witness: When Matson returned to my place on Thursday he brought the girl with him. He yoked the cart up and left for Clinton with the girl. I next taw him on the following Saturday in the paddock close to my place at 6 30 in the morning. Matson was driving the cart, and had a box in it which he said was Clark's. He said he was going to Clinton. I went to Clinton that day and saw Matson and the girl there. She left by the express for Dunedin. Five minutes later Matson left in the cart for home. I left about seven, in company with Fred Hilton.
Mr Solomon: Can you tell us, Inspector Pardy, that date now, so that we can get the hang of things.
Inspector Pardy: The 22nd of February.
Witness: When I got home Matson was sitting at the door of my house. He said the horse was knocked up, and he was frightened to go home. The distance of his place from mine is six miles; from Clinton to my place, ten miles. The road from my house to Matson's was good. There was no reason that I know for his being frightened. Matson remained all night with Hilton and me. We chaffed him about taking the young one away and getting the old one back. He said he would not be humbugged with the "..... old bitch" much longer. Matson left for home next morning. On Saturday, 4th July, I saw the body floating in a lagoon formed by an overflow of the Pomahaka River. I pulled it out. There was an ordinary sack over the head, coming to the waist. The head was covered by the bag, but the hair was coming through a hole in the bag. The big was tied by a piece of rope round the neck. Another sack had been pulled over the feet and ankles, leaving the legs exposed. This bag was torn, leaving the feet partly exposed. There were stockings on both feet, and one elastic shoe on. In pulling the body out of the bag on the legs came asunder. The bags were similar to those produced, but I do not recognise them.
Inspector Pardy said that the bundle produced formed no part of the evidence.
Witness: I informed Mr Mitchell, manager of the station, who instructed me to remain in charge till the police arrived. They came the following day, when the bags were removed. I identified the body of Mrs Matson. I had known her well.
To the Coroner: When Matson said she would not be there long he was a little excited. I thought by his tone that he meant to do something. The time Matson spoke in a desperate tone was before he came back from Clinton.
Frederick Hilton, a rabbiter at Clydevale Station, said in his evidence, which was largely corroborative, that Matson told Bain and witness how he tried to make his wife comfortable, and how she had returned his kindness. He (Matson) then said: "I won't be humbugged with the old bitch much longer."
Detective Herbert, in his evidence, said the only mark of violence on the body was a small wound on the forehead. Witness and Sergeant Mackay arrested Matson, who said he had never done her any harm. He also said: "I am not guilty. I struck her with the whip, but it was only with the lash." The prisoner Clark asked the police to take her with them, as she could not stay there alone. She said: "They have often quarrelled, but I never knew him to strike her." The inquest will not be finished to night. -Evening Star, 15/7/1896.
Town and Country
The inquest on the body of Mary Matson, whose remains were found in the Pomahaka river, was concluded yesterday, when the jury were unanimous that the woman came to her death by murder, and two-thirds of the jury found that Carl Matson was guilty of that murder. -Timaru Herald, 17/7/1896.
News and Notes
Carl Matson has been committed for trial for the murder of his wife, Mary Matson. The girl Clark, with whom he was living, has been discharged. -Evening Star, 17/7/1896.
SUPREME COURT.
(per press association )
Dunedin, September 3. The trial of Carl Matson, charged with the murder of Mary Matson, his wife, in February last at Rankleburn, was commenced to-day. Mr Haggitt, the Crown Prosecutor, opened at length, and contended that all other theories but murder or manslaughter were secluded by the circumstances. Sixteen witnesses were examined, but very little that was new was elicited.
James Bain, a rabbiter, said that Matson asked the girl Clark if she would come back if he got rid of the old woman and she replied that she would.
Thomas Chapman said that there was no joking about Mrs Matson when she told him she did not care whether she was drowned or not.
The case is expected to conclude tomorrow. -Ashburton Guardian, 4/9/1896.
CARL MATSON'S TRIAL.
Second Day — Friday.
This was resumed this morning, Mr Justice Williams taking his seat at 10.30.
Mr Haggitt for the Crown; Mr Solomon for the prisoner.
James Duthie, shepherd, living at Waitepeka, was the first witness called to-day on behalf of the Crown. He knew the parties. Mrs Matson left her husband about October, 1894. Shortly before she returned witness asked Matson whether she was back yet. He answered that she was coming in a few days. He said the law compelled him to keep his wife, but did not prevent him from keeping a servant. Witness advised him to live happily with his wife. He said he would keep the girl in the house and his wife in the tent. He said he would leave the gun loaded for the girl to use in self-defence if the old woman interfered with her. He also added that if the old woman interfered with him or the girl he would club her brains out. He had at the time a grubbing adze in his hand. Witness said: “You’d get hanged for that, Charlie.” He replied: “No fear; I’d cut my throat first." This witness was not cross-examined.
