Hazel (Elsie) Hoad, (1908-3/4/1925). "a scream from Elsie"

MURDER AT OAMARU

YOUNG GIRL KILLED. 

FATHER'S SUPPOSED CRIME. 

ATTACKED IN THE NIGHT. 

(Per Press Association.) OAMARU, This Day. 

A girl, Elsie Hoad, daughter of Reginald Hoad, a labourer, was stabbed to death last night at her father's camp at Five Forks. Hoad was brought into hospital with wounds, which are not serious. Hoad, who is 39 years old married, with 10 children, resided at Kiaora. Some of the children, including the eldest daughter, Elsie, aged 17, slept together. During the night, Hoad, who suffered from insomnia, entered their room and, it is alleged, struck Elsie twice with a tomahawk. The children's screams aroused their mother, who rushed in and seized the tomahawk. While Mrs Hoad was sending her sons for the police, Hoad took a rifle and, it is stated, shot his daughter, who had probably died from the effects of the first attack.

Hoad disappeared, but subsequently went to a neighbour's house and shot himself with a rifle outside their premises. He told a neighbour that he had met with an accident. The neighbour conveyed him to the Oamaru Hospital by car. Hoad had always shown marked affection for the murdered girl. He appears to have developed a jealous mania, for he would not permit her to have associates or to leave her home for a temporary holiday. No reason is assigned for the crime.  -Ashburton Guardian, 3/4/1925.

THE OAMARU TRAGEDY

STATEMENT OF SISTER. 

INQUEST OPENED AND ADJOURNED. 

(Per United Press Association.) OAMARU, April 4. 

In connection with the murder at Kia Ora, Myrtle Hoad, the sixteen-year-old sister of deceased, stated that she has been working for a neighbouring farmer (Mr Cowan), but going home to sleep. She slept with her sisters Elsie and Eunice in a room just off the kitchen. Their father was outside when they went to bed. She did not sleep well, while Elsie appeared to be sleeping soundly. Her father had toothache all the previous day, and she heard him moving about in the kitchen. She saw him come into the room twice with a light and go out again. This act did not cause her any concern, as he sometimes paid a visit such as this. She went to sleep about 2 a.m., and was awakened about an hour later by a scream from Elsie. She saw her father standing back from the bed with the tomahawk in his hand. She screamed, and her mother came running in, and took the tomahawk from her father. She ran into the kitchen, and her mother told her to go for the police. She went to a neighbour (Mr McDonald's), and told him what had happened. Her father was quick-tempered, but never used any violence towards the mother and children. He was a bad sleeper, and would stay up at night and wander about the house. He would not let Elsie go to work. Elsie was a quiet girl, who never gave any trouble. The inquest on the murdered girl, Elsie Hoad, was formally opened this morning and adjourned till Thursday.  -Southland Times, 6/4/1925.

THE OAMARU TRAGEDY

FATHER SENT FOR TRIAL. 

DID NOT REALISE HAPPENING 

(Per Press Association) OAMARU, April 10. 

At the inquest touching the death of Hazel Hoad, the victim of the Kia Ora tragedy, the Coroner returned the following verdict: — “The deceased, Elsie Hazel Hoad, died at her father’s residence on April 3. Death was due to shock caused by injuries to the brain and skull, hastened by a bullet wound in the left side of the thorax. The injuries to the brain and skull were inflicted by Reginald Hoad with a tomahawk.” 

At the conclusion of the inquest Reginald Hoad was charged with murder. 

Prisoner had been seated in the prisoner’s dock during the hearing of the evidence at the inquest, and appeared to display no interest in the proceedings. 

Asked by the Bench if he had anything to say, accused said he could not realise yet what had happened. He had a poor recollection of what had happened for three days preceding the tragedy. 

The Magistrate: I do not wish to stop you from saying anything more, but do you wish to say anything further? 

Accused: No.

Accused was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court in Timaru on May 5. He was removed from the prisoners’ dock in apparently a half-dazed condition.  -Ashburton Guardian, 11/4/1925.

NOT GUILTY.

THE KIA ORA TRAGEDY. 

HOAD FOUND INSANE. 

TIMARU, May 5. 

The trial of Reginald Hoad, for the murder of his daughter, Elsie Hazel Hoad, at Kia Ora, was commenced at the Supreme Court this afternoon. Mr Campbell appeared for the Crown, and Mr F. W. Ongley (Oamaru), appeared for accused. Mr Campbell outlined the case at length. 

A plea of not guilty was entered. 

The first witness was Myrtle Hoad, sister of the murdered girl, who slept in the same room. She related how her father had come into the room on several occasions during that night. About three o’clock she was awakened by her sister screaming. Witness saw her sister covered with blood and her father standing by holding what she took to be an axe, but which she afterwards discovered was a tomahawk. Witness had formed the opinion that for some time her father had been becoming morose. 

Evidence of Jealousy.

Cross-examined by Mr Ongley, witness said on one night her father had sat watching the door of Elsie’s room the whole night. He was never satisfied that she had not gone out and had dug the ground outside Elsie’s window for the purpose of tracing footsteps. Witness had never seen any marks to indicate that Elsie had gone out and was satisfied that she had never done so. Her mother had offered to sleep with Elsie in order to allay her father’s suspicion, but he did not agree to this. On the night before the tragedy her father had said he saw a man with a torch on the road in front of the house. He had told witness he saw the man reading a note which he said Elsie had left for him. Accused had said he supposed Elsie had written that because she was unable to come out. Witness said that her sister had left no note, nor was there a man there.

