A DUNEDIN MYSTERY.
(PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) DUNEDIN, June 4.
The death of a man named Robert Brockies, an engineer by occupation, was enquired into by the coroner and a jury yesterday afternoon. Brockies went into a right-of-way off George-street on the evening of the 7th May, and when he left he was the bearer of wounds about his head which brought on brain fever, causing his death. On Saturday morning, when his condition became serious, a statement which he made was taken down by the Clerk of the Court before Justices of the Peace, but as on this and a subsequent occasion the man was hopeful of recovery, the statements are not admissible. The inquest was adjourned till Monday. The accounts as to the manner in which Brockies received the injuries are conflicting. One is to the effect that he came to blows with a man regarding the merits of a dog, and that in the struggle he was wounded by a broken bottle. Another account is that the man twice fell heavily and received the wounds. The police refuse to say what is contained in the statements. -Hawera and Normanby Star, 12/6/1894.
INQUEST.
THE “WANTED” MAN SURRENDERS.
The inquest on the body of Robert Brockie, engine-driver, who died in the hospital on Saturday morning, was resumed this afternoon at the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr E. H. Carew, coroner, and a jury of six (Mr W. Angell, foreman). Inspector Pardy appeared on behalf of the police, and Mr A. S. Adams for the friends of the deceased.
Inspector Pardy said that Edward King, who was said to have been concerned in the row in which the man was injured, had surrendered himself to the police. When the case assumed a serious phase in the hospital a warrant was issued for his apprehension, hut the police had not been able to find him. He had now come forward, however, and was in the court.
Mr Hanlon, who appeared for King, said that his client, on seeing the report in the papers that Brockie had died from the result of injuries received in a row, had come to Dunedin and consulted him with regard to his position. After a consultation he (Mr Hanlon) advised him to attend at the inquest, and on reaching the court to-day he found that there was a warrant out for King’s arrest.
The Coroner said he knew nothing of that. Mr Hanlon had been informed that the warrant was out, and he now wished to state that King was in attendance, and he (learned counsel) intended, with the coroner’s permission, to watch the proceedings on his behalf. The Coroner expressed no objection, and the taking of further evidence was then proceeded with.
Dr Lindo Ferguson, ophthalmic surgeon to the Dunedin Hospital, deposed that he was asked to go to the hospital on the 8th May, the day after the injury to the deceased. When he got there he found that the deceased’s eye was very seriously damaged and would have to be removed. The eye had been cut open by some sharp substance, and the wound was in the most dangerous position so far as causing sympathetic inflammation in the other eye. The wound was of an exceedingly dangerous nature so far as the eye itself was concerned, and so far as the prospects of the other eye were concerned. Although he went down to operate he did not do so, because the man's general state was not satisfactory. The man was not sober, and he was in a very excited state. There were surface wounds on the man’s face which were looking angry, and he was not at all sure that the deceased was not going to have erysipelas as a result of his injuries; so that he postponed the operation for the removal of the eye. Witness subsequently saw the man and removed his eye on the 18th ult. Prior to this there was a good deal of inflammation about the lids of the eye, but no suppuration was taking place then, nor had there been any. After the operation there was nothing unusual to attract attention. On the 20th Dr Ross rang him up at about a quarter to seven in the evening to say that Brockie was in pain, and that his temperature was rising. Witness was at the hospital at seven o’clock and found him complaining of headache, and Dr Ross reported that when the eye was dressed at two o’clock there was no pain at all, and that symptoms of pain had set in suddenly between two and four. When witness saw him at seven there was a little discharge and a little swelling about the lids, but the discharge and swelling were not such as to justify one in saying that the case was not following the ordinary course, if it had not been for the rising temperature and headache. In perfectly normal cases more discharge than deceased had was frequently seen, but in view of the fact that his surface wounds had looked so unhealthy, witness took special precautions that there should be thorough disinfection of the socket; and the cleansing of the socket was repeated frequently afterwards. On the 21st deceased was better, but by the 25th he was showing signs of inflammation of the brain. Witness formed a very bad opinion of the case then, and he thought it was on that day or the next he asked Dr Colquhoun to see the deceased. Dr Colquhoun agreed with him about the man’s condition, and on the 30th Dr Brown and Dr Colquhoun saw the case with him with reference to the question of treatment. It ran the usual course in a case of inflammation of the brain, and the man gradually sank and died. Witness last saw the man in the hospital on Wednesday, and in his opinion Brockie was then dying, and had been dying for some time before that, the cause being inflammation of the brain. Witness thought it would be impossible to say whether the absorption, which brought on the inflammation, took place through the original orbit of the wound or through the recent operation wound. The shortest track would he through the orbit. When he said it would be impossible to form an opinion as to which wound was the medium of septic contagion, he might say that septic contagion varied very much in the time in which it manifested itself. Although the symptoms took place after the operation it was impossible to say that they may not have been the result of the prior injury, he should say, however, that the absorption took place through either one wound or the other. He would like to add that, owing to the unhealthy state of the man’s surface wounds, special precautions were taken in the operation to ensure as far as possible the healthy healing of the operation wound. He might say, too, that after the 23rd the wound healed up healthily, and he understood Dr Roberts found nothing wrong with the wound at the post mortem. That would still leave some doubt, then, as to the origin of the infection.