Wm. Markham Brown, ropemaker, said that the small ropes with which he was told the body was tied up and one of the pieces of Matson’s plough line were as alike as nearly as could be. They were of the same material, and the twist was the same, consisting of eighteen threads and nine strands. The rope was a very common one.
To Mr Solomon: He would expect to find the same sort of rope at every farmhouse he visited.
Dr Nicol deposed that he saw Mrs Matson’s body on the 6th July, and next morning made a post mortem examination with Dr Sutherland. As to external appearances, there was discoloration over the chest and abdomen; he could not say the cause of this, probably decomposition. There was a wound over the left temple, oval-shaped, an inch long, and from half to three-quarters of an inch broad. This wound extended to the bone.
Mr Haggitt: Do you think this whip (produced) could have caused that wound ? Witness: Yes.
Mr Haggitt: Using it this way (with the butt-end)? Witness: Yes.
Mr Haggitt; I suppose it would be utterly impossible for the lash to have caused it?
Mr Solomon objected that this was a leading question.
Mr Haggitt: Well, could it? Witness: Yes, it could. What would be the effect of that wound, caused by either the handle or the lash? — It might have caused death. In what way? — By concussion of the brain.
Is it possible to say how long after the wound death would have resulted? — It is impossible to say. It might have been instantaneous? — It might have been. Or it may have been hours or days afterwards? — Yes.
Continuing, witness said: There was discoloration extending three-quarters of an inch round the wound. Witness could not form an opinion from that appearance as to whether the wound had been inflicted during life or not. The body had been so long in the water that it was impossible to say. There was also a wound over the right temple about an inch long. That could not have been caused by the whip. It could not have been caused by a blunt instrument. There was no discoloration round it, from which fact witness judged that this wound was caused after death. Opening the chest he found the cavity full of blood; both the lungs collapsed; a considerable amount of decomposition; the pleura healthy; valves of the heart normal, but the chambers empty. Opening the abdomen, found the liver of normal size, but decomposed; kidneys apparently of normal size, and also decomposed; stomach practically empty. He could form no conclusion as to the cause of death from the appearance of the internal organs. The body was that of a wellnourished person in a fair state of preservation.
Mr Haggitt: I suppose that if a blow from that whip, either the handle or the lash, would cause concussion of the brain, it would also cause insensibility? — Witness: It is the same thing. Would a person in a state of insensibility produced by concussion of the brain appear to be dead? — He might.
Not to a medical man, I mean, but to an ordinary person. Yes, to an ordinary person.
And while in that state could bags be put upon that person in the way you have heard they were put on in this case? — Yes. His Honor: The insensibility would be so complete that the person could be handled without being aware of it. That is what you mean? Witness: Yes; anything might be done to such a person without his being aware of it. Mr Haggitt: Supposing a bag were put round the head of a person who was alive but insensible, and tied tightly round the neck, what would be the probable effect? Witness: That the person would be suffocated.
Mr Solomon: You tell us, doctor, that the wounds on this body were only two; those were the only marks of violence. Witness: There was the discoloration. Which was probably post mortem? — Yes. The wound on the right temple, which was accompanied by an indentation of the skull, was, in your opinion, caused after death? — I think it was. —
There was no discoloration at all, and that is a strong indication that it was caused after death? — Yes.
It consisted of a number of indentations or punctures? — It was star-shaped; there were limbs to it.
And, as you put it at Lawrence, it was probably caused by bumping on the rocks? — Yes.
So that the only wound which might have caused death was the wound on the left temple? — Yes.
You have said that that wound went down to the bone. That sounds serious. But it is a fact, is it not, that there is a very small quantity of skin and flesh on the bone there? — Yes.
This body, we know, in all probability was in the water for several months; in some water. Is it not a fact that the immersion for those months would to a large extent alter the appearance and character of the wound? — Yes; it might.
So that the wound as you saw it gave very little indication of what it was before the body went into the water, if it was inflicted before it went into the water? — That is so.
You cannot tell what it was like at that time? — No.
Dr Sutherland has told us that the action of the water would be to fray away the flesh near the wound. Is that so? — It might or it might not.
And he told us that, assuming a wound was inflicted before a body went Into the water, it is not certain that there was any open wound at all before it went into the water? — It is quite possible.
Do you agree with Dr Sutherland that a very slight blow, assuming it was inflicted during life, coupled with the action of the water, might have produced the wound on the left temple? — Yes.
A wound being inflicted by the butt end of the whip, or even the lash, might have produced concussion of the brain? — Yes.