Mr Ongley: Were men allowed to come to your place? — Men came about the place, but they were never allowed to come into the house.

Were they allowed to see Elsie or speak to her? — No. 

You mean to say that for over 12 months no man was allowed to speak to Elsie? — That is so. 

What about the grocer? — Elsie was not allowed to speak to him. 

Were any of your relations allowed to come? — One uncle did. 

What about the other boys? — When they saw they were not wanted they never came.

Were the younger boys not allowed to come? — No. 

Not even your cousin, Charlie Kay? — No. 

How old was he? — About eleven. 

A little boy of eleven not allowed to come because he might be running after your sister? — That is correct. 

At one time your father used to sit by the fire in the evenings and talk. What did he do lately? —Just walk about and smoke outside. 

By himself? — Yes. 

Just walking aimlessly about? — Yes.

You had noticed that he was getting worse lately? — Yes. 

Had you discussed among yourselves the question of seeing the police? — Yes. 

You decided to let go on in case he should improve? — Yes. 

Latterly, was Elsie allowed to speak even to her own brothers? — Only at table. 

Apart from these things, he was quite kind and good to you all, was he not? — Yes, exceptionally good. 

Is it a fact that your father was screaming out when he woke you that night? — Yes, he was screaming “Get out!”

Other Evidence

Maurice Hoad, aged 13, a son of the accused, also gave evidence. 

James Wilson, farmer, of Totara, related how Hoad had come to his place on the morning of the tragedy, suffering from a wound in the head. He said he had met with an accident, and told witness to hurry up or he might be too late. Some time afterwards he said that the ground was pretty dry and hard where he working, and a little later said: “Keep back a bit, or you will get covered with dust.” He evidently thought he was digging potatoes, and was speaking to an imaginary boy who was picking up for him. He also said one of the children had stuck him with a fork. 

Dr. R. E. Fitzgerald, of Oamaru, said he had seen Hoad about 5 a.m. on the day of the tragedy. He was suffering from a wound in the forehead, and seemed very dazed. When asked how he had got the wound he said he had fallen off his bicycle. Witness sent accused to the hospital. When he examined him he found a wound in the forehead, clear at the lower end and ragged at the top. There was no fracture of the skull, and the wound was blackened at the lower end. It would be caused by a bullet from the rifle produced. Accused had been under witness’s care in the hospital for at least a week, and his mental condition had been verging on melancholia. He had wept every day, and it had been very difficult to get him to take any food. He appeared to witness to he showing signs of acute remorse. 

Constable Trethewey, giving evidence as to arresting Hoad, said that accused, on being charged, had said: “Which one?” Witness replied, “Elsie,” and accused had said that it could not be. He had said that he did not remember what he had been doing that night. Witness had a revolver in his pocket, and Hoad, seeing it, asked witness whether, if he jumped out of the window, witness would shoot him. “I have nothing more to live for now,” lie said. Accused had a razor case in his pocket, and said that it was the razor he shaved with. “I must have meant business,” he added. Accused said he had been suffering from neuralgia, and also told witness that he had sharpened all the axes and knives at his home the day prior to the tragedy, but did not remember why he had done so. 

Medical Evidence for Defence. 

Mr Ongley said that he wished to compliment the Crown on the attitude it had taken up over the case. He had not expected to defend it, but had been advised by the Crown that it was worth defending if it could he proved that Hoad was insane at the time of the murder. Expert medical evidence had been placed at his disposal, and instead of addressing the jury at length he would content Himself with calling the evidence of the experts referred to. 

Dr. A. C. McKillop, medical superintendent of Sunnyside Mental Hospital, said, in reply to Mr Campbell, that he thought that accused was at the time of the tragedy incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act or that the act was wrong. Dr. F. A. Ulrich corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. 

Counsel did not address the jury, which retired at 4.18 p.m., and returned 15 minutes later. Their replies to the questions submitted by the Judge were as follow: (1) The prisoner was not guilty of murder. (2) He was insane at the time of his act. (3) He was acquitted on the grounds of insanity.

His Honor therefore ordered the prisoner to be committed to Sunnyside Mental Hospital to await the pleasure of the Minister of Justice.  -Ashburton Guardian, 6/5/1925.

"Awaiting the pleasure of the Minister of Justice" effectively meant a life sentence inthe Hospital, unless someone could convince the Minister that the patient was no threat to themself or others.  Hazel Hoad was buried in the Oamaru Cemetery. None of her family seem to be in the same ground.

A Reginald Hoad lies in Sydenham Cemetery, Christchurch. He died on August 3rd, 1942, aged 56.

Oamaru Cemetery. Photo from "findagrave."

Hannah, Cunningham and Phillips - the Lake Ohau murder, 1875.

A most mysterious affair has occurred at Lake Ohau, near Oamaru. Two station hands, named Hannah and Cunningham, on the 25th ult. were sent across in a boat for a load of chaff. Not returning within three days, a search party was instituted, resulting in the discovery of the boat with chaff, oars, &c, strewed along the shore; and inside the boat was the body of Hannah, bearing three bruises on the head. Those who found the body assert the neck was dislocated, and that the murder had been committed by Cunningham, who cannot be found, though every search was made.  -Tuapeka Times, 4/12/1875.

