According to Detective Senior Sergeant Paine, this case history was uncovered during some research carried out by his mother, who is writing a book on the history of Grafton Hospital. In his accompanying correspondence Sergeant Paine said: “Having been involved in forensic work for almost 20-years, I have seen many bizarre and tragic incidents that have had me shaking my head in amazement at the ‘million to one’ randomness that life can sometimes throw at us. 

I’ve also heard stories about people being accidentally shot from miles away in a similar fashion to the unfortunate victims described here. However, I suspected that such incidents were more than likely only partly true and have grown into more ‘urban myth’ than reality with the passage of time and translation. On the other hand, this incident did occur and has been chronicled in the newspaper articles taken from ‘The Daily Examiner’.

Furthermore, having grown up in the Grafton area, I am very familiar with the locations described in the story and find this a classic but tragic case of being in the wrong place at precisely the wrong time.”

INTRODUCTION

The title of this story speaks volumes in regard to the events that are about to unfold. Nevertheless, I must inform some readers that words such as: ‘reckless indifference’ have often been uttered in our Courts of Law.

However, as the years roll on, ‘Statutes’ change and new laws (that are easier to prove) such as ‘Manslaughter’, are now more commonly referred to. In any event, according to the Chambers Dictionary, a person who is reckless is one who carries out an action whilst being heedless of the consequences.

UNBELIEVABLE INCIDENT

A shocking tragedy for which, perhaps, it would be hard to find a parallel in the long list of shooting fatalities in the State, occurred in Ryan Street, South Grafton, on 14 October, 1919. When, as the result of a single rifle shot, supposed to have been fired at a distance of around 1,200 yards, Mr and Mrs Henry Long were killed, almost simultaneously.

According to information supplied to police and gathered by reporters who were on the scene of the tragedy soon after it occurred, it appears the unfortunate couple left South Grafton about 1.30pm for their property at ‘Seelands’, driving a horse and sulky along the Glen Innes Road. As they came abreast of Mr J Murphy’s residence, in Ryan Street, the horse suddenly wheeled around and the lady in the sulky toppled from the cart onto the side of the road; her husband followed her a second later. The horse, now without any restraining hand, went quickly into a full gallop and made a mad charge down the road. This in turn attracted the attention of a number of people to the fact that something unusual had taken place.

People rushed from nearby houses but were unable to assist the stricken couple. It was immediately obvious to these would-be-rescuers that Mrs Long had experienced some sort of a chest injury, as her blouse and her bodice were saturated in blood. She had ceased breathing and was presumed dead, while her husband, although unconscious, lived on for about ten minutes. Medical attendance was summoned and Dr William Page was soon on the scene; unfortunately, he arrived just as the husband took his last breath.

INVESTIGATION

Police were notified and Constable Warburton, who was in charge at South Grafton (in the absence of Sergeant Calman), took charge pending the arrival of Sergeant Swan and Constable Dent from Grafton. Unfortunately for police, the only eyewitness to the incident was a small boy. However, the presence of puncture wounds discovered by the investigators in the upper torso of both victims coupled with the fact that several gunshots had been heard that afternoon, made it fairly obvious to police that the couple had been shot. Later, after the Government Medical Officer, Dr T.J. Henry, had formally inspected the victims, their bodies were taken to Grafton Mortuary.

Police enquiries revealed that Mr Long, who was a share farmer, came to town about 10am with his wife, in accordance with his weekly routine and after transacting business at Grafton, caught the 1pm punt to South Grafton.

It was customary for the couple, when coming to town, to drive down the south bank and return by the north bank, via the Whiteman punt. But, unfortunately on this occasion, they started the round trip in the opposite direction. The husband, who was 35- years of age, was a member of one of Grafton’s oldest families, being the ninth son of the late Mr and Mrs Josiah Long of Mary Street. Henry Long’s wife was 37-years of age, and, prior to her marriage, was known as Miss Agnes Heldt, of the well-known Braunstone family of that name. This sad and almost unbelievable tragedy leaves two orphans, a boy and a girl, aged ten and 12 years’ respectively.

REPORTS OF SHOOTING

Later that afternoon, whilst tracking down the source of the gunshots heard by the local residents, Sergeant Swan and Constable Wilson went to the North Coast Company’s wharf where the ‘S.S. Tintenbar’ was discharging coal, and spoke to the master, Captain Drew. Sergeant Swan introduced himself and said: “Captain, one of my officers informed me that you were doing some shooting here about midday.” 

The Captain answered, “Yes. I had a couple of shots at some black shags in the water.” Sergeant Swan then questioned him on what type of weapon he had been using and he replied, “A military rifle.” The Sergeant said, “Show it to me,” and he handed over a .303 Army Service (Enfield) Repeating Rifle, which had been sighted at 1,800 yards (its fullest extent). However, when Sergeant Swan had it tested later, he found that it was now sighted at 400 yards.