A very slight thing may produce concussion of the brain? — Not a very slight thing.
Well, it is a fact, is it not, that if a man falls a little distance even on to his feet, that may cause it? —Yes.
I ask you was the wound you found sufficient to cause concussion of the brain? — Yes.
Do you think yourself that it would? — That it would or that it did?
That it did? (After a pause:) I beg pardon. I think it might have caused concussion of the brain.
Do you think that the wound you saw would produce death by concussion of the brain? Do you think it would? Is it probable? — It is quite possible.
I do not ask that. — It is probable, too.
His Honor: Concussion of the brain is one thing and death another.
Witness: It is probable that the wound would cause death.
Mr Solomon: Do you say that seriously, Dr Niool — that probably the wound on the left temple would cause death? Witness: Yes.
Do you believe it did? Do you believe that this woman was killed by that blow on the head? — I cannot say.
Have you not already sworn that you did not believe it? — No.
Is this statement in your evidence correct? — "Mr Solomon (to witness): Then I think we may take it for granted that you, as a professional man, do not believe that this woman was killed by an instrument and then thrown into the water,” and that you answered “No.” Did you say that? — That she was not killed directly by an instrument?
Did you say this; That you did not believe that this woman was killed by an instrument and then put into the water? — I did not say that.
Mr Haggitt: It is not in the depositions.
Witness: It was in the newspapers, but it was not correct.
Mr Solomon: Is this correct? Do you remember me asking you this: “You still say, doctor, you do not believe she was killed by a blow on the head?” To which you replied: “I do not think she was.”
Witness: I still say I do not.
Mr Solomon: That is all I want. Now there is another thing. You know by your reading, do you not, that there are many cases of persons being drowned, with their hands and feet tied up, under circumstances that clearly point to suicide?
Witness: Yes.
It is suggested by my friend that the body may have been placed in Back Creek, a creek with a stony bottom and with large holes in it, and remained in that creek for several months, and then was washed during flood time from there, a distance of thirteen or fourteen miles, to where it was found after having been immersed for three or four months. Do you think, if that were the case, that you would have found the body in such an advanced state of decomposition as you found it in? — I do not say it was in an advanced state of decomposition. I spoke of organs being decomposed.
Well, as you found it? Would you find it as free from bruises as you found it? — I could not say. I do not know the locality.
I tell you the locality. Assume what I have said, a creek with a rough stony bottom, and the body carried thirteen or fourteen miles? — I could not say after the body had been in the water three or four months.
Is it not reasonable that the body would have been very much knocked about under those circumstances? — Yes.
And it was not very much knocked about? — No.
Mr Haggitt: But supposing a body covered with bags, as this body was, would not they protect it? Witness: Certainly they would.
A dead body like that, would it be so liable to show marks as a live body coming down the river under the same circumstances? — The only marks it would show would be if limbs were broken, or if there were any cuts. It would not show bruises. You stated in reply to Mr Solomon that, although you had not known from experience of such cases, you knew from reading of persons who in attempting to commit suicide had tied their hands. Did you ever know or hear of a person tying himself up in bags in the way this body has been described as having been tied? — No; I never heard of such a case.
No; there is something in addition to tying the hands in this case. You say you do not think that this woman was killed by a blow on the head? — No, I do not think she was.
Explain what you mean by that? — What I said was that the blow might have produced death, but I do not think it did.
What do you think? — Well, she may have been drowned or strangled or suffocated on top of it.
What do you mean by that? That the blow may have produced insensibility? — Yes.
And then? — She may have been drowned,
His Honor: The doctor cannot tell.
Mr Haggitt: But although you do not think that the blow produced death, you do think it would produce insensibility? Witness: I said that it could make a person unconscious. Insensibility is the same thing.
Of course no one living can say whether it did produce unconsciousness or not? — That is so.
It is only a matter of inference? — Yes.
Dr Sutherland was briefly examined. In the main he corroborated the testimony of Dr Nicol.
Hannah Bertha Clark, the next witness, said: I have known the prisoner since I was eleven or twelve, I knew him at that time by doing work for him. My mother washed for him. He lived in Walker street then. I never know his wife before seeing her at Rankleburn in February last. I do not know the exact time when his wife left. He came down at Christmas and told us she had left him. That was before January, 1895. He said she had gone to Christchurch to a convent.
Mr Solomon: She went to the Magdala Asylum in Christchurch.