It will be remembered that in November last a man named Hugh Hannah was found dead at Lake Ohau, Otago, having apparently met his death by violence. An individual named Martin Cunningham was the last person seen in company with deceased, and, as he absconded on the day of the supposed murder, the police authorities of Dunedin now offer a reward of £100 for any information that will lead to his apprehension.   -Evening Post, 7/1/1876.

WELLINGTON.

Per Press Telegram Agency. This day.

The police have arrested a man on suspicion of being Martin Cunningham, charged with the murder of his mate, Hugh Hannah, at Lake Ohau, on the 25th November, 1875. He has been remanded for eight days.  -Auckland Star, 10/1/1876.

Messrs Wrigglesworth & Binns have taken an excellent portrait of the prisoner William Phillips, who is supposed to be the Lake Ohau murderer. Phillips expressed his entire willingness to have the portrait taken, and it will be forwarded to Dunedin, where the murderer is well known.   -Evening Post, 11/1/1876.

SUSPECTED OP BEING A MURDERER. 

William Phillips was also charged with the murder of Hugh Hannah, at Lake Ohau, in the province of Otago, on the 25th of November, 1875.

Dennis Ryan, constable, stationed at Porirua, deposed on oath: Having received certain information on Saturday last, I proceeded to Pahautanui, and thence to Wainui, where I found prisoner in the employ of a farmer named Alex. Mackay. I told him that I was a police constable, that a man answering his description was wanted, and that I wished him to answer a few questions which I should put to him. I asked him where he came from last. He said he had come from the South Island — from Otago. I asked him what part of Otago, and he replied that he had been on the Hogburn and Dunstan. I then asked him if he had ever been at Gabriel's Gully or Waipori. He replied in the affirmative. I then asked him if he had ever been on Lake Ohau. Immediately I put this question, he said, "What's up? Is any one murdered?" Prisoner further said, in answer to questions which I put to him, that he arrived in Otago eleven or twelve years ago; that he arrived at Port Chalmers in the King of Italy; that he was a sailor, but had been working on the diggings, at sheep stations, and cutting wood. He would give me no account of how he was engaged in November last. I read the charge over to him, also the description, and examined his arms, whereon I found marks corresponding exactly to those mentioned as being on the arms of the missing man Cunningham. Prisoner first said he was an American, then that he was an Englishman, and lastly that he was an Irishman. The prisoner was remanded for a week.  -NZ Mail, 15/1/1876.

THE LAKE OHAU AFFAIR.

The case of the map Phillips is a somewhat remarkable one. Our readers are familiar with the circumstances under which he was apprehended and regained in custody on the suspicion that he was Cunningham, the supposed murderer of Hannah, at Lake Obau. The evidence of identity at first appeared to be very strong. Two men in Dunedin, on being shown the photograph of Phillips, declared positively that it was that of Cunningham. Then, Cunningham was a half-caste; so was Phillips. Cunningham was of middle size and stout built; so was Phillips. Cunningham had peculiar tattoo marks on his right arm; so had Phillips. All this, coupled with the fact that Phillips asked (before he was informed what the charge against him was) whether “anybody had been murdered,” let the police to believe, that they had got the right man. And yet, after all, it turned out that Phillips was not Cunningham at all; because not only was positive evidence received from Christchurch to that effect, but it had also been discovered, that at the time when the supposed murder was committed in Otago, Phillips was actually resident in the Wellington Province. This case shows what strange chance resemblances may exist between two different persons, and how positively some people will make statements which afterwards turn out to be totally unfounded. It also shows how little reliance can be placed upon a written description of features and marks; the police handbills and comparing the description given of Cunningham with that of Phillips the similarity was remarkable, and yet if the two men could have been placed side by side, their totally different general appearance would, probably have been at once manifest. As the case stands Philips has been discharged, cleared of all suspicion of the murder. His case deserves some sympathy. It is not pleasant for a man to be locked up for some, three weeks under suspicion of murder, when conscious of innocence. — 'Post’   -Evening Star, 29/1/1876.

MORE ABOUT THE LAKE OHAU MYSTERY.

From the "Wellington Evening Post" of the 25th January, we extract the following, from the proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Wellington, on that day: —

PHILLIPS THE WRONG MAN. 

William Phillips, who was arrested some time ago, on suspicion of being one Martin Cunningham, the Lake Ohau Otago murderer, was again brought up. 

Inspector Atcheson said he had received a communication from the police at Christchurch, to the effect that the photograph of William Phillips was not that of the Martin Cunningham who was wanted; the photograph had been shown to several persons who knew Cunningham perfectly well, and they were unanimously of the opinion that Phillips was not the same; moreover, it had been proved beyond a doubt that Phillips was in this Province when the murder was committed in Otago; considering that Phillips had been so long in custody, he (Inspector Atcheson) would withdraw the other charge on which the prisoner had been remanded, namely, that of using threatening language towards Mr Bould. 

His Worship — I am glad that you are not guilty of the more serious charge. 

Phillips — I wish to say a few words to your Worship. I have been brought here for a horrible offence — that of murder — which leaves a stain on my character. I have not now the "face" to go among the friends I have been among in order to seek a living, and I hope your Worship will deal with me as lightly as you can for the charge that Mr Bould brought against me, so that I may be able soon to have a chance of earning a living. 

His Worship: I have already told you that that charge is withdrawn. With regard to the other matter, I can only say that, unfortunately, your general appearance, and the tattoo marks on your arms, answered the description of Cunningham so well, that it is not at all to be wondered at that you were detained in custody. You also made certain statements when you were arrested that led to the inference that you were guilty. Now, however, there is no charge against you. 