To Inspector Tardy: If the man had had liquor after he received the wounds his recovery from them would he prejudiced. One would not expect a man to die from cuts about the face unless there was septic absorption. The injury to the eye might have been caused by falling on a piece of glass. He paid no particular attention to the other wounds, as they had been sewn up when witness saw them.
To Mr Adams: When witness saw Brockie first there was nothing to indicate that he was under the influence of anything but liquor; there was no indication of his being drugged. If he had taken liquor with some deleterious drug in it there was nothing in his condition, when witness first saw him, to point to that fact. The man was not in the condition of coma that one would expect from a man deeply narcotised by a drug.
Dr Ross, junior house surgeon in the Dunedin Hospital, deposed that Brochie was admitted to the hospital, in company with a young man, about ten o'clock on the night of Monday, May 7. Witness attended to him. He had wounds about the face. One was over the left eye, another was on the right side of his nose, and a third was on the check, under the right eye. He made no complaint about his eye. At the time he was taken to the hospital he was very drunk. Witness attended to the wounds he mentioned, but he did not notice the wound in the eye. He looked at the eye, but as the man was tossing about very much he could discern nothing wrong with it. After having the wounds dressed Brockie went away, accompanied by a friend, and returned next morning about ten o’clock, when he was in a confused state. Witness would not say the man was sober, but he was not very drunk. Witness again examined the man, and he found the wound in the eye a very serious injury, which he dressed. He rang up Dr Ferguson about it, and in the afternoon Dr Ferguson came down. On the afternoon of the 18th May the eye was removed. The inquest was proceeding at 4.30. -Evening Star, 11/6/1894.
THE INQUEST ON BROCKIE.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — I notice in your report of the inquest on the body of Robert Brockie, whose death was brought about by wounds that he received in a fight in Lethaby’s right-of-way, George street, your reporter describes Lethaby’s right-of-way as being near the British Hotel; but as a description of the locality this is very inaccurate. As a matter of fact, the place in question is almost in the centre of the block, nearly five chains away from the British Hotel, and very much nearer another licensed house than it is to my hotel, and at about an equal distance from mine and two other hotels at the other corner of the block. People are very apt, in reading reports of such occurrences as the above, to jump to conclusions that any hotel mentioned is in some way responsible for it, when, as is very often the case, there is no connection whatever between the two. By inserting this letter you will oblige.
— I am, etc., D. M. Campbell, British Hotel, George street. Dunedin, June 11.
On inquiry we find that Lethaby’s right-of-way is almost equi-distant from the British Hotel and the Robert Burns Hotel. — Ed. E.S.] -Ecening Star, 11/6/1894.
INQUEST.
NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE CAUSE OF DEATH.
After we went to press last night the following evidence was taken by Mr Coroner Carew at the inquest on the body of Robert Brockie, who died in the hospital on Saturday morning: —
Dr Ferguson (recalled) stated that the wound to the deceased's eye was just such a wound as might have been produced by a three-quarter-inch chisel. His impression was that the wounds to the face were done with a glass bottle, which broke. It was possible for the deceased to have got some of the injuries by falling on the stump of a bottle, and then to have received the other injuries by altering his position after he had fallen.