Witness: I went in January, 1895, to keep house for him. I do not know anything about the pieces of rope now shown me. I never saw it until after I went back to him the second time. His horse once bolted, and he got a small piece from Burt, a farmer at Pomahaka, and knotted the pieces together. My mother gave him a piece of rope, but that is the piece he used for driving his trap. The detectives know about that. I never saw Mrs Matson till she came up there on the 18th February. I had seen her in the Police Court, but did not speak to her. On the 18th February she got to Matson’s at half-past ten or eleven in the morning. She was walking. She had a small handbag; that’s all I mind she had with her. There was only me there when she arrived. She went into the house and spoke to me. Matson came about twelve or one o’clock; I can’t say what time. He received her right enough, and said “ I’m glad to see you back again.” I knew beforehand that she was coming, by a letter from Mr Solomon to Matson. I read the letter to him.
Mr Solomon: I arranged with the woman to go.
Witness: I don’t mind exactly the words, but I know Mr Solomon said she was coming on the 14th February. When I read it he said he was glad his missis was coining home he would not have to keep a housekeeper then. He was glad to see his wife when she came back, but she was not glad to see him. They sat down and had lunch, and whilst they were having lunch I took my clothes to the tent and made a place for them. When I came in again they had finished lunch, and he was going to work again, and she said: “Is Miss Clark going to stay?” Matson said: “You can do what you like.” Mrs Matson said she would like me to stay. I said that I would not stay I would rather go home. She said: “If you go home I’ll not stay here any longer.” This was shortly after she arrived. On the same morning as she came, before Matson came home, she said to me: “Can you manage horses?” I said “A little.” She said: “Go down and get the horse, and harness it, and we will both go to Dunedin.” I said: “We will not find our way to Dunedin.” This was before Matson came in at all. She said “We’ll find it.” I said: “When we got to Dunedin the horse would bolt, and some accident would happen.” She wanted me to go to Dunedin with her. After they had lunch Matson went out to work, leaving us together again. After he had gone we did not get on very well. I was not good chums with her all the time. Matson came home between five and six. She was growling when he came in, and wanted money. At that time nothing was said about me being there. Nothing further took place until the evening. About half-past eight or nine I went to say “Good night” to them, and Mrs Matson refused to go to bed with her husband. I went out to stop in the tent. There was a stretcher there and bedclothes. I arranged the tent to sleep in. I said to Matson; “You are man and wife, and you should sleep together.” This was when Mrs Matson refused to go to bed. About ten minutes afterwards I heard someone whispering outside, and I said: “Who is about here at this time of night!" There was no answer. I went back to the house and knocked at the door. Matson said "Who’s there?” I said “It’s me.” He said “Wait a minute.” He then came to the door, and I told him that I had heard footsteps or horses moving about. Mrs Matson said: “Best not stay in there. Come in here and sleep on the sofa.” She was in bed at that time. I went into the hut and slept on the sofa. I brought the bedding in from outside, leaving the stretcher in the tent. It was an ordinary stretcher, with bagging over the top. It was there all the time I was there, and I believe it is there yet. There was a mattress on the stretcher. I made up a bed for myself on the sofa and slept there all night. Matson and his wife slept together in the bed in the other room. They got up about six o’clock the next morning. I was was up first. Mrs Matson had only a small handbag or a shawl with her. She left her box behind. Mrs Matson was grumbling and growling. During the night I heard her say if he would give her £l5 or £l8 she would go home to Ireland. He told her he hadn’t fifteen or eighteen pence to his name just then. Mrs Matson told me that she left her box at Clinton, Matson said the next morning: “ I think I'll go and get her box.” She had not her hat box when she arrived. I heard about the hat box on the following Saturday. Next morning, as he was going in for her box, she turned round and said: “My box is not in Clinton” and then she said: “If you go in take me in instead of going for my box.” Matson said: “Now you have come you have got to stay and keep the home as you have done before.” She said: “I’ll not stay.” This was on Wednesday morning. Matson said: “I understood when Mr Solomon sent you up it was to stay.” She said no more, and he just said “All right.” He thought he would go in for her box then, and he went in for her box. I couldn’t say the time he started; it was somewhere about eight o’clock. I saw him again when he came home about five or six o’clock in the evening. He did not bring the box, because when he got as far as Mr Bain’s he had to go to Clydevale Station to press his skins. He left the horse and cart at Bain’s. He walked into the station and then walked home. We all three had tea together that night. After the dishes were washed up she started grumbling and growling and wanted money again. I arranged that night to go with Matson to Clinton the next day, as I would not stop there any longer. I arranged with both of them. He told me he had no money to pay me just then, wouldn’t I stop till the end of the week. I said “No.” Mrs Matson said “If you go away I’ll go.” They slept together again that night, and I slept on the sofa. Mrs Matson stayed in the house all night. Mrs Matson said she wanted to write to Mr Solomon that night. She told me she wanted to put a lot of lies in the letter. She said: “I’ll spite him in this; I’ll spite him in all things.” It