Phillips: My friends will always remember what I have been charged with, and I shall be ashamed to look in their faces. 

His Worship: You are discharged.  -North Otago Times, 1/2/1876.

Phillips, hopefully went on to lead his life.  Cunningham, it seems, remained elusive.  There was an arrest in Lyttelton and one in Sydney of men who were not the murderer.

Josiah Elphinstone, (1845-10/11/1924). "I have no hope"

OLD MAN’S SUICIDE

DEPRESSED BY INCURABLE DISEASE. 

“I have no hope of recovering my health, and I am therefore closing a painful illness,” was a note left by Josiah Elphinstone, a retired accountant, seventynine years old, whose dead body was found behind the Botanic Gardens last night. A .45 calibre revolver was grasped in his right hand, and a shot from it had entered his forehead. 

At an inquest conducted by Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., this afternoon it was shown that the deceased had entered Prospect House under the care of Dr Batchelor. He was suffering from an incurable disease. He left on the 8th inst., the note referred to being found after he had gone. A search resulted in the gruesome discovery of his dead body. 

The deceased, who was a single man, has no relatives in the dominion, but there are relatives in England. He possessed considerable means. 

The verdict was that death resulted from a self-inflicted wound while the deceased was in a depressed slate of mind owing to ill-health. 

Sergeant Boulton represented the police.  -Evening Star, 11/11/1924.

 ELDERLY MAN’S DEATH.

An inquest was held at the Dunedin Morgue last Tuesday concerning the death of Josiah Elphinstone, whose body was discovered on Monday evening among some scrub near Cemetery road not far from Mr Tannock’s house, with a bullet wound in the head and a revolver clasped in the right hand. 

Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., sat as Coroner, and Sergeant Boulton represented the police, and Mr John Wilkinson appeared for deceased’s relatives. 

Herbert Edward Wilson, public accountant, residing at Hawthorne Avenue, Mornington, said he knew the deceased, who would be about 79 years of age. He was a retired accountant. He was a single man, and resided in 16a Howe street, Dunedin. Witness had known deceased for about 40 years. He last saw deceased three weeks ago. He had no relatives in the Dominion, but there were some in England. Deceased left a will which witness had in his possession. It was made in 1918, with a codicil dated 1921. 

Dr. Batchelor said he had attended the deceased for the last two years. His health lately had been bad. Witness thought deceased was suffering from cancer of the stomach. He had not at any time exhibited any suicidal tendencies. He was somewhat depressed over his stomach trouble. He last saw him on Saturday morning. He was then quite normal. He said he was going out for a walk. He was a particularly intelligent man, but was depressed on account of stomach trouble. 

Margaret Scott deposed that she was the proprietress of Prospect House. She knew deceased, who was frequently an inmate of Prospect House. He was somewhat concerned over his stomach trouble. Witness last saw deceased about 8.30 on the 8th inst. He said he was going to his home. When he did not return by 7 p.m., witness went to deceased’s home. She there found a note in which he stated he was suffering from a painful illness, and had no hope of recovery. He requested that Messrs William Brown and Co., accountants, be communicated with. She communicated with the police. 

Sergeant Boulton deposed that about 7 p.m. on Monday, in consequence of a message received, he went to a spot opposite Mr Tannock’s house, on Cemetery road, and there found the body of deceased lying in some scrub. The body was lying face downwards, and the right hand was clasping a .45 calibre revolver. The revolver had been fully loaded, one cartridge being exploded. There was a large wound in the forehead above the right eye. Deceased was the registered owner of the revolver. 

The Coroner said the note left by the deceased indicated clearly what his intentions were. The verdict would be that deceased shot himself while in a depressed state of mind, due to ill-health.  -Temuka Leader, 18/11/1924.

Andersons Bay Cemetery, Dunedin.

The shooting of Barney O'Neill, 1888.

THE RESULT OF HIGH WORDS. 

ROXBURGH, April 4,

A man named Bernard O’Neill was shot in the side of the face this afternoon by a person named Charlesworth. It appears that the two men had been drinking together, and the wounded man had given some offence, which is supposed to be the cause of the deed. An inquiry will probably he held to-morrow. It is possible that O’Neill will recover.  -Evening Star, 4/4/1888.

HOW AN INDIGNANT FATHER REBUKED AN INSULT.

The usually quiet little town of Roxburgh was thrown into a state of consternation on Wednesday by an occurrence the like of which we are, fortunately, not very often favoured with in these parts. Sometime between one and two o'clock, a rumour got abroad that one man had shot another man in the face when in an inebriate condition, and that the person who was shot was at death's door. The statement barely received credence at first; but it was not long before the facts were generally known. It appears that Isaac Oharlesworth, who carries on business as a cordial manufacturer at Roxburgh, and Bernard O'Neill, formerly well-known about Roxburgh, but latterly engaged in mining pursuits at Pomahaka and Bald Hill Flat, were drinking together at Heron's hotel. They left there, and after calling at Ormand's hotel, where they had a couple of drinks, proceeded to Charlesworth's house at the invitation of the latter. When standing somewhere about the premises, Charlesworth's daughter appeared at the door, when O'Neill made some indecent remark about her. This appeared to annoy her father, and O'Neill having made some farther observation of a similar nature, Charlesworth lifted a loaded gun, which was standing near by, and, referring to O'Neill's remarks, deliberately raised the gun and shot him in the face. Charlesworth's son had been out shooting rabbits, and had left the gun down with a charge of light shot, and this entered O'Neill's head near the mouth, lodging in great part in his jaw and neck. On being shot, O'Neill ran out into the road and fell down, the blood flowing from his wound in large quantities. Pulling himself together, he ran down the road to the residence of Dr Dunn, who did his best for the sufferer. As the wound was of a serious nature, a telegram was despatched to Lawrence to Dr Blair, who at once drove up; and Father O'Leary was also summoned from Lawrence. Mr Jabez Burton, J.P., at the request of the police, took the man's depositions, as it was feared he would bleed to death. We understand that there is still a prospect of O'Neill's recovery, but his condition is considered critical. Charlesworth was at once placed under arrest.  -Tuapeka Times, 7/4/1888.

