Murder at Matanaka - A fatal argument over chops

Murder at Matanaka – a Fatal Argument over Chops.

In 1865 Matanaka farm was being managed by John Richard Jones, the eldest son of Johnny Jones, Jones senior having long since retired to Dunedin. Among the various labourers who lived and worked at Matanaka, John Scott and Donald Weir were considered to have been two of the more quiet and respectable workers.  They had been employed there for three and two years respectively and for eighteen months had been quite peacefully sharing a workers hut.
 

Donald Weir was the younger of the two, a regular churchgoer, he was a powerfully built man, over six feet in height who was known as ‘big Dan.’ John Scott was somewhat shorter, a thickset Scotsman of around thirty years of age, who was not known to have been a troublemaker.  The tiny hut that Scott and Weir shared measured no larger than ‘a dozen feet each way’ - it was necessarily sparsely furnished. The constable who was called to the scene early on the morning of Sunday February 19^th, 1865 made a careful sketch of the hut’s interior.  He observed that Donald Weir’s good suit of clothes was carefully laid out on his stretcher and that a plate of chops and a basin of tea sat on the table.  Beside the table lay Donald Weirs bloodied body, a clean table knife clutched in his hand. 

The farm overseer was the first person to become aware of the incident.  Scott fetched him, complaining of a brawl and asking him to “help to lift this man.” When confronted with a bloodied body the overseer quite wisely fled, fetching his employer to the scene.  Jones junior, who was perhaps somewhat squeamish declined to enter the hut, but took the appropriate actions. The overseer was instructed to determine whether the body was still warm (it was), the prisoner was detained and the constable and doctor were summoned.

Joseph Cutcliffe, the Waikouaiti mounted constable was a thorough man.  In examining the murder scene he quickly discovered two possible murder weapons.  A sheath knife with a visible blood spot lay on the table and a broken and bloody stool leg lay beside the victim’s head. He carefully recorded the physical appearance of his prisoner before arresting him.   The accused’s body bore signs of a violent struggle, one cheek was swollen, an eye was blackened and one of his fingers had been cut almost to the bone.  Several marks that soon developed into fist sized bruises were found on his torso.  At the time of his arrest Scott’s trousers and boots were covered in blood.

Joseph Crocome, the doctor from Hawksbury Bush was less methodical; he externally examined the victim’s fatal wounds but declined to carry out a full post mortem seeing no reason to “mutilate a body without good reason.”  At Scott’s trial he reported that Weir’s face had a cleanly incised four inch gash that extended from right ear to cheek.  This cut had bled profusely, and the underlying cheek bone had been fractured.  Three additional facial wounds had been noted, in the doctor’s opinion these wounds had been “almost certainly produced by a kick.” He considered that death had been caused by the combined effects of haemorrhage and injury to the brain caused by violent blows.

Despite being warned by Sergeant Cutcliffe to be “careful what he said” Scott changed his story three times.  He immediately admitted that he and Weir had quarrelled and fought but initially claimed to have no knowledge of how the deceased might have cut his face.  When confronted with the doctor’s analysis of the victim’s wounds he admitted to striking Weir with a leg that he had wrenched from a stool.  Two days later he once again changed his story, denying that the bloody stool leg had been the murder weapon and claiming to have struck the victim across the face with an old spade that had been standing beside the fireplace. In his panic Scott had discarded the spade but the diligent Sergeant Cutcliffe eventually discovered it on a cliff face “within yards of the sea” and delivered it to a scientific expert for analysis. James Hector, Otago’s provincial geologist microscopically examined the spade and was able to determined that the three or four spots on its surface were indeed blood traces but was unable to determine whether the blood was human.  

Although he varied the description of the weapon that he had used, John Scott’s motive was unwavering.  He maintained to have acted in self-defence, retaliating in fear of his life after being attacked by a much taller, stronger man.   On that particular Sunday morning Scott claimed to have been sitting at the hearth, frying chops in the camp oven for breakfast when Weir had attacked him.  An argument had developed after Weir had asked Scott why the meat hadn’t been fetched the previous day and Scott had replied that “it was as much your place to fetch it as it was mine.”                

The details of this meat-based argument were never fully explained.  Had the (two day old?) chops spoiled in the summer heat and Weir was angry because there was nothing better to eat? Or were there simply not enough chops left over from previous meals to satisfy the big man’s appetite?  Whatever the basis for the trivial argument might have been Weir was certainly angry enough at being denied a proper Sabbath breakfast to have resorted to violence.  In Scott’s statement he claimed that Weir snatched the knife he was using to turn the meat from him, cutting his hand and that Weir kicked and punched him.  This initial beating was followed by further threats of violence and Scott stated that when he saw Weir standing by the table with knife and fork in hand (about to eat?) he became frightened and struck out at his attacker.

The lawyer at Scott’s trial attributed inconsistencies in his statements to “excitement and fear” while highlighting the consistency of his claims of self-defence.  John Richard Jones was called to act as a character witness and gave such a glowing account of Scott’s reputation that the prisoner was reduced to tears.   Suggestions that the cut to Scott’s left hand could have been caused by the deceased wrenching away a weapon were discredited after Jones junior was recalled to the stand and testified that Scott was right handed.  In summing up to the jury, his honour Mr Justice Chapman stated that it was remarkable that the quarrel should have occurred on a Sunday, “a day on which men who are peaceably disposed are generally disposed to be more peaceable.” He suggested that a fight on the Sabbath was an unusual occurrence that suggested impulsiveness rather than premeditation and that this should be “the first step toward considering the offence manslaughter rather than murder.

The jury followed his instructions and returned a verdict of “Guilty of Manslaughter.” John Scott was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment with hard labour.  The location of Donald Weir’s grave is unknown.