Captain Drew also handed over three packets of .303 cartridges and said, “That rifle and the ammunition were issued to me quite legally by the Naval Department, in case I experienced trouble at sea.” The Sergeant then said, “Show me the direction in which you fired the shots and where the bird was that you fired at.” They were then on the bridge near the captain’s cabin door.

He pointed towards the sandpit on Susan Island, and said, “I fired at one over there,” and then pointing below the sandpit, he added, “Also, one over there.” In regard to the latter direction the policeman judged it to be in a direct line to where he had observed the two bodies lying on the side of the road.

Sergeant Swan wrote a few particulars in his official notebook and then said, “Well, Captain, this is a very serious matter. There have been two persons shot dead; a man and his wife, on the opposite side of the river, at South Grafton. I will take the rifle and cartridges and check them out to see if they are in any way responsible.” The police then left and went to the morgue at the Grafton Hospital, where Dr. Henry was conducting the postmortem examinations.

(Considering that the trajectory of a bullet (i.e. resultant on a ricochet) would be interfered with, by the high bank on the south side of the river, the police were inclined to believe that the unlucky shot was fired at a flying bird.)

ARREST

Later, during the post-mortem examinations, Sergeant Swan saw the doctor recover a large projectile (.303 bullet) from the side of the deceased female. This crucial piece of evidence was handed to him for safekeeping, on returning to the police station he carefully compared the bullet with one of those he had received from Captain Drew. They were a match. As a consequence he returned to the S.S. Tintenbar (which in the meantime had moved to the sawmill wharf) and arrested the captain. 

The prisoner was then taken to the Police Lock-up at Grafton, where he was charged with causing the death of Henry and Agnes Long. At the time he said, “Good God! Sergeant, that’s an awful charge. I can only say how very sorry I am that this has happened.” When Sergeant Swan was speaking to the captain on the first occasion (i.e. when the rifle was produced) he said there were two others on the boat who were also shooting at shags. Sergeant Swan asked him who they were and he gave him their names. As they were members of the crew, Sergeant Swan had the captain call them up and said to them, “I understand you have been firing this rifle at some black shags?” 

To which they answered in the affirmative and the sergeant inquired, “in what direction?’ The man, who Sergeant Swan understood was the mate, pointed up the river to about the middle of the island, and the other man pointed up the river, about 200 hundred yards from the boat. So it appeared to police that only the captain had pointed the gun in the general direction of where the double fatality had occurred.

Sergeant Swan asked, “What time did the shooting take place?” the captain said, “Just before we went to lunch, wasn’t it?” One of them answered, “Yes, and lunch was at one o’clock.”

CORONIAL INQUIRY

At the Grafton Courthouse the following morning, the Deputy Coroner, Mr. E. Avery, opened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the untimely deaths of Henry and Agnes Long.

Sidney Hannaford Drew, master of the S.S. Tintenbar, who was remanded from the Police Court on the preceding night in connection with the affair, was present, but was not represented until a later stage of the inquiry, when Mr. D.J. Lobbin appeared in his interests.

Mr. R.C. Law appeared on behalf of the children of the deceased, and Sergeant Swan organised the case for the Crown.

RESULTS OF POST MORTEM

Dr. Henry gave evidence to the effect that on the previous afternoon (about 3.15pm) in response to a police message, he proceeded to South Grafton, where he saw the two victims (who, by this time, had been covered by a sheet) lying on the grass verge on the south border of Ryan Street. The bodies were those of a married couple who were well known in the area. Both were fully clothed and had apparently died within the last hour or so. After making a tentative examination of the deceased, Dr Henry requested police to remove the bodies to the hospital morgue and there later, with the assistance of Dr William Page, he stripped the bodies and prepared them for the required post-mortem examinations.

He started his initial examination on the body of the male whom he recognised as that of Henry/Harry Long. He told the Court that Henry Long was about 35-years of age and well nourished. The doctor soon found a small puncture wound on the right side of Mr Long’s neck, about two inches below the ear. It resembled an entrance wound that a sharp-pointed bullet might make. He then found another similar wound, on the left side of the man’s neck four inches below the ear. This wound was larger and more ragged, and was apparently the exit wound of the projectile. The wounds, he said, easily matched the passage of a large bullet. 

Dr Henry then opened the man’s body and found that the second and third vertebrae bones of the neck had been shattered and the spinal cord torn. Using a straight wire probe he was able to trace the course of the missile transversely through the tissues of the neck, from the wound of entrance to the wound of exit. An examination of the rest of the man’s organs showed them to be perfectly healthy. Death was due to the injury to the spinal cord as described, and was entirely consistent with injuries that a bullet might produce.