THE ROXBURGH SHOOTING CASE.

[From Our Own Correspondent.]

LAWRENCE, April 19. 

Barney O'Neill, who was recently shot in the face by Isaac Charlesworth at Roxburgh, is in a very low state, and it is now feared that he will not recover. Dr Dunn, who is assisted by Dr Hyde, of Clyde, intends to operate on the man unless the bleeding at the back of the left ear discontinues. O'Neill has lost a great quantity of blood lately, and in consequence is in a very low state. Dr Dunn is obliged to stay with O'Neill the night through.  -Evening Star, 19/4/1888.

THE ROXBURGH SHOOTING CASE.

THE INQUEST.

The inquest on the body of Bernard O'Neill, who was shot by Isaac Charlesworth on the 4th inst., was held at Roxburgh on Saturday last, before a jury of six, of whom Mr Thos. Andrew was chosen foreman. 

Mr Jabez Burton acted as coroner, and requested the Mayor to take a seat on the bench and assist him, to which his Worship acceded. 

Inspector Hickson (of Clyde) conducted the proceedings on behalf of the police. 

The following sworn statement of deceased, made to Mr Jabez Burton, J.P., on the 5th inst., was read to the jury: — I left Heron's Hotel about 11 a.m. in company with Isaac Charlesworth yesterday morning. (Wednesday, 4th instant.) We called at Ormond's hotel, and had two drinks each. From Ormond's we went to Charlesworth's house, and both of us went inside. His wife, a young lady, and some children were present. I had a flask of spirits with me, and asked them to have a drink. I said nothing more particularly to them. Charlesworth and I left the house together and went outside, and had some conversation about horses and a dog his son had brought from town. Charlesworth had a grey horse which he let into the stable to get some feed, and then came to the front door of the house where his son was sitting. His son had the portrait of a young lady in his hand, and held it so that I could see it. I left Charlesworth and his son sitting at the front door and went round the house and entered through the kitchen door. I saw a young lady working about the kitchen fire and asked Mrs Charles worth, if that was her daughter. She replied that it was not her daughter, but a Miss Green from Victoria. From the way in which Mr Charlesworth, his son, and Mrs Charlesworth were acting, I thought the young lady was of loose character, and that anyone wishing could make love to her. I came outside from the kitchen-door and met the young lady going into the house with something in her hand. I said [The deceased here admits having made indecent proposals to Miss Green, telling her that he mistook her for Charlesworth's daughter.] She made a bow with her head. I then touched her on the shoulder and repeated my overtures. At this time Charlesworth was outside near the ginger-beer machine. I went over to where he was. He was in the act of going into the gingerbeer house when a pig came round the corner of a fence. Charlesworth said, "Get the gun and shoot the b----y pig." He then went into the ginger-beer house and I followed him. He said, "This is where I make my stuff." or words to that effect. I then went and looked at the machinery, standing up against a bench at the right-hand side of the door, my left side being towards the door. I said to Charlesworth, "I thought that was your daughter that I saw inside, but the missus told me it was a Miss Green. I think I have made it all right with her. I think I will stop all night." When I made this remark Charlesworth was standing nearer the door than I was, and he said: "I believe in making money if I can." I then saw Charlesworth lift a gun and fire at me. It was about a foot from my mouth. After the shot was fired, when I was passing out at the door, Charlesworth said, "I won't allow anyone to take liberties with my daughter." After passing out of the door, I felt that I was wounded, and said: "My God, is this a friendly trick to do to a man?" I went towards the road, and fell down in some hollow. While lying down, Charlesworth came and caught me round the arms and said: "Come back, you b----y fool, it's only powder." I am quite confident that the wound I received was from the gun that Charlesworth held in his hand. I am sure that when I went into the place Charlesworth had not the gun in his hand. I walked down with assistance to where I met Constable Pool from the place where Charlesworth had spoken to me. As I was passing out to the road I heard Mrs Charlesworth exclaim: "My God, you will get hung." I am forty years of age. Crossexamined by accused, Isaac Charlesworth: When I was standing at the bench I did not ask Charlesworth for his daughter for immoral purposes. I did not say to Charlesworth: "Those are your two flash daughters inside." I did not say I would go into the house.

Bernard O'Neill, further examined on the 20th April, said: I identify Isaac Charlesworth, the person now present, as the man who fired the gun at me on the fourth day of April last. —Crossexamined by Charlesworth: When you fired the gun you were between the angle of the corner of the building and the post. The gun did not strike the post. It was fired direct at me, as I saw you take your eye from the stock of the gun. I went with you to your home for the purpose of your driving me to Parker's. When you fired the gun at me you held it in the same position as the stick I am now holding. I saw you draw the trigger with your fore-finger. My reasons for thinking the young lady was of loose character was that you spoke about making money, and when I offered the young lady the pound note she bowed to me. I have known you for the last fourteen years, and we have always been on good terms of friendship. 

