SUSPICIOUS DEATH AT DUNEDIN.
[UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Dunedin, This Day.
The circumstances connected with the death of the woman Lockhart, living off Walker-street, are of such a suspicious character as to lead the police to take charge of the house in which she died.
From the statements of the neighbors, it appears that on Thursday night Lockhart was struck, how or with what has not yet transpired. The only other occupant of the house, the youngest son, a lad of about 11 years, refuses to give any account of what took place, the only statement that can be got from him being that his mother fell just outside the door and then hurt herself. The eldest son, 20 years, states that on Thursday night he was living in town. He had left his father's house some time before. That evening he heard something had happened to his mother, and that she was badly hurt. He went home to see what was the matter, and found her lying on the floor unable to speak. He watched her until early on Friday morning, when, finding that she got no better, he went for Dr. Brown. She died without returning to consciousness on Friday night.
On Saturday afternoon three doctors made a post mortem examination. They state that death has resulted from violence. The inquest is now proceeding. -Evening Post, 31/5/1880.
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)
Drunkenness
For this offence John Bailey, James Ritchie, and Philip Milligan were each fined 5s, with the usual alternative, Charles Lockhart was convicted and discharged on the application of Sergeant-Major Bevin, who wished the accused to appear at the inquest of the wife, who met her death under suspicious circumstances. -Evening Star, 31/5/1880.
CORONER'S INQUEST.
Yesterday, at the Rising Sun Hotel, Walker Street, an inquest was held before Mr Coroner Hocken and a jury of 12 (of whom Mr Lane was chosen foreman) on the body of Martha Lockhart, wife of Charles Lockhart, who died suddenly on Friday night. The husband was present throughout;
The Coroner, in opening the proceedings, referred briefly to the circumstances under which the death had taken place, and said it behoved the Jury to be careful that they returned a true verdict upon the evidence placed before them. It might happen that the case would prove to be one of manslaughter, so that it was requisite they should pay every attention. On the other land it was possible that death had resulted from natural causes. He had caused a postmortem examination to be made, so that medical evidence would be forthcoming. After the Jury had viewed the body, the following evidence was placed before them: —
John Lockhart said: I am 12 years old, and live in Cooper's right-of-way, Walker street. The deceased, Martha Lockhart, was my mother. On Thursday night last my mother was sitting alongside the fire, warming her feet. My father was in, and went outside. He came in again, and told my mother to clear out where she came from. My mother said, "No; I won't go out." After that my father said, " You'll have to go out," and he hit her over the face with his open hand; it was not with his fist. He hit her on the left side of her face. He was sitting at the other of the face. My mother then got up, and my father took hold of her by the arm. He told her to go outside. She walked towards the door, he holding her, and at the door she slipped down and fell on her face. My father had opened the door. She got up again, and fell again on her back on the stones. I think she must have slipped on the door-step. My father let her arm go when she got to the door. I am sure my father did not knock her down. I do not know that there was anything to cause her to slip, but I think she must have slipped. After she fell the second time, she got up and came inside with me. She sat down at the fire again, and then went to sweep the floor. I said, "Come, we'll go to bed, mother." She went into the bedroom with me, and was taking off her jacket when she fell down on the floor. She said nothing. I got a pillow and put it under her head, when she began to vomit. She could not speak. I ran to tell my brother, who was in a house on the other side of the right of-way. He came, lifted my mother into bed, and stayed to watch my mother. I went to another house to sleep that night. My brother had not been in the house while what I have mentioned was taking place. I was the only one in besides my father and mother. I did not see my mother again till Monday morning. She was in bed. I spoke to her, but she apparently could not speak. She did not move. She was breathing heavily. I do not know whether she was asleep. My brother was then in the house. While my mother and I were going to bed on Thursday night my father was sitting by the fire. He never spoke a word. In the morning he did not know she was dying or anything, and he knocked on the wall and called my mother to get up and make the breakfast. My father did not come into the bedroom when my mother fell as she was going to bed. When he first spoke to her she had been over at a lady's on the other side of the right-of-way, and he told her to go out again. I don't think they had been quarrelling previously. I had been away for coal. I saw my father strike my mother only once; that was in the face. I do not know how long my mother had been away at the lady's. I had previously seen my mother the worse of drink but not that night. There was beer in a jug on the table, and my mother, before father told her to clear out, had one glass of it.
To a Juryman: I went to get some of the neighbours to come, but they were all in bed. My brother sent me.
