JOHNSTONE, Douglas Neil

1917 - 1938  (21 years)

• Name	JOHNSTONE, Douglas Neil  [1]
  Born	7 Jun 1917
  Gender	Male
  Died	8 Sep 1938	Townsville, Queensland, Australia   [1]
  Person ID	I4273	My Genealogy
  Last Modified	16 Sep 2023

  
  

  Father	JOHNSTONE, Neil,   b. 25 Jan 1876, Rushworth, Victoria, Australia ,   d. May 1955, Lindisfarne, Tasmania, Australia  (Age 79 years)
  Relationship	natural
  Mother	DYER, Linda Elsie,   b. 1 Oct 1884, Battery Point, Tasmania, Australia ,   d. Aug 1979, Lindisfarne, Tasmania, Australia  (Age 94 years)
  Relationship	natural
  Married	9 May 1906	Battery Point, Tasmania, Australia
  	St Georgres Church
  Family ID	F4559	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

  Family	GRUNDLE, Mavis
  Children	1. JOHNSTONE, Judy  [natural]
  Last Modified	16 Sep 2023
  Family ID	F1128	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Photos » Slide Show		Douglas Johnstone 1
  		Douglas Johnstone
  		Douglas Johnstone 2

  
  

• Notes

  The Mercury 13 September 1938 JOHNSTONE.-On September 9, 1338, at Townsville, Queensland (suddenly), Douglas Neil, beloved youngest son of Neil and Linda Johnstone. Lindisfarne, and beloved brother of Alan. Val, Jess, and Judy, and loving husband of Mavis, aged 23 years. Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Saturday 17 September 1938, page 19 MR. D. JOHNSTONE Death At Townsville Mr. Douglas Neil Johnstone, a naval rating in H.M.A.S. Canberra, who died at Townsville (Q.) on September 9, was a son of Mr. and Mrs. N. Johnstone. Lindisfarne. He was aged 23 years, and his wife and young child live at Ascot Vale (V.). Tribute to his sterling character was paid by the Rev. W. O. Lewis during a service at the Lindis-farne Congregational Church. Mr. Johnstone lived all his life at Lin-disfarne before he joined the Royal Australian Navy four years ago. At the age of 17 years he was presented with the Royal Humane Society's Certificate of Honour by the Governor (Sir Ernest Clark) for having saved a youth from drowning at Lindisfarne, Mr. Johnstone was burled with full naval honours at Townsville. Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954), Friday 9 September 1938, page 1 SAILOR SHOT DEAD Woman Charged At Townsville TOWNSVILLE, Thursday.— Douglas Johnstone, 23, a naval rating in H.M.A.S. Canberra, was shot with a revolver at Hermit Park about 4.20 p.m. to-day, and died in the Townsville General Hospital an hour later. A woman has been arrested, and will appear in the Police Court tomorrow morning. Johnstone received a bullet wound on the forehead over the left eye. Johnstone arrived in Townsville shortly after 2 p.m. with a number of other sailors on shore leave, and they were due to leave to return to the Canberra, which is anchored about two miles out, by 6 o'clock. The shooting took place at Herard Street, Causeway, which is about three quarters of a mile from the heart of the town, and only about 400 yards off Flinders Street. It is alleged that a party of five sailors attempted to visit a house, but were refused admission. When they persisted Johnstone was shot through the forehead. The Mundingburra police were advised, and when Sergeant J. Sullivan and Detective Voight arrived Johnstone was found in a critical condition. He was taken to hospital by the ambulance and died about an hour later. Detective Voight detained a young woman, and later this evening she was arrested and charged with murder. She will appear in the Police Court this morning, It is understood that he was a Victorian, and lived at Ascot Vale, Melbourne, before he joined the Navy. Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1907 - 1954), Wednesday 9 November 1938, page 12 SUPREME COURT. Criminal Sittings. Peggy Moore, charged with the wil-ful murder of Douglas Johnstone a naval rating, at Heraud Street, Towns-ville, on September 8, was acquitted by the jury on Tuesday. When the Court resumed at ten o'clock the last Crown witness, Seaman O'Reilly, concluded his evidence and Mr. F. W. Paterson, counsel for the prisoner, intimated he was not calling evidence for the de-fence. The witness,O'Reilly, replying to Mr. Paterson's cross-examination, stat-ed he was not drunk on the afternoon of the shooting. He would admit he did not remember Constable Gallagher speaking to him. When he ran up the street after the shooting he bent over and looked at the body and then rushed around to the back. He was not confused and denied he was at the back of the house prior to the shooting. This concluded the Crown case Mr. Patterson intimated he would not be calling evidence for the defence. In the course of his address the prisoner's counsel, in referring to the law on murder, indicated that he was going to submit his client acted in self-defence and that the