ON THIS DAY – December 16, 1915
KATAMATITE
The sad story of the tragedy at Youarang, near Katamatite, on December 16, when the wife of a settler and her three children were the victims of a demented Hindu hawker was told in the Criminal Court on Tuesday, before Mr Justice Hood and a jury. The Hindu, named Butchan Singh, was placed on trial on a charge of the murder of Lucinda Pugsley and her three children, the youngest only 15 months of age. Mr Woinarski, K.C., Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr Maxwell (instructed by Mr J. Barnett) appeared for the accused.
David Pugsley gave evidence of discovering the bodies of his wife and children after the tragedy, and, cross examined by Mr Maxwell, said that Singh had travelled the district for 20 years and bore a good reputation. He had known that the accused had a delusion that people were trying to poison him since August last, and had told him it was humbug. Constable James Slater, of Dookie, who arrested the accused, said that when he said that accused must come with him, accused replied, ‘All right, boss; me go where you like.’ When asked by Constable Curruthers if he knew why he was arrested accused replied ‘No.’ When asked, ‘Did you shoot Mrs Pugsley and her three children?’ be replied, ‘Yes, I shot the four of them,’ and when further asked, ‘What did you kill them for?’ said, ‘We bad friends, I suppose.” He appeared to be quite rational, and sober. Mr Maxwell said that the defence was that the accused was insane at the time the act was committed.
This man, as a fruit hawker, had lived a lonely life for 20 years, known widely, but only in a kind of way. No motive could be suggested for the crime against these people, Detective Patrick O’Sullivan, stationed at Benalla, gave evidence that the accused had an excellent reputation, and had for some time stated that people were trying to poison him. Dr Thomas Murphy said that he thought that at the time of the act the accused was dominated by the delusions from which he had been suffering for twelve months. They were the result of a diseased brain. He did not think such a man would know, that he was doing wrong. Dr James A. O’Brien, Government medical officer, said that he thought that the accused, when he committed this act, was suffering from a fixed delusion. It was possible that in such a state he would not know the nature of his act or that he was doing wrong. Mr Justice Hood — Can you put your finger on any fact that would be inconsistent with insanity? Witness — The only thing that made me doubtful was that to me he denied all knowledge of the crime. Mr Justice Hood said that undoubtedly this woman and children had lost their lives through the accused. The only question was whether he knew what he was doing or that he was doing wrong. It seemed clear that he had the delusion that people desired to poison him. The crime itself was one not likely to be committed by a sane person. He was on friendly terms with these unfortunate people, and the fact that he killed not only the woman, but the children, seemed to indicate insanity.
The medical evidence supported the plea of Insanity, and that the accused did not know that he was doing wrong. If the jury was satisfied that he was insane when he killed this unhappy woman and children he was not guilty on the ground of insanity; if they were not satisfied as to that they must find him guilty. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity. The accused, who had sat in the dock throughout the trial without moving, was ordered to be detained daring the Governor’s pleasure. .