The doctor then examined the body of the female, which he recognised as that of Mrs Henry Long, whom he had known for many years. In this instance he found a small circular puncture wound on the right breast, situated approximately four inches above her right nipple. Moving over to the left side of her chest (over the eighth rib) and in a vertical line from the middle of the armpit, the doctor could feel a hard substance under the skin (which was unbroken). He cut down through the skin and found a bullet (exhibit produced), which he handed to Sergeant Swan and Superintendent Walker, who were present during the post-mortem.

He then opened the cavity of the thorax and traced the course of the bullet from the wound of entrance, to the area where he had found it. The thorax, he said, was quite full of blood and there was a perforating wound through the right pleura of the right lung. The bullet had then traversed the heart, tearing the heart as it crossed, just as if it had been cut by a knife. It had then shattered the eighth rib on the left side and spent itself under the skin. The other organs of the body were all carefully inspected and once again they were found to be perfectly healthy. Death was due to internal haemorrhage of the heart. It was instantaneous and was obviously caused by the bullet now produced in Court.

RECONSTRUCTIONS 

The doctor went on to explain that when the bullet struck the man, he instinctively dragged back on one of the reins (or else they were wrapped around his wrist) prior to dropping out of the sulky, thus causing the horse to abruptly turn around. Although Mrs Long was considerably taller than her husband, Dr Henry stated that when sitting beside him in the sulky there would be little difference in their height and, in his subsequent reconstruction of the events he concluded the decrease in the elevation of the bullet, between it leaving the man and entering the woman, is: that at the time the fatal shot had been fired, the sulky was probably bouncing around on the uneven ground (on the side of the dirt road) and was travelling fairly fast.

FAMILY WITNESS

Frederick Long, a plumber, residing at Grafton, stated he was Henry Long’s brother. Whilst relating personal particulars, he said the deceased male was married and had two children. He was a sharefarmer with Mr Ford at ‘Seelands’; a property situated about 11 miles from Grafton. He last saw the deceased whilst they were at his home in Grafton between 12noon and 1pm on the day of their deaths.

He told the Court that the couple left his residence, in the sulky, at approximately 12.50pm to catch the 1pm punt, as it would not have been possible to catch a punt before then.

The witness further stated that his brother was 36-years of age and had been born at Grafton. He was not wealthy, but apart from his household furniture etc., he owned an allotment of land in Grafton valued at around 40 pounds ($80). The witness also said he thought his brother owned some cattle, but did not know if the lives of either of the deceased had been insured.

EYE WITNESS 

The next witness was a child of tender years, who, it is understood, was the only person who saw the two victims fall from the sulky, but as some trouble was experienced (in the taking of the oath) Sergeant Swan asked that he stand down, as he thought the next witness would cover practically the same ground.

CRIME SCENE WITNESS

John Murphy, a horse-trainer, residing at South Grafton, gave evidence to the effect that about 12.30pm on the previous day he was at home and after he had lunch (about 30 minutes later), he went out on his front verandah to rest. Not long afterwards he heard, what he believed to be, two (distant) gunshots in quick succession. 

Almost immediately after the shots had been fired, he heard a commotion going on a short distance away - down the road towards the town. So he got up and walked to his front gate. On looking down the road he saw a man and a woman lying on the grass on the southern side of Ryan Street and a horse and sulky racing back towards town. He called out to his mother to come out, and ran towards the fallen couple. Murphy reached the woman first and thought she was alive, but unconscious. He left her and went to the man, who was conscious, but could not speak. When he first saw the deceased he judged the time to be between 1.30pm and 1.45pm.

POLICE WITNESS 

Constable Wilson stated that at about 3pm on the 14 October, 1919 as a result of something he had heard, he went to the vicinity of the North Coast Company’s wharf at Grafton, and made inquiries about the reports of shooting nearby. He was the first policeman to go on board the S.S. Tintenbar and whilst there saw the Master in his cabin. 

Constable Wilson said to him: “It has been reported that there has been some shooting going on here before dinner,” and Captain Drew replied: “Somebody has had little to do and they have a big mouth.” 

Constable Wilson then said, “Did you fire any shots?”

Captain Drew said, “Yes, I fired a couple at some black shags on the point of the island.” 

He pointed towards the island, which was in a direct line with the house occupied by Mr Murphy at South Grafton. Constable Wilson was also present when Sergeant Swan spoke to the captain and took possession of the rifle and cartridges.

SERGEANT SWAN 

When I questioned the captain he was standing in the spot from where he had fired the shots and he indicated to me certain areas where he had pointed the rifle whilst they were firing at the birds.