was arranged that I should go to Clinton next day. I did not like the way the woman was carrying on. We started early next morning. I rode on horseback as far as Bain’s, where the dray was. We had two horses. I believe I saw Edward Grey that day. Matson said “Good day.” I heard what Grey said, but Matson never said the same words as that fellow Grey stated. I saw Mrs Matson before I left. She came outside the house. She told me the same as I said before: that she would not stay another day longer after I left. She wanted me to stay there. She was anxious that I should stop there. I got to Clinton that day about two or three o’clock. I stayed at Mrs Nelson’s boarding-house all night. Mrs Matson’s box was at Mrs Nelson’s. He took the box away with him. Matson inquired for a hat box, but I only saw a big box. He never got no more than just the big box. I know nothing about the big box. He just got the box and went away again, I never saw Mrs Matson again after that. I next saw Matson on Saturday morning at Clinton. I think it was between one and two. He brought the cart in. My box was in it. I asked him how Mrs Matson was getting on. He said she wanted him to leave my box behind and take her to Clinton. He brought my box into Clinton, but never brought her. He said: “I hope we’ll live happy and comfortable after this.” I said: “I hope you do, Charlie.” I told him to give her my best respects, and bid her good-bye again for me. He told me he parted from her — I fancy he said that at the house — good friends with her. That was all he told me. He stayed with me until the train left. He saw me off by the train so as to give the horse a spell. I never heard of him till he sent me a letter.
Mr Haggitt: Is this the letter?
Mr Solomon: Is that in accused’s handwriting? Witness: No, it is in Bain’s. Matson cannot write.
Mr Solomon (after reading the letter): I do not object. The letter having been shown to witness, she said: I saw him the day after I got the letter. I think it was the 14th. He asked me to go up and keep house the same as I did before.
The Registrar here read the following letter: —
Clydevale Station, March 10,1896.
Miss Clark. I send you this few lines. I expect you will have seen by the papers the state I have been in. I would like if you would come up and keep house for me as before, if your father and mother has no objections, and let me know by Friday’s mail if you could come up by Saturday morning’s train to the Waiwera, and Charlie will be there to meet you. Charles Matson.
The witness: I went back as housekeeper with him. I did not go to live with him. I went to live in his house as housekeeper. He told me his wife had gone away from him. He thought she had gone to Invercargill, and from Invercargill to Melbourne. He said he would expect her back some of these days again. My stepfather was present when he said this. I left town by Monday afternoon’s train to go back with him. It was the 16th. I went by way of Waiwera. It was late when I got to Waiwera. We did not stop at Waiwera, we went on. We had one horse between us. We called at Mr Johnston’s place. Matson knocked him up. Johnston gave us something to eat, and we started long before daylight. I could not say what time we got home — it was in the forenoon. There are no clocks up there to tell the time.
Mr Solomon did not cross-examine the witness.
Detective McGrath said he examined the Back Creek on August 5. It was high at the time, and there were several deep holes in it. The water which came out of Burt’s Gully was dark, and discolored the creek. There were several places where scrub and bushes extended over the creek and covered it up. There were signs on the banks to show that there had been 14ft of water at its highest on the previous flood. The creek had evidently risen five or six feet with the flood, and what was generally a big ditch must have been a river. In some places the shallow water was 30ft broad when witness was there. It was about 260 yards from Matson’s hut to the nearest point of the creek. He gave evidence as to the number of holes to be found in the creek, which varied from 10ft to 30ft in width and 4ft to 10ft in depth.
Constable Broberg gave evidence that on May 9 he went to the prisoner’s house in company with Constable Pascoe. He described the hut and its contents, and said he had a conversation with prisoner and the girl Clark. Matson told witness that he thought his wife had gone to Melbourne via Invercargill. Prisoner also said that his wife had friends in Invercargill. Clark described to witness the arrival of Mrs Matson at the hut and what happened when Matson drove her into Clinton. Prisoner said he had been looking in the river for his wife since her disappearance. He had been three times to the river to look for her. He always went on a Sunday because he could not afford to go on working days. He described to witness the various searches he bad made for his wife in the Pomahaka River. Prisoner said he had not bothered to look for his wife since the girl Clark had returned to the hut. Prisoner said that when he was leaving the hut with Clark’s box deceased came running but with a tin box in one hand and a bundle in the other. She screamed out that she wanted to be taken away. When deceased overtook prisoner she was very excited, and prisoner admitted having given her two or three cuts with the whip. When deceased was struck she screamed out “Murder!” Prisoner said he hit deceased pretty hard with the whip. When struck with the whip deceased was in a great rage, and laid down on the ground. Prisoner said when his wife screamed her screams could have been heard in the next paddock, and when he last saw her she was rolling and kicking on the ground. That was the last he saw of his wife. Witness had previously asked prisoner if, when they lived together before, his wife knew how much money he (the prisoner) had saved. The prisoner said his wife knew how much money he had. It was never more than £4 or £5.