facts on that day amounted to a riot and the prisoner was entitled to take the step she did to protect herself and to pre-vent a riot. The story of the sailors was too good to be true. Rather than a group of drunken sailors going to this place it sounded like the story of a number of tourists with cameras visiting places of historical interest, such as Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London. He pointed out that every sailor who had given evi-dence was in Heraud Street knock-ing at the doors, yet not one of them, according to his own story, wanted to go in. The evidence showed there were sailors at the front of No. 1 house and at the back of it simul-taneously; that they were at the back, front and side of the prisoner's place. Johnstone might have been the best behaved man in the Australian Navy, but in view of the actions of the others who were there was not the action of the prisoner a reasonable one when she saw another sailor ap-proaching her. They must consider Johnstone as one of a number. He directed the jury's attention to the at-titude of the prisoner when Constable Gallagher warned her she need not say anything. Her reply was "I only want to tell you the truth. I had to protect myself. What could I do with six sailors breaking into my house?" That was a more logical story than the one put up by the saints in the box. None of them could agree on who got out of the car first when they arrived there and O'Reilly was sure the car pulled up first at the hotel and not in Heraud Street. Mr. Paterson also directed the jury's attention to the fact that he had ob-tained from Constable Gallagher the admission that one of the other women told him quite early in his investigations she had seen a bottle near the body. He argued at length that the prisoner had acted reason-ably. Having in view the events of the few previous days; having seen the results of the assault on the woman Leone: knowing that a window had already been broken and that locked doors would probably offer her no protection against the physical strength of the sailor; was she not acting reasonably in coming outside, instead of being caught inside like a rat. In her state of mind it was a reasonable act for her to fire a re-volver when she saw a man raise his arm to throw a bottle or something that looked like a bottle. She told Constable Gallagher that she fired low and intended to frighten the sailors. It was only by the sheerest stroke of misfortune that the bullet struck the fatal spot it did. After examin-ing the toy revolver the jury, he sub-mitted, would agree with him that had she aimed at the head Johnstone would not have died on September 8th. His Honor, in summing up to the jury, informed them that it was open for them to return any one of four verdicts, namely, wilful murder, mur-der, manslaughter or not guilty. He dealt at length with the law apper-taining to murder in the three degrees he had outlined, pointing out that the killing of one human by another was unlawful except in some circum-stances where it was authorised, jus-tified or excused by law. There were very few facts in this case of which they could be quite certain, as it seem-ed to him. They did know for cer-tain that Johnstone met his death as the result of a bullet wound, the bul-let being discharged from a revolver by the prisoner, so there was no doubt that it was her action that caused Johnstone's death, but she said that, notwithstanding that she caused his death, she was justified in doing so. The prisoner's counsel had set up three defences. The first was self-defence, and His Honor proceeded to explain that a killing in self-defence was justified when the force used was not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. But if the nature of the assault was such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, then the person using force in retaliation would be entitled to use such force as would prevent the danger, even though it might cause death or grievous bodily harm. It was suggested here the prisoner was assaulted by John-stone and believed she had reason-able grounds for fearing she might suffer death or serious injury, and, believing that, she fired at him. In defining assault His Honor explained that in addition to using force a per-son could be guilty of assault if he by any bodily act or gesture, attempt-ed or threatened to apply force to another person, so that a threat, if made in such circumstances, would be an assault. In this case it was said that Johnstone was carrying a bottle and in such a way that he was going to throw it at the prisoner. If the jury believed that Johnstone had a bottle in his hand and made a ges-ture of throwing it at her, it would be an assault. The second defence set up was that of acting in