To the Coroner: My father frequently beat any mother. I do not know the reason.
Alexander Lockhart, 18, deposed: Martha Lockhart was my mother. I do not not know what age she was nor where she was born. On Thursday night my brother came to meet me and tell me my mother was bad. I do not know what time it was; I have no idea.
The Coroner: I must remind you that you must tell all you know about this. It is necessary that you tell everything.
Witness: I know nothing whatever about it. I did not see it. I was coming up Walker Street when my brother met me and told me my mother was very bad. I went in and found my mother lying on the bedroom floor. She had her clothes on, and appeared to be insensible. I lifted her into bed. My father was beside the fire. He was crying. I asked him what was the matter with my mother, but he did not answer. He went out, and was crying. I stayed in all night. My father was beside the fire. He sometimes came into the bedroom. I did not ask him any question. I never spoke to him.
The Coroner: Do you expect the Jury to believe that — that no conversation took place between you?
Witness: Well, sir, he could not speak — he was crying. I thought mother would get better during the night.
The Coroner: Had you not the curiosity to ask what had taken place?
Witness: No; I never asked. I do not know why. I stayed till daylight. I never went for a neighbour. I expected her to get better. In the morning I went for Mrs Smith. My mother was sober when I saw her at 6 o'clock on Thursday evening. My father was a little the worse for liquor. She was weak usually, seeming as if she could not stand on her legs, and fall down. She did not complain to me at all. I do not know whether she ever consulted a doctor. She has been weakly for about 12 months — since my father was on the steamer. My father did not ill-treat my mother. He did not hit her much. I never saw him hit her.
The Coroner: Your brother tells a very different story.
Witness: I cannot help what he has told you. I am saying what I know.
The Coroner: Do you know whether your father has been bound over to keep the peace towards your mother?
Witness: No; I do not think he has.
The Coroner: You are 18 years old?
Witness: Yes, sir.
The Coroner: You are a young man, and I ;am sorry to say that you have begun badly. I understand you have already been convicted of theft.
Wituess: Of theft! Never sir!
Inspector Mallard: I think the records in our possession will show it.
Witness: Not for theft, sir. I was once for vagrancy.
The Coroner: Well, I don't know whether what I say will have any effect; but you are but a boy yet, and I should advise you to turn over a new leaf.
Witness: I think it's nearly time, sir.
The Coroner went on to say that he hoped the present occurrence would be a warning to witness. Ho should determine to make a fresh start from that day, and to be a credit instead of the reverse to his country.
Witness, who had been crying during the greater part of this conversation, then left the room,
Charles Lockhart, an adult, stated that he was the son of the deceased, who was about 38 at the time of her death. She was a native of Stirling, in Scotland, and was a Presbyterian. She was generally a healthy woman. Witness had not been living with his parents for six years or so. His brother had once told him that his mother, when she was going down to see his father off by the steamer, had fallen on the footpath and remained insensible for three hours. His youngest brother told him this on Saturday night.
Elizabeth Smith stated: I live in the right-of-way opposite to Lockhart's. On Thursday night there had been words between Mr and Mrs Lockhart. She came to my houae about 8 o'clock, I think. She was afraid to go over to her own house. I said she had better wait till her husband was asleep. She went across, and I went to bed. It would then be getting on for 9 o'clock. I heard quarrelling going on afterwards in Lockhart's house, apparently between Lockhart and his wife. I heard the son, Alexander Lockhart, crying greatly. The quarrelling lasted hardly five minutes, I think. I heard Alexander crying very much while the quarrelling was going on. He told me next morning it was he. I was dozing off to sleep when the noise awoke me. I had heard them quarrelling before. At about breakfast time next morning Alexander came and asked me to go to see his mother. Lockhart was lying on a bed in the front room. I asked if I could pass through to see his wife. He said I could. I asked if I should take a cup of tea over, but he said I should not; he said, "Let her get up and make some tea herself." She was breathing heavily. I took her hand in mine, and spoke to her. She appeared to be insensible. She took no notice whatever. I then went back to my own house. Lockhart did not seem at all troubled. Afterwards, during the day, he seemed excited, and I thought he was crying. I never saw Lockhart strike his wife, but I have heard them quarrelling. Mrs Lockhart had a small glass of beer in my house. She was quite sober.
To the Jury: Alexander came to call me on the Friday morning. I said to him that someone had been crying bitterly, and he replied that it was he. I heard the crying at the time I heard the noise. Alexander seemed in a way about it when he came to me.
