SHOOTING AFFRAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 39, 15 February 1910, Page 5

SHOOTING AFFRAY.

AN UNHAPPY HUSBAND. -" ' < J < AND A EEVOLVER SHOT. • j At the Supreme Court this morning, before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper, A George White was indicted upon a charge i that on December 22hd, at Auckland, he ( did fire a revolver at' Frederick Stanton Workman with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The minor charge of com- j mon assault was also preferred against the accused. , The prisoner, who was defended by Mr. ( J. R. Lundon, pleaded not gu-lty. \ In opening the case for the Crown, ( the Hon. J. A. Tole said trouble had , arisen between the two men over White's ; wife. They lived together at' Stratford, and eventually came to Auckland, where j Workman behaved with Mrs. White in- • such a way that angry words ensued, : and on the date in question White fired i a revolver at Workman in the street. , No doubt White had received such pro- j vocation as would naturally engender ( keen resentment. ln some countries , there was an unwritten law, but such a law -was unknown to English law, and •the jury, if satisfied that the offence had been committed, must convict, leaving it to the judge to exercise his prerogative of mercy. Frederick Stanton Workman, labourer, residing at Pitt-street, said he first knew White at Stratford ten months ago. He resided with White and his wife and children, ln December he came to Auckland, and some ten days later Mrs. White came to Auckland, and stayed with her sister at Kingsland. Prisoner saw witness in his wife's bedroom, and there were high words. They had previously quarrelled in Stratford for the same reason. On December __nd witness was walking with Mrs. White in Bond-street Prisoner fame up to tbem and pulled his wife aside, after saying, "What are you doing out with this man?" Prisoner then whipped out a revolver and pointed it at witness. Witness caught hold of prisoner's wrist and raised it. The pistol went off, and the bullet went over witness' shoulder. Witness tripped prisoner, and after a struggle the revolver was wrested from him. Subsequently he discovered that all the chambers were loaded bar one. The revolver was handed to the police. Cross-examined: He was not marriedHe was 2."> years of age. Prisoner took witness into his house at Toko, and witness ate his food for four months. During that time he paid prisoner nothing. He paid Mrs. White £3. That was not after be decided to clear out. He never intended to clear out. Mrs. White was not to clear out with him. He earned during that time £2 5/ a week. He paid nothing else. Prisoner had never complained up to that time of witness's conduct. He gave Mrs. White the money to go from Stratford to New Plymouth and Auckland. Witness took Mrs White from Toko to New Plymouth. Prisoner was away at work. Witness got back before prisoner, and wanted to borrow prisoner's horse, saying he wanted to go to Toko. Prisoner lent the horse. Prisoner eventually caught his wife at New Plymouth and brought her back. Witness and prisoner had high words over that on the Stratford railway platform. Witness did not want to fight prisoner for possession of the woman. Witness followed prisoner with a man named _ore_ Gore was not a bully. There was no talk of fight. Referring to the conversation on the platform, witness said prisoner declared he was taking his wife back to get a divorce. He did not remember prisoner culling him "a dirty low blackguard." He did not admit that it was true that "White's home has been broken up by Workman, who has not got what he deserves." He could not say prisoner was a decent, straightforward, honourable man. If Mr. George Bain and others in Toko gave the highest opinion of White no doubt their estimate would be correct. If people i n Toko said witness was an "unprincipled scoundrel, who owed money to all the tradesmen," that was untrue. Witness was a constant j visitor to Mrs. White's. Mrs. Whito I came to live at Mrs. Pollock's for some i weeks, and there White found witnes- i and Mrs. White in the bedroom. It wa_ j not true the. man was not allowed to see j his wife. White went away without i seeing his wife. Witness said* he would stand by the woman. He never mentioned the children. He did not prevent . prisoner from seeing his own wife. Pri- j soner did not have to thrust open tin I bedroom door. He did not remember the father and mother of Mrs. White imploring her not to disgrace the family. i There was some talk about her going I back to White nnd she said she would not. Witness was not ruiuiing the whole | household. After a week or so prisoner I took his children away. The six months' child was not witness's. Prisoner paid the birth expenses und burial expenses of the child. His. Honor: Do you mean to tell us that there was nothing between you and Mrs. White? Witness: There was nothing improper ; between us. Witness was in Mrs White's bedroom I several times when White came to see j her. lie never threatened to strike him. | Referring to the day of the assault, wit- | ness denied that as soon as White took j his wife aside he violently struck White j in the face, and that White showed the mark and blood to the constable. It was untrue that witness knew Whito had a revolver on him and wantonly provoked him. He knew that the revolver shot went through prisoner's coat. He was not telling a lie when he said the shot went over his own shoulder. He could not explain how it went through prisoner's coat. He denied that he turned the revolver upon White. Mr Lundon continued his cross-exami-nation at some length, with a view to showing that Workman had assaulted Whito and was, in fact, the unprovoked aggressor in the matter. Witness denied that last night, in Shortland-street, ho and some friends deliberately jostled the prisoner, with a view to provoking a breach of the peace, knowing that the prisoner was under a bond to he of good behaviour during his freedom on bail. John Dunsmore Pollock gave evidence as to the assault. Under cross-examina-tion, witness said he had never heard tbe prisoner use threat against "Workman. All prisoner's efforts were directed towards getting back his wife, and it was apparently the influence of Workman which prevented it. Evidence was also given by Annie Pollock and Constable McNamara. In addressing the jury for the defence, Mr. Lundon said the section of the Crimes : Act under which the first count was laid ' recited that a person was liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life who, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or do grievous bodily harm to another , person, discharged or attempted to dis- • charge a firearm at such person. Before the jury could convict they.must be satisl fied that there was intent, and also that, • an a matter of fact, the prisoner did discharge a revolver pointing it at Wark-

man. The other count was the simple one of common assault.. There being absolutely nothing against the prisoner, he would go into the bo_. Mr. Lundon went on to refer to the rare and peculiar circumstances of the case, and the application of the unwritten law, and said that a similar case had been tried in Wellington the day before - His Honor: You must not refer to that case. The jury have nothing to do with what happened in Wellington yesterday. If you were to ask mc my opinion of the action of the jury in that case Mr. Lundon: I don't, your Honor. His Honor: You would not like to hear it. Counsel then went on to refer at considerable length to the evidence, pointing out that there was a strong presumption that the prisoner was a quiet, unaggressive man, and that he had no intent whatever to do grievous bodily harm to Workman. If he had possessed any such intention he would have drawn the revolver before getting at close quarters with Workman. He suggested that without any provocation whatever Workman gave the prisoner a violent blow, and then the prisoner pulled out tbe revolver in selfdefence. The direction of the bullet through prisoner's coat strongly supported that view. (Proceeding.)