defence of a dwelling house and if any defence applied in this case it appeared to him that this one was the most ap-propriate. The law entitled a person to use such force as was necessary to prevent the forcible entry into his house day or night of some other per-son with intent to commit an indic-table offence therein. It had happened over and over again where a person had broken or had attempted to break into a house and was shot by the householder that it had been held the householder was entitled to kill that person. So that if the prisoner in peaceful possession of her house be-lieved that Johnstone intended to break in and perhaps force himself upon her, she would be entitled to use such force as she believed was neces-sary to prevent him. Even if John-stone actually did not intend to break in, if the prisoner reasonably believed he did by his actions she was entitled to prevent him by the use of such force as she believed necessary. The third defence was that the prisoner acted in fear of a riot. If there was a riot on this particular afternoon it would have been lawful for a person to use such force as was necessary to suppress it and also if it was be- lieved that serious mischief would arise from the riot before the inter- vention of justice it would be lawful to use force. Coming to the evidence, His Honor said that in the first place it appeared to him that the evidence in this case was extremely unsatisfactory. "I am unable myself to form any clear idea of exactly what happened on this par-ticular afternoon in Heraud Street. I do not know your opinion, or what you think of some of the witnesses who gave evidence, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind the sailors either deliberately, or because they do not recollect what took place, did not give a true account of what happened. "Certain facts were not dis- puted. puted. A number of sailors came ashore with the intention of having a good time, and one could not blame them for it, and he did not. It was their intention to fill up with beer and go to this place and that was what they did. It was not disputed, continued His Honor, that when the sailor, appeared in Heraud Street, every woman in that street immediately locked her doors. Why?— because they were afraid, and because they did not want the sailors to come in. It was a curious thing, knowing as men of the world what these women were, that they should deliberately refuse busi-ness, but they gave the explanation that some days before, sailors— not Johnstone or those who were with him — apparently seriously injured one of the women in that street. "The sailors told you", he added, "they politely went to one or more of these houses and politely knocked and, get-ting no answer, just as politely went away. They said, two of them had no intention of going in. Ellis said he went to accompany Johnstone, whom he tried to persuade- not to go and Martin said he went with Man-cbee, who wanted to go in. I ask you, as men of the world, do you be-lieve a word of it? If you don't- and I don't— how can you trust their evi-dence otherwise. In this peaceful state of affairs the prisoner, a woman, comes out of her house, a house which had been locked up; she comes out with a revolver and without any reason whatever shoots John-stone. Do you believe It? His Honor, continuing, said, on the other hand, they had the story the prisoner told the police— that five or six men were trying to break into her house and she got frightened and threatened to shoot them. If there were five or six men breaking into her house the law entitled her to use force to prevent them. He (His Honor) did not think any member of the jury would have any hesitation in saying if five or six men tried to break into his house, he might not possibly try to kill one of them. The question was whether Johnstone was responsible, but at the same time it was reasonable for the prisoner to believe that he was one of them. She had shown Constable Gallagher where the window had been broken and the two women who heard the banging and breaking of glass from next door, said that this noise had occurred just before the prisoner ran to the house in which they were locked and asked to be let in. Constable Gallagher said the prisoner had shown him where she had barricaded the door with a double bed. Knowing what these women were, did they think it possible that the prisoner would leave broken glass on her bed. The jury retired at 12.10 p.m., and returned at 12.23 p.m. with a verdict at not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.

  
  

• Sources

  [S718] Australia, Death Index, 1787-1985, Ancestry.com, (Name: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.; Location: Provo, UT, USA; Date: 2010;), Queensland Death Index 1935-1939.