George Ormond, called, said that deceased came to his father's hotel on the 4th inst. in company with Alex. Grey and Charlesworth. The three had whisky at O'Neill's invitation. They appeared to be on friendly terms. Grey called for the next drinks, and they had whisky again, excepting Charlesworth, who had tobacco. Deceased and Charlesworth then went up the road together. Both were a little intoxicated, but not much.

Wm. Henry Charlesworth said he went to Bowden's workshop for the gun on the day of the occurrence, his father having lent it to Bowden. Bowden was not in the workshop when he called, but seeing the gun hanging up, he took it. He thought it was loaded, as he saw a cap on the nipple. When he brought it home he put it behind the door in the ginger-beer house. His father came home about a quarter of an hour after and a man with him, whom witness did not know. The man opened the door and walked into the house. After harnessing the horse, witness and his father sat down on the door-step outside their dwelling, and the stranger shortly after came out and sat beside them. They had been sitting on the doorstep a few minutes when a pig came into the yard. On seeing the pig, his father said to him, " Go and shoot that pig." Witness then chased the pig away. Before he went after the pig, his father asked him where the gun was, but he made no reply. At the same time his father went into the ginger-beer house, and when witness was coming back he heard a shot fired. He was just at the corner of the ginger-beer house at the time, distant about three or four yards. On coming to the door of the ginger-beer house, he saw the man previously referred to bleeding from a wound in the left cheek. His father was standing against a post in the shed. The man crossed over the fence on to the road. When he looked into the ginger-beer shed after having heard the shot, the gun was then lying on a bench about 1 1/2 yards from where his father was standing. It was not in the same place where he had previously placed it. He saw the man who had been shot lying in the ditch subsequently on the opposite side of the road. Witness and his father then went to where he was lying and washed the blood off his face; and his father tried to lift him, but did not succeed. Constable Pool came for his father about half-an-hour after. When the constable asked for the gun there was blood on it. There were no other persons within view of the premises when the shot was fired. He recognised the body of O'Neill as that of the man he saw on their premises. On the day before the occurrence, his father told him he had not brought the gun home from Bowden's as it was loaded, but told witness to go for it. He did not see either of his sisters come in view when his father was attempting to lift the man out of the ditch. 

To the Foreman: O'Neill was in the house from twenty minutes to half-an-hour when my father and I were outside attending to the horse. The door was closed, and we did not hear any conversation that passed inside. My father had been in the house for about ten minutes when O'Neill was there, and when he came out appeared to be greatly excited, but said nothing that would account for his excitement. I did not enter the dwelling house when O'Neill was inside. Did not notice any bad feeling between my father and O'Neill. 

Isabella Murdoch, residing next door to Charlesworth's, deposed that on the day in question she heard a shot, and on looking out saw that there was something the matter at Charlesworth's. The children were looking in and screaming at the door of the ginger-beer house. Saw a man leave Charlesworth's with his face bleeding and walk out on to the road. Heard Mrs Charlesworth call out: "Get some one to go for the doctor." One of Charlesworth's children said that her father had shot a man. Saw O'Neill lying in the ditch when there was no one near him, and when witness went up to him he told her to go for a policeman or some one. After going for assistance, she returned to O'Neill, and then saw Charlesworth and his son coming towards them. When Dr Dunn came up, Charlesworth told him to take O'Neill to his house and keep him away from Pool if he could. Charlesworth did not appear to be under the influence of drink. 

William Tucker Bowden gave evidence as to having borrowed Charlesworth's gun on Good Friday. He loaded the gun on Easter Monday for rabbit shooting, the charge being 2 1/2 drachms of powder and 3/4oz of shot, or thereabouts. Charlesworth declined to take the gun home with him on the day before the occurrence, saying that he was not accustomed to loaded firearms, but said he would send his son for it. Young Charlesworth took the gun away loaded. 

Adam Hamilton, an employe of the previous witness, said he believed that the gun was loaded when young Charlesworth took it away. There was a cap on the nipple.

Dr Dunn deposed that on the 4th inst., about one o'clock p.m., he was called by a son of Charlesworth's, who said that a man had been shot at their place. When he went to the place he saw O'Neill walking towards the township, with a handkerchief to his face and blood dripping from a wound. When in the surgery, he put O'Neill on a form and sent for some Friars balsam. He saw some holes in his cheek, and after putting a bandage over his face O'Neill fainted. On coming round, witness had O'Neill removed to the Commercial Hotel. He then examined the wound more minutely, and found a large hole near the left nostril and above the lip. It was large enough to put his finger in. It pierced the upper jaw, and communicated with the throat. There was another passage which turned to the left in the cheek, caused by the shot, which broke the jaw at the lower angle. He plugged the hole with lint saturated with Friar's balsam. Some blood oozed from it during the evening. The interior of the face was perfectly black with powder. On the following morning there was no bleeding, but the face was very much deformed. O'Neill took nourishment, and progressed pretty fairly for nine days, when severe bleeding commenced. Witness plugged the wound again, and the bleeding stopped; but several severe bleedings subsequently took place. On the Thursday previous to O'Neill's death, Dr Hyde and he decided to tie the wounded artery, and having made everything ready before commencing the operation, O'Neill fainted on being carried out of the bedroom. He was in a low state all the evening, so they abandoned the operation. The patient continued sensible during the day, and took nourishment; but on Friday he gradually sank, and died in the evening. Witness made a post mortem examination of the body. Beyond the jaw there was a lot of decomposed matter, discoloured by powder. Under the left ear there was a small pocket of shot, which he took out. There were seventeen pellets. He was of opinion that no operation could have saved deceased's life, as about his left ear and jaw was a mass of pulp or brokenup flesh and gangrene. Death resulted from exhaustion consequent upon loss of blood and mortification, caused by a gunshot wound. Deceased was a powerfully-built man of strong constitution, and was about forty years of age. The cause of a shot wound being so fatal was that the shot was adulterated with arsenic; and the shot scatters and lacerates the flesh more than a bullet. There were several holes in the left cheek caused by shot, and the left ear was slightly wounded. Witness was of opinion that the muzzle of the gun must have been from a foot to eighteen inches from deceased's face. Before he dressed O'Neill's wound at the surgery, he must have lost fully a hand basinfull of blood, which indicated that some artery had been severed. 