Mary Jane Daniels, who resides in Brown street, stated: On Friday morning the little boy came to me to say that his mother was dying. I went to the house, and met Alexander going to get Inspector Mallard. I sent him for a doctor. I went to the house, and saw Lockhart. I said at once that she was dying; and, in reply to my questions, Lockhart said two or three doctors had been there. The little boy said this was not true — that his father did not know what he was saying. Mrs Lockhart seemed to me to know me, and tried to mutter, but could not. Mr Lockhart all Friday was drinking. I stayed till she died on Friday night. I had known her eight years, sne had some affection of the feet — a swelling, and she took cramp. I and my mother-in-law have known her to fall from cramp. She was not drinking then. I have known her to fall, I think, four times in that way. She was at the Hospital about this cramp. I heard of her falling once when she was going to see her husband on la the steamer.
At this stage Charles Lockhart, the husband of deceased, was asked if he wished to say anything. He said a few words to the effect that after his wife came back from Mrs Smith's he said to her, "Martha, you've been over at that party's again. You had better go back there." That was all that passed. He had no idea his wife was so bad.
W. A. Lightbourne, medical practitioner, deposed that he went to see the deceased about 15 or 20 minutes past 11 on Friday night. She was then dead — had died three or five minutes previously. Her right cheek was much swollen, as if from a blow or fall. There was a mark over each eyebrow, as if from a fall or blow also, and both pupils, especially the right one, much dilated. On the crown of the head he found a puffy tumour; another on the right temple, over the ear; and a slight one behind the left ear. On the left side of the chest there was a large bruise. On the left arm there was a distinct impression of the grip of the four fingers and thumb; and some skin removed from the elbow, as if by a fall. The marks I have described had apparently arisen within three days. On Saturday, in company with Drs Reimer and Macdonald, I made a postmortem examination. Between the scalp and the skull I found spots of blood corresponding to the tumours outside over the eyebrows. The two veins running up the side of the head were much injected and burst. In the right ventricle of the brain, which was greatly distended, there was a very large clot of blood. These symptoms would explain the death, which was caused by a clot of blood and effusion on the brain. The effusion, I think, was not apoplectic. The falls I have heard mentioned would, I think, not have been sufficient to account for the effusion of blood. A blow by some flat instrument would have produced it, or the knocking of the head against a wall The tumour on the crown would have required almost a somersault to produce it. It was possible, but not probable, that the fall had produced the effusion of blood into the ventricle of the brain; but looking at the nature of the injuries outside, I would be inclined to think they had been caused by blows, or banging the head against a wall or any flat substance. The bruise on the right side of the head and over the ear was the principal injury. It is possible, certainly, that the fall from the doorstep, where there is a declivity, would cause such an injury, but there is the resistance of the body in the case of a fall to break it. It was more likely produced by a violent blow.
John Lockhart, recalled: When my mother fell in the bedroom she fell sideways. I do not think she struck the bedpost or anything else.
The Coroner said that was the whole of the evidence. No doubt the Jury would find in the first place that death had resulted from the injuries described by Dr Lightbourne. The further and more important question for them to decide was whether any act of the husband contributed to the deceased's death. If they considered, from the evidence, that any act of his done in a quarrel had contributed to her death, it would be their duty to return a verdict of manslaughter against him. There was very little evidence to enable them to come to a conclusion on the matter, and if they were of opinion the evidence was insufficient, they should give the husband the benefit of any reasonable doubt they might have, or they might return an open verdict — that is to say, that death was caused by the effusion of blood on the brain, but there was not sufficient evidence to say how that was caused, whether by an accidental fall on the head, or by direct violence inflicted by the husband. The evidence on the point was that of a little boy, and the ill treatment — if one might so term it — which he spoke to was vary trifling indeed. If they believed the boy's evidence, they might fairly conclude, remembering the statements about her having weak legs, that she had slipped and fallen after going out as it would appear, almost of her own free will. Dr Lightbourne had said the bruises were three days old possibly, so that some of them might have been inflicted previously. It was very important for them to say what dependence they placed on Dr Lightbourne's evidence, as to whether the fall could have caused the effusion of blood, or whether it must have been produced by a blow. If they thought the fall produced it, then the husband might be freed from blame. He himself thought a heavy fall would have been sufficient to cause it. The woman had had two glasses of beer, and might have had more. Her brain, therefore, might have been congested, and such a fall might have caused death. It was possible the woman's head struck the side of the house in her fall. Still he had to remind them that if the husband in ever so little a degree, contributed to the woman's death, even if he had only frightened her out of the house, and she had then slipped, and died from the fall the husband would be guilty of manslaughter, although he had in no way pushed her down. If he compelled her to leave the house suddenly and death ensued from her falling in so doing the husband would be guilty of manslaughter though in a trifling degree.