Dr Roberts deposed that he made a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased on Sunday morning. His opinion was that the cause of death was septic meningitis.
John Bruce, carter, residing at Dunedin, deposed that he met deceased on the night of the 7th of May. He had known him for seven years. It was about a quarter-past ten when he met him. Deceased's face was then bleeding. Witness asked him several times how it was done, but he refused to tell him. He, however, said he knew the man who did it. Witness took deceased to the hospital, and he was attended to by Dr Ross. Deceased was about an hour in the hospital, after which witness took him home. On the way home witness again asked him who injured him, but he again refused to tell him. Deceased had been drinking, but witness could not say that he was drunk. He made no complaint about his eye. He asked witness to tell his wife that the injuries were received in Hudson's flour mill, where he was working, but witness declined to do so.
Catherine Scott, a widow, residing in Lethaby's right-of-way, deposed that she remembered hearing of a row at her house the morning after it took place. Witness left home about seven o'clock in the evening, and did not return till about half-past ten — just before the constable came up. Next morning witness saw some blood in the yard on the asphalt steps, and just above it. She did not know anything about the blood being there till the policeman came in the morning between seven and half-past seven. Mrs Newey had been stopping with witness, but she was out on the night of the row. She did not know Brockie, and had never seen him before she saw him at the hospital. She went to the hospital every day to inquire how he was. Just about the step witness spoke of there were two pieces of rock sticking up in the yard. That was where the blood was. She pointed out the blood to Detective McGrath. To the jury: The yard was a great place for broken bottles. There were also pieces outside the back door built in the bricks of the fence. The broken glass was over where the rocks were. The floor of the yard was concrete.
Constable Rodgers deposed that on the morning of the 8th of May last he went to the house of the last witness, accompanied by James Brockie, the son of the deceased. He traced blood on the footpath in George street from the entrance to the right-of-way to the back door of the house of Mrs Scott. There were traces of a large quantity of blood at the back door. He looked all around and saw no blood elsewhere. The blood was about 3ft from the back door of the house. It was all through the asphalt on soft ground. He looked for glass, but saw no glass about to account for a wound which would cause such a large quantity of blood. He did not notice any glass built into the wall such as the last witness described. Witness again went to the house about ten minutes past eight, with Constable Hastie. They went into a bedroom and saw a man, who gave the name of Keith. The man in question was now pointed out to witness as Edward King. The man was under the bed hiding. He was partly dressed, and had sox, trousers, and shirt on, but no boots. Witness asked him why he was under the bed, and he replied that he was afraid of the police. He also mentioned something about the women, but witness could not understand what he meant. Witness asked him if there had been any row there the night before, and he said that there had not been. Witness examined him to see if he had any bruises or cuts about him, or any indication of his having taken part in a row, and he found a patch of dry blood almost entirely covering the right palm of his hand. There was also a slight abrasion of the skin of the middle knuckle of the forefinger of the left hand.
Detective McGrath deposed that Mrs Scott pointed out a spot three or four feet from her door, and also a sink, where she said blood had been. There were some small pieces of glass close to the sink, and several broken bottles near the fence.
Frederick Newey, who was employed at the Phoenix Company's factory, and lived in Brown street, deposed that he was in Mrs Scott's house on the evening of the 7th of May last. Brockie got a bit quarrelsome, and he wanted to bet that his fowls were better than King's. King would not bet, and Brockie made a rush at him, saying: "You wanted to bet me before; now you won't. I will have my revenge out of you." Brockie then seized hold of King by the throat, and got him across the end of the sofa on his back. After scuffling for a bit they rolled off the sofa to the floor, King being underneath. They were swearing and cursing at each other all the time. Witness got hold of Brockie and pulled him on to his feet. He then got King on to his feet. They went to make a rush at one another again, and witness got between them. King was standing by the door in the corner of the room when Brockie rushed at him again. Witness caught hold of Brockie and pulled him away, and then sat King on the sofa. He was taking Brockie out of the back door, when King jumped up off the sofa and picked up a small tumbler off the table. Witness left Brockie by the door and rushed at King to stop him from throwing the glass. King was just going to throw it when witness caught hold of his arm, had a scuffle with him, and took the glass out of his hand. After doing this witness led Brockie out of the back door. Brockie fell just as he got off the step. Witness picked him up, and he fell again on to a sharp step. He was then facing away from the door. Where he fell the second time was about 8ft from the door. His face fell right on the step. Witness picked him up, and noticed that his face was covered with blood. Witness noticed a broken bottle just by the step where Brockie fell the second time. He picked up the bottle and threw it away. There was blood on the bottle. He had told the whole truth — everything. To the jury: The bottle was a porter bottle. There were some other bottles about the yard on the earth, but witness noticed none near the asphalt.