To Mr Solomon: Witness understood Matson to mean it was the lash of the whip he used. Matson said that when be hit her she was in a rage, and laid down. He was very frank in answering the questions that witness put to him.
Constable Pascoe, at present stationed at Methven but formerly at Clinton, was called and tendered for cross-examination.
Mr Solomon had no questions to ask.
The case for the Crown closed at 2.45 p.m.
Mr Solomon said he did not propose to call evidence. He would have been prepared to ask His Honor to say at once that there was no evidence of murder; but the indictment covered that charge, and perhaps the better way would be for him to ask His Honor to direct the jury to that effect later on.
His Honor: Very well.
Mr Solomon said he would have to detain the jury at some length in order to consider the evidence and the deductions that could be drawn from it. He would demand from them their closest attention, and he thought the awful seriousness of the crime with which the prisoner was charged was sufficient excuse. The charge was the most serious one that could be laid of a judicial character. He would not be putting it too strongly if he said the fearful seriousness of the matter demanded their closest consideration. They bad placed in their hands the most solemn charge that the law of the land could entrust to them — viz, the life of a fellow-creature. They had a very difficult task to perform. They had to take out of their minds all they had read and heard about the case, and, most difficult of all, to take out of their minds every thought they had about the case until they went into the jury box yesterday. Considering the careful way they had attended to the evidence, he considered they would do so. Everyone knew, and it was common sense, that in a small place a case like the one before them was a welcome subject of conversation amongst friends and acquaintances. One was apt to say “That man’s guilty, right enough,” or “There is no case against that man.” It was the duty of the jury to put everything out of their minds that they had heard before going into the court. He could not too strongly impress them with the necessity of not coming to a conclusion on what they suspected or thought, but to a conclusion that must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. After they had heard the evidence, his own speech, and His Honor’s, unless they were convinced beyond all doubt that the prisoner had committed murder or manslaughter, it was their duty to return a verdict of “not guilty.” They had no right to suspect or think, but by their solemn oath they were bound to listen to the evidence and give a verdict accordingly. On the other side, they were equally bound to listen to the same evidence, and, if necessary, do their duty and vindicate law and justice. Under English law it had always been held that a man was innocent until he had been proved guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. It was safe and better to let ten guilty men escape than let one innocent man suffer. He had felt it necessary to make these preliminary remarks because of the seriousness of the case, the penalty for which was death, and that was irrevocable. There was only one matter that the jury had to look at —namely, was it proved that he was guilty of murder or manslaughter? In opening the case, the Crown Prosecutor had asked the jury to consider whether this woman met her death by suicide or by the hands of the prisoner. That was not the position. It was not for the jury to find how this woman came by her death. The only question they had to decide was whether the Crown had proved the prisoner guilty. The burden of proof was on the Crown, and the jury were entitled to do this — to say to the Crown: “Instead of saying she might have died in this way or that way, it is for you to prove which way she did die, and you have not; therefore, whatever we may suspect or think, we are no further forward in the matter, and as you say the woman died either by her own hand or by the hand of the prisoner, there is no proof that he did it, and therefore we acquit him,” A verdict of “Not guilty” did not mean that a jury found that the person accused did not commit the crime charged; it meant that he was not proved to be the offender. Murder was defined by the law of New Zealand to be one of two things — first, where a person meant to cause the death of the person killed; secondly, where a person meant to cause the person killed any bodily injury which was known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and was reckless whether death ensued or not. In this case there was not one tittle of evidence, direct, circumstantial, or otherwise, suggesting such an offence as was thus stated in section 163 of the Code. How did the Crown propose to prove murder? There was no direct evidence at all. The Crown proposed to prove it by circumstantial evidence and by the conduct and the statements of the prisoner, both before and after the death of his wife. Circumstantial evidence was perfectly proper, but it must be very carefully considered. It would be unfair and mean of him (Mr Solomon) if he did not here say that nothing could be more fair and honorable than the way in which the witnesses and the police had given their evidence. The evidence and demeanor of Detective Herbert and Constable Broberg was a pattern to all witnesses. Still, there was the danger of relying on circumstantial evidence. What did the Crown say that this man did to his wife? They undertook to prove that he did her deadly injury. Did his learned friend seriously contend for murder because Matson hit his wife with the whip that did not weigh a pound, and only, so far as was proved, with the lash of it? Apparently that was not contended for, because the Crown Prosecutor immediately tapered off to manslaughter, and this morning the suggestion was that Matson put