To the jury: I did not consider it prudent to operate on the wound for the first nine days, nor did I consider him in a fit state to be removed to the Hospital, especially as he was being well nursed at the hotel. Dr Blair wished to have the plugs taken out of the wounds, but I objected, as I believed the bleeding would come on again. I do not think that Dr Blair was aware of the extent or the serious nature of the wound when he requested O'Neill's removal to the Hospital. I consider deceased's life was in danger when the depositions were taken, and that he was not likely to recover. 

Constable Pool gave evidence to the effect that shortly after two p.m. on the 4th inst., a Chinaman came to him and said that two men were fighting at the Chinese Camp. Witness started to go there, and on the road met Dr Dunn, who told him that a man had been shot at Charlesworth's, that he was coming down the road, and that he (Dr Dunn) feared he would bleed to death. Between the Bank of New Zealand and Steel's shop in Scotland-street, witness met O'Neill with a young man named Fitzgerald, who was holding his arm. O'Neill was bleeding profusely from a wound on the left cheek. Witness said to him: "What is the matter with you, Barney ?" He replied: "I want you to take a note of what I am going to say in case anything should happen me." Witness answered "All right." O'Neill then said: "I have been shot, and it was Charlesworth who shot me." He said he had gone from Ormond's Hotel with Charlesworth with the intention of going to Campbell's, and that when at Charlesworth's place, inside the ginger-beer house, he remarked to Charlesworth that his (Charlesworth's) wife had told him that the young lady whom he mistook for Charlesworth's daughter was Miss Green from Victoria, and that he thought he had made it all right with her to stay for the night. He (O'Neill) then said he received a shot in the face. This conversation took place as witness and O'Neill were walking along the road. He left O'Neill at Dr Dunn's surgery, and then proceeded to Charlesworth's place. Mrs Charlesworth told him that her husband was in the back garden. He found Charlesworth there, lying on the ground, face downwards. Witness touched him on the shoulder, and Charlesworth, on looking up, said: "I expected you to come for me." He then arrested him on a charge of shooting with intent to murder Bernard O'Neill. On coming through the garden towards the ginger-beer house, witness asked Charlesworth where the gun was? His son (William Henry) was close by, and Charlesworth told him to bring the gun out of the ginger-beer house. The gun was besmeared with fresh blood. The boy went to wipe off the blood, and accused and witness simultaneously asked him to leave it as it was. Going down the front paddock towards the gate, Charlesworth said: "This is [referring to the crime] a terror." Witness replied that it was a serious charge, and cautioned him not to make any statement as it might be used in evidence against him. When going towards the police station, accused said: "I am very sorry this has happened; but I thought the gun was empty. I only held it at him to frighten him from going into the house." A little further along, accused said it was a pity the affair had happened, but he thought witness would have treated O'Neill in the same way if he had used the same language towards his (witness's) daughter. After locking Charlesworth up, witness went to his house, and found a considerable quantity of blood on the bench in the ginger-beer factory, also on the wall and floor. Witness traced blood from the ginger-beer factory through the paddock, over the fence, and across the street to the opposite side of the road to accused's house. Thence he traced it to where he first met O'Neill — a distance of about a quarter of a mile. There was an extra quantity of blood on the fence and on an ash-heap on the opposite side of the road to the house, and also in the ditch close by the fence. When witness first saw O'Neill he had a considerable quantity of ashes on his forehead (yellow coal ashes). He examined the ash-heap and found traces as if a man had fallen thereon. The gun now produced was given witness by Wm. Henry Charlesworth in the presence of the accused. It is in the same condition as when he received it. It bore the appearance of being newly fired. He recognised the body of O'Neill now lying at the Commercial Hotel. He had known deceased, who was a goldminer, about seven years. He was a native of Ireland, about forty years of age, and had no relatives in the colony excepting two cousins residing at Speargrass Flat. Witness was present when Dr Dunn made a post mortem examination of the body. He assisted the doctor in taking several pellets of shot (produced) from the back of deceased's left ear. The vest and shirt produced were taken off O'Neill immediately on his arrival at the Commercial Hotel, and were completely saturated with blood. O'Neill did not appear to be under the influence of drink when he first spoke to witness, nor did Charlesworth when arrested, although he was somewhat excited. 

To the Jury: The length of the factory is about 15ft, and the breadth 10ft or 12ft. A good deal of the space is taken up by machinery and cordials. The enquiry closed at ten o'clock, and the jury returned into court about eleven o'clock with a verdict of "Wilful murder" against Isaac Charlesworth.

The accused was then formally committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, Dunedin.  -Tuapeka Times, 25/4/1888.

THE ROXBURGH SHOOTING CASE.

At the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court on Friday, before Mr Justice Williams and a jury of twelve, Isaac Charlesworth was charged with having on the 20th April last feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought killed and murdered one Bernard O'Neill.

Accused, who was defended by Sir Bobert Stout, pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Geo. Qrmond, I. Charlesworth, Isabella Murdock, William Bowden, William Poole, Dr Dunn, and Charles Nicholson, the latter as to character.

Sir B, Stout then addressed the jury on behalf of accused, submitting in the first place that the offence could not in any view of the case be treated as one of murder, the act having been committed when accused was in a state of sudden passion, and had not, therefore, his reason about him. Then came the question: How did the deceased die at all? He (counsel) was not afraid to say, after hearing the maundering statement of Dr Dunn in the witness-box, that if Dr Blair's advice had been followed the man would have been alive to-day. If even the ordinary treatment for gunshot wounds had been followed the man would now be alive. He submitted that the jury could not find him guilty of either murder or manslaughter, for it was not the wound inflicted by him that caused deceased's death, but the subsequent treatment of it. Then, again, how was the wound delivered? The accused's statement was that he did not know that the gun was loaded, and that he simply held the gun up to frighten deceased from going into the house. Even supposing that the wound had been intentionally inflicted, counsel urged the jury to consider the gross provocation that the accused had received. Could they imagine greater provocation to a father than for a man to inform him that he purposed that night seducing his daughter. He entreated the jury to return the accused to the bosom of hia family — a family which he had brought up well and faithfully. 

His Honour, in summing up, said that it was as the Crown Prosecutor had stated, competent, subject to what he had to say, hereafter, for the jury to return a verdict of either murder or manslaughter; but to do either they must first be satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner. He would first dispose of one point raised by the prisoner's counsel, and that was the suggestion that the deceased might not have died from the wound at all, but of subsequent bad medical treatment. The law was plain on the matter — if a serious wound of this kind was inflicted, and if the person injured dies by reason of such infliction, then the person who inflicts it is guilty of murder or of manslaughter, notwithstanding that with more competent medical treatment it was reasonable to suppose that he would have recovered. After reviewing the evidence His Honour went on to say that it was of importance for the jury to consider that the accused knew the gun was loaded when he picked it up. All they knew of the actual occurrence was gathered from the respective statements of the deceased and of the prisoner. As to the law, it was clearly laid down that if a person, without sufficient provocation, intentionally fired at another and caused a wound from which death ensued he is, although the act may have been done on a sudden or in hot blood, guilty of murder, unless he shall have received sufficient provocation to reduce the offence to the lesser crime of manslaughter. If the jury were satisfied that the gun was intentionally fired by the prisoner at deceased, then, as the latter died from the effects of the wound, the prisoner was guilty of murdering deceased, unless there was sufficient provocation to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. The law as to provocation was not exactly satisfactory. Two views had been taken, one being that no words, however strong, insulting, or gross they might be, justified the infliction of a deadly wound — so as to reduce, that was to say, the crime to manslaughter. It was held that there must be, in addition to the words, assault or battery as well, to justify the infliction of such a wound. It had also been held that, under special and peculiar circumstances, the words might be of such a nature as to constitute sufficient provocation, with the addition of violence to the person. However, he would direct the jury on the lines of the case where the words were considered sufficient provocation, and would ask them to consider this: Would any ordinary man in his sober senses be so carried beyond himself by the words which the deceased had used, that if a gun lay immediately under his hand, he would pick it up and fire at the deceased. If they thought, looking at the relations of the parties, and at what deceased said, that an ordinary man in his sober senses might reasonably have done so, then, but not otherwise, they would be justified in finding that the offence be reduced to manslaughter. Of course, as a preliminary to finding that accused was guilty of either murder or manslaughter, they must bd satisfied that the gun was intentionally fired by him at deceased. If they found that the gun went off accidentally, accused would of course be entitled to acquittal. 

The jury retired at a quarter to four o'clock to consider their verdict, and returned into court at 5.45 with a verdict of "Not guilty." The prisoner was then discharged.  -Tuapeka Times, 11/7/1888.

FOR SALE, 

AERATED WATER and CORDIAL BUSINESS, in Working Order. 

Proprietor will instruct purchaser to manufacture goods, as he is leaving the Colony. No cordial maker within 30 miles. Two Quarter-acre Town Sections, Stone House, Stable, &c. 

Apply to J. CHARLESWORTH. 

Cordial Maker, Roxburgh, Otago.   -Otago Daily Times, 20/7/1888.

"The law is peculiar," was the remark of many on hearing that Isaac Charlesworth (the man who shot Barney O'Neill at Roxburgh), had been acquitted, To the ordinary mind it is rather odd, to put it mildly, that a person can deliberately take up a gun and discharge its contents at a man who had committed the offence of uttering some improper remarks, and then, when the case is tried, the verdict of "Not Guilty" is brought in. Of course the supposition that Charlesworth was unaware that the gun was loaded, must have influenced the jury considerably, and, it is fair to assume, was the ground on which the prisoner was acquitted.  -Lake Wakatip Mail, 27/7/1888.