Charles Scott, a lad fourteen years of age, who lived with his mother in Lethaby's right-of-way, gave evidence mainly corroborative to that given by Newey up to the time the latter said he took Brockie out of the house. He then went into his bedroom, when he heard Brockie fall outside. He immediately returned to the kitchen, and King was sitting on the sofa in the kitchen.
Inspector Pardy intimated that that was all the evidence. The deceased had made two or three different statements. Every effort was made to try and get a declaration from him with regard to the matter but, believing that he was going to live, they were unable to do so, and at last he collapsed suddenly and became unconscious. Detective Henderson had been watching day and night with the object of getting a declaration from him if the opportunity offered. King was present, but he (the inspector) did not know whether he desired to give evidence.
Mr Hanlon: I had intended that he should tender himself to give evidence at this inquest, but after discovering that there was a charge formulated against him I did not think it would be prudent for him to give evidence at this stage.
Inspector Pardy said whether the police proceeded with the information laid against King depended on the decision of the coroner's jury.
At twenty minutes to eight the jury retired, and after deliberating for about five minutes they returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased's death was caused by injuries received at Mrs Scott's premises, but that there was not sufficient evidence to show how or by whom they were caused. -Evening Star, 12/6/1894.
THE COURTS-TO-DAY.
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before Messrs G. M. Thomson and J. Carroll, J.P.s.)
Drunkenness. — A first offender was convicted and discharged.
Unlawfully Wounding. — Edward King was charged with unlawfully wounding Robert Brockie at Dunedin on the 7th of last month. — Inspector Pardie said an inquest was held on the deceased Brockie yesterday, and there was no evidence whatever to implicate the accused or to show that he caused the wounds that resulted in death. I would therefore ask for permission to withdraw the charge. The evidence at the inquest went to show that the dead man was the aggressor, and there is nothing to show that the accused inflicted the wounds. — Mr Thomson: The accused is discharged. -Evening Star, 12/6/1894.
DUNEDIN GOSSIP
The death of Robert Brockie, an engineer, from blood poisoning supervening on injuries received in or after a scuffle, has rather exercised the public mind. The locality where it occurred is just a few yards from the main thoroughfare, and though it has not hitherto attained notoriety through the police court, some of the residents are known to be of an undesirable class. The case as shown by the evidence was briefly this: Brockie went to a house in the right-of-way to see a man named King about some fowls. They had some beer, and Brockie, becoming quarrelsome, attacked King. They were separated, and Brockie was taken outside. Here he fell but sustained no injury. But he fell a second time, on, it is said, a broken bottle, and besides being badly cut, received an injury to his eye which rendered its removal necessary. He contracted blood poisoning and eventually died. His depositions were taken, but, as he entertained hopes of recovery, these were useless. Besides he did not keep to the one story. Meantime King had left town, but on hearing that he was being sought for in connection with the occurrence, he returned and made his presence known to the police. The coroner’s jury found that there was not sufficient evidence to show how Brockie came by his injuries, and, the evidence there was, went to show that King had nothing to do with the man when he was injured, and that in the quarrel between them Brockie was the aggressor, he was discharged from custody. -Cromwell Argus, 19/6/1894.
The Cromwell Argus' statement that Lethaby's "has not hitherto attained notoriety through the police court" was true. But its notoriety increased significantly a few years later. In 1898 one of the four houses was the scene of a gruesome murder, when a Mr Clements opened his wife's throat with a tomahawk and attempted to do so to himself. He survived to be hanged. He never explained his reasons for his act.
No comments:
Post a Comment