her in the bags after injuring her. Where was there a scrap of evidence that Matson drowned her? It was not for the jury to say it was improbable that anyone else did it. It must be proved that Matson did it. As to the striking of the woman with the whip, there was a complete answer to the present charge in the medical evidence. The doctors said that the wound might have been caused by the lash of the whip, by a very slight blow during life, but the doctors did not believe it caused death. The law required that the evidence, in order to sustain the charge, must not only be consistent with the guilt of the person accused, but also inconsistent with his innocence; yet here the Crown’s own witnesses said they did not believe the woman was killed with the whip. On the other aspect of the case, that she was drowned, there was not a shred of evidence. Had the Crown eliminated all possibility of suicide? Not one of the Crown’s twentyfive witnesses had even been questioned as to this. He (Mr Solomon) did not say that the woman committed suicide, but it was for the Crown to prove that she did not. The Crown admitted that she was a miserable woman, and had spoken to two or three persons of suicide, and it was admitted by the doctors that there were numerous cases known in which persons had made away With themselves by fastening themselves up, hands and feet. Also the knots were ordinary and simple; just such as a woman could tie. He (Mr Solomon) would also direct the jury’s attention to this consideration. If the prisoner or any other person had put the body in the river they would have put it there with the object of concealing it. There was no evidence that any weights had been put in the sacks. There was no room for weights at the head, and only eight inches at the bottom. They had the fact that the two sacks together were 7ft 4in. in length, and would far more than double over one another on the body. Yet they were asked to believe that the prisoner left two ends flapping, and did not fasten them together. Supposing the woman had committed suicide, she would not have been able to fasten the sacks round the middle, and that was why they were left open. There was no occasion for her to put them together, as she could have put on the sacks and tied them on whilst sitting on the edge of the river. It had been proved that the body would not sink, but there was nothing to hinder it having been caught by a snag and afterwards released by the flood. There was evidence before them that the woman was an unhappy one, and likely to commit suicide. He asked them whether it was reasonable for the Crown to exclude the question of suicide. Dr Nicol had told them that there were numerous cases on record where bodies had been found with the arms and legs tied together and under such circumstances that death must have resulted from suicide. The only witness who was called to state that the death might have been caused by the whip was the doctor, who evidently did not believe that it was the cause. The whole of the evidence was circumstantial, and had to be weighed with the greatest care. The Crown had put in the bit of rope as evidence against the accused. Their witness had stated that the rope was a bit of common rope, such as was to be found in every farmyard. And even if it was admitted that it was a bit of Matson’s rope he did not see that it advanced the case against the prisoner. If the woman had committed suicide she would have used a piece of Matson’s rope. If Matson killed her he would have used the same rope, and if a third person had murdered her he would have probably used a piece of the same rope. It was not as if the rope had been found some distance away and then identified as a piece of Matson’s rope, because then it might have been said that Matson took it there; but in any of the three assumptions he had named it was quite likely that a piece of Matson’s rope would be used. The Crown had laid great stress upon the various statements made by the prisoner. He would ask the jury to consider if, instead of showing guilt, the prisoners conduct throughout was strong evidence of his innocence. All the man had done both before and after his wife’s death had been done openly, and the police evidence showed that throughout the man had no secrets, but was quite frank. It was patent to everyone that he had trouble with his wife, and it was not the secrets that he had spoken to private friends that were brought as evidence against him, but it was the remarks he made to casual acquaintances. Mr Solomon then proceeded to review the evidence given by Bain, and he said that the use of the bad language was not so much a proof of evil as of a custom which, unfortunately, was very common in the country. Duthie’s was the only evidence of any threat, and he submitted that did not amount to much. This witness had also stated that the prisoner had threatened to cut his own throat, but that surely could not be used as evidence of his having committed murder or manslaughter. It was also in evidence that the prisoner said he “would not be humbugged with the old woman any more”; but this, taken in conjunction with other statements showed that be intended in future to be master in his own house. Further than that, the jury had been asked to believe that there was something sinister about the prisoner’s remark “She won’t be there long.” But this also, read with extracts from other conversations, clearly meant that the prisoner did not think his wife would stop long at the hut with him. He contended that throughout the man had not shown any cunning; in fact, it was rather suggested that the man was a fool, and his conversation with Grey clearly showed that he expected his wife would be back again. Mr Haggitt had also tried to make out there was a motive in the man not going to his house on Saturday, but he (Mr Solomon) could not see that was anything strange in