It was at this stage that I noted the house closest to where the deceased had been found was in a direct line with the captain’s indications. The birds on the island were about a quarter of a mile from the boat and as far as I can judge, the crime scene was about a half a mile further on. I would not have fired a shot with that particular rifle (in that direction) in view of my experience with guns. The bullet could ricochet at that angle and therefore there was evidence of indifference being exhibited to those living in town.

Sergeant Swan also told the Court that the bullet extracted from Mrs Long’s body corresponded exactly with one of those .303 military service cartridges, which had been handed to him by the defendant. The rifle was described in Court as a .303 Lee-Enfield, of the service pattern supplied by the Naval Department to a number of steamer captains’, to assist them in destroying any mines that might be encountered at sea.

Sergeant Swan concluded his evidence with the following testimony: “I would say that a bullet fired from such a weapon could easily kill two people sitting in a sulky. If this military rifle can send a missile over 2,000 yards, then the act of firing it across the river (a much lesser distance) would, to me, represent a ‘reckless indifference’ to human life.

DEFENCE

Mr Lobban stood up and said to the Coroner: “When first interviewed, the captain said, somebody has a big mouth. That was in answer to police questions about the shooting. Up to that time no mention had been made as to the accident across the river. I do not wish to suggest to the Coroner that the use of these words conveyed anything…”

The Coroner agreed with this assumption and then said that he would take the lunch adjournment, but the defence lawyer asked that he be heard on one or two points first. Mr Lobban continued and said that regrettable as the cases were, at the most they were only cases of accidental death. He recognised that a man was responsible for the probable result of his actions, but looking at the evidence and considering that his client, who was not an expert in the use of a gun, had pointed it at a bird a quarter of a mile away, he took it that there was no showing of indifference to human life. The matter was grievous, but he contended that the two deceased had met their deaths by mischance and accident and that the captain was only responsible for the careless use of a firearm. He asked for a verdict of accidental death.

CORONER’S VERDICT

Notwithstanding such pleas from the Defence, at day’s end, the Coroner found that Henry and Agnes Long had died from the effects of injuries feloniously inflicted on them on 14 October, 1919 at South Grafton, by Sidney Hanniford Drew, of Sydney.

The Coroner said that while sympathising with Captain Drew, his duty compelled him to commit him for trial at the Grafton Quarter Sessions in November.

Mr Lobban applied for bail and without any police opposition, it was granted on the same terms as that of the Police Court, self in 50 pounds ($100) and a surety of a like amount. The bail was immediately forthcoming.

TRIAL

(Accused discharged)

Later at the Quarter Sessions (21 November, 1919) Sidney Drew, master of the steamer ‘S.S. Tintenbar’, appeared in Court charged with having, at South Grafton, feloniously slain Henry and Agnes Long.

The case for the Crown was that the accused had been shooting at birds from the deck of his steamer and had fatally shot Mr and Mrs Long, whilst they were travelling in a sulky, on the Glen Innes Road about 1,200 yards away. The prosecution alleged recklessness in the use of the rifle so fired.

The accused admitted having fired several shots that day, but had further stated, that these bullets had hit the water. Dr Brissenden, for the defence, asked if his Honour thought a nominal punishment would meet the case, as the accused felt his position keenly and had been sufficiently punished.

After a period of time, Judge Scholes weighed up the facts and then said he felt justified, given the circumstances, in withdrawing the case from the jury. The accused was thereupon discharged.

CONCLUSION

Shakespeare, in ‘Macbeth’, once said: “Death hath a thousand doors to let out life!”

Well, who can dispute that? But it seems to me that had the unfortunate couple departed from his brother’s residence a mere second earlier (or later) then two young children would not have been orphaned so disastrously.

Such a tragedy as this, certainly illustrates the reasons why our police weapons instructors repeatedly warn about obeying the golden rules of gun handling, namely:

1. Treat all firearms as if they are loaded.
2. Be conscious of where your firearm is pointed at all times and never allow it to cover another person unless required by your duties as a police officer.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger and on the receiver until the sights are on your target and you decide to fire.
4. Be sure of your target, know what is in line with it and what is behind it and never fire at anything you have not positively identified.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Parts of some statements have been reprinted from ‘The Daily Examiner’, Grafton, dated Thursday, 16 October, 1919. The Clarence River Historical Society who provided the historical photographs.

EDITORIAL NOTE

Detective Senior Sergeant Noel Paine, who is attached to the Forensic Services Group, in Lismore, sent a number of newspaper articles to the APJ recently. These articles refer to a most unusual shooting tragedy that took place in the northern NSW coastal town of Grafton, almost 90-years ago. Initially, the APJ team endeavoured to follow the storyline, as it was first documented but have been forced to make numerous alterations to remove the usual newspaper verbosity and bring continuity back in line with our particular style.