Some of the jurymen expressed an opinion that Dr Brown's evidence should have been before them, he having been in attendance whilst the woman was alive.
Eventually the Jury retired, but after about a quarter of an hour the Foreman intimated that it was the wish of the majority to hear the evidence of Dr Brown.
Dr Brown having been sent for, stated: On Friday morning, about 11 o'clock, I was called to go to a house in Cooper's right-of way. I found deceased lying in bed, quite unconscious, and breathing heavily. I saw something was the matter with her brain, and inquired whether she had been drinking or had received injury, as there was a powerful smell of drink in the house. Both her sons assured me she had not been drinking. The father, who had been drinking heavily, said she had. The youngest boy told me that his father had knocked her down outside, and pointed out the spot; but that his mother came in again, and, after moving about the floor, dropped down unconsciously and never recovered. He was about to tell me something about his father having assaulted his mother while she was warming her feet, when the father interrupted him. All along the father had shaken his fist at the boy and threatened him. He also said, " Tell the truth, my boy; you're telling lies." I again saw the woman at 8 p.m., but found no improvement in her condition. The little boy was kept out of my way; he could not be found when I asked for him. I did not see the deceased again. Beyond what I have stated, I know nothing that would account for death.
The Coroner then read over to the witness the evidence given by the boy.
Witness: All the time he was speaking to me the boy was in tears. He got frightened of his father, at whom he was looking furtively, and who evidently exercised some influence over him. (Dr Lightbourne's evidence was then read over.) Speaking with reservation, I should think Dr Lightbourne's opinion is probably correct. It would require more force than a mere fall to cause these injuries. I think it very improbable a fall would have caused these injuries. As told to me, the woman was struck down, outside by the father. There were stones at the place pointed out to me, and had the woman been thrown down there, such severe injuries as have been described might have been caused, and have produced death.
By the Jury: The father was very drunk and abusive. He was trying to frighten the boy and to prevent him telling the truth, there was no smell of drink in the woman's breath.
John Lockhart was recalled, and said: I don't remember telling Dr Brown how the accident happened, or pointing out to him the place where father knocked mother down.
The Jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of "Manslaughter" against Charles Lockhart, senior, who was then committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court. -Otago Daily Times, 1/6/1880.
Dunedin, July 6th. At the Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court to-day Charles Lockhart was charged with killing and slaying his wife Martha Lockhart. Mr Denniston attended for the defence. The prosecution was conducted by Mr Haggitt on behalf of the Crown. The accused was, after evidence, acquitted and discharged. The evidence disclosed an unhappy home resulting from intemperance, and leading up to the melancholy catastrophe which formed the subject of the trial. Ned Kelly is expected to be tried in Melbourne within the next fortnight. -Tuapeka Times, 7/7/1880.
CITY POLICE COURT.
Monday, March 5. (Before J. Logan, Esq., J.P., and J. Hyman, Esq., J.P.) Drunkenness. For this offence Charles Lockhart was fined 5s, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. -Evening Star, 5/3/1883.
The body of Charles Lockhart was found floating in the harbour near Rattray street Wharf on Saturday morning. The deceased, who was about 60 years old, was born in America, and was by occupation a fisherman. He was last seen alive by William Atkinson, who saw him leaving the wharf in a dingey on the evening of November 6, and apparently going to the cutter Jane. On the following day (the 7th inst.) the dingey was picked up near Burkes brewery, but nothing was known of Lockhart until his body was discovered in the harbour on Saturday morning by some of the sailors of the barque La France. — A coroner's inquest was held before Dr Hocken at the Auld Scotland Hotel on Saturday evening. It appeared from the evidence that the partner of the deceased did not at first consider it serious that Lockhart should be missing, as he was of intemperate habits, but that subsequently information was given to the police. The verdict of the jury was to the effect that the deceased had been accidentally drowned. -Otago Daily Times, 19/11/1883.
Both of the ill-fated Lockharts occupy seperate and unmarked graves in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery.