that. He contended that the prisoner’s conversations with Detective Hubert and Constable Latimer — and it was not suggested that he knew they were policemen — were distinctly a sign of the prisoner’s innocence. When the prisoner went to his hut and saw the fire alight the first thing he said was: “Hullo, when I saw the fire I thought the old woman was back.” Again, the evidence regarding the blanket, which it was admitted could not have been wrapped up by accused for the purpose, was another strong point in his favor. After criticising Johnson’s evidence, counsel said out of every statement made by the prisoner, whether before, at the time, or after the death, not one was an indication of accused’s guilt, but all were in favor of his innocence. He then said the jury had to consider the question of manslaughter, as it was never seriously contended that there was any evidence of murder. The Crown had said there was an escape for the prisoner by the jury finding that he had killed his wife without intending to do so. He would ask the jury not to compromise justice in the way suggested; and, further, he contended there was no evidence even of manslaughter. It was not for the jury to compromise with justice. The remarks he had made to them about murder applied with equal force to manslaughter. His learned friend to succeed with a verdict of manslaughter must prove that the man struck the woman over the head with the whip and killed her, although he did not intend to do so. There was no evidence that she was killed by the whip; the prisoner’s own admission was not so, and the doctors’ evidence was not so. They could not go behind the doctors’ evidence. The closing remarks of Mr Solomon’s address, which lasted for an hour and a-quarter, were as follows: — Gentlemen, I have endeavored to put before you as clearly as I can the issues you have to decide, and in conclusion I would only repeat to you what I said in my opening. You have before you the most serious charge that it is possible for man to decide. If you decide that charge on anything but the grounds upon which you are bound to decide it, if you decide it upon anything but clear and distinct evidence, if you decide it upon suspicion or on what you think about the matter, gentlemen, you yourselves would be guilty of a most serious crime. You have a solemn duty to perform, and have to perform that duty irrespective of what yon suspect, and be guided entirely by the evidence that is laid before you. Gentlemen, that you will do your duty I have not the slightest doubt. You have given the case, I am sure, the most careful consideration, and will continue to do so until you give your verdict. If I could think, gentlemen, that I have done my duty to the prisoner as faithfully and as honestly as you have done yours I would sit down more satisfied with myself than I do now.
His Honor summed up and the jury retired at 4.55 p.m. -Evening Star, 4/9/1896.
The trial of Carl Matson, charged with the murder of Mary, Matson his wife, was concluded to-day. The jury retired at 5 p.m. and at 6 p.m. returned with a verdict of manslaughter. Judge Williams deferred passing sentence till the morning. -West Coast Times, 5/9/1896.
DUNEDIN LETTER.
[Own Correspondent.]
THE MATSON TRIAL.
The sentence passed upon Carl Matson for the murder of his wife is looked upon as one of the most lenient which Judge Williams has pronounced in recent years. Even accepting the view of the jury that the crime was only that of manslaughter, the sentence seems somewhat inadequate, remembering the frightful brutality exhibited not only in the act, but also in the subsequent disposal of the body. The life of a woman is decidedly lightly held At a purchase of twelve years penal servitude with hard labor. The story of Matson, as to striking his wife with a whip, from which her death is supposed to result is so ludicrous, that it is hard to understand how a jury would give any weight at all to the statement. Of course the evidence was of necessity largely circumstantial, but many a man has been hanged on much weaker testimony. The theory also advanced, which sought to prove that the woman had committed suicide, was of such a sort as could only be regarded as the argument of a desperate case. The "Timaru Herald" expresses its disgust with what it holds to be the unwarrantable finding of the jury, in an article from which I quote the following: —
"If Matson had killed the woman by accident, his proper course would have been to give himself up at once and make a clean breast of it, but it is rather too much, after the discovery of the body, disposed of in the shocking way related, to accept just so much of Matson's story as tended to clear him, at all events of the graver crime, arid to attach so weight to all the damning circumstances which pointed to him as an atrocious murderer."
There is a growing tendency with juries, and perhaps not unnaturally, to avoid the bringing in of "guilty" verdicts in capital charges, but if human life is to remain sacred in our colonies it can only be by the infliction of the utmost penalty of the law in all cases where the evidence clearly points to murder having been committed. Had Matson discovered that the blow from his whip was unwittingly the cause of his wife's death, I think his conduct would have been very different from what it was. His subsequent action seemed to be that of one who carried out to the end the ghastly task he had undertaken. Our faith in Judge Williams' clear sightedness and justice is unbounded, but we do think that in the case under review he has erred grievously on the side of leniency, even if the duration of the sentence be alone considered. -Tuapeka Times, 16/9/1896.
In 1900 an assault at Taiaroa Head was reported on. It took place between prisoners doing hard labour on the fortifications there. Carl Matson gave evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment