1
--5-
36
went to get help and to the police station.
Both the widow
and the boy are emphatic in saying that the deceased had no weapon of any sort in his hand. They are emphatic in saying that the first thing that happened was that the accused threatened to kill his brother and reached up to the cockloft and took the chopper down. It is a curious thing that with so good a house-wife as the widow is, no one has told where that chopper ought to have been and to whom it belongs.
We only have that little bit of evidence as to what
happened.
If you believe that, if you accept that story then can
Because we know from the you come to any conclusion but one 7 accused himself that he had a grievance against his younger brother about some family property. We have heard the property had just been registered in the deceased's man name, as trustee of course; but apparently the accused did not appreciate that, and in his statement to the police, he mentioned emphatically and at the earliest possible moment that one of the causes of that quarrel between them was that his brother changed the land into his own name and said his elder brother had no share.
We are also told that there was some squabble over a sum being
paid to the priest for funeral expenses.
In this case the land was the root of the whole trouble. If you believe that and the evidence of the widow and the boy, can you come to any conclusion whatsoever but that the chopper was deliberately reached for and the attack on the deceased man was deliberate or in other words, that the crime of which the accused is guilty is murder and nothing short of murder?
"It is nonsense, it The accused tells a different story.
was my brother who had the chopper.
We were not on the best of