SMITH'S DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 280, 26 November 1931, Page 8

SMITH'S DEFENCE.

MURDER CHARGE TRIAL.

WIFE'S DEATH AT HAMILTON.

EVIDENCE AS TO STATE OF MIND.

BROODED OVER TROUBLES

(Br Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

HAMILTON, this day,

The third day was entered upon in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of the trial of Arthur Walter Smith, aged 50, painter, who is charged with murdering his wife. Lois Alexandra Smith, aged 29, at Hamilton. 011 October 3. Mrs. Smith'was foun;l dead with her throat eut in her home at 23, Liverpool Street, and accused then had an injury to his throat. The iir?t witness for the defence was accused's sister, Lillian Smith, of Christchurch. She said accused had been an excellent son and brother and had always been most kind to his children. Smith's letters to her for some time prior to the tragedy had been couched in mcst unhappy terms. Counsel read a certificate which stated that accused's father had died in the Sunnvside Mental Hospital on August (i, lSi>S, from general paralysis of the brain. Eric Neville Balfour, farmer, said that accused papered and painted, his house a few weeks before the tragedy. Smith was working at witness' house for six weeks. He worked long hours and while he worked he was cheerful, but in the evenings- he sat brooding. Frequently after Mrs. Balfour had retired he would burst into tears. He often walked in Ids room at night and witness knew that he often did not steep. He did not confide his troubles in witness. He had never known Smith to show signs of temper and he was always very kind to witness' child. James Jull, plasterer, Hamilton, said Smith was very depressed when he met him two days before the tragedy. The Rev. L.'M. Bogers described Smith *,s a neurotic, excitable type of man, who had been broody and depressed for tome time before his last wife died. Smith, several times broke down after talking about his financial and domestic troubles. He was v?ry devoted to his wife. There was more affection on his side than there was on hers. Impulse to Kill. Dr. M. M. Hockin, medical superintendent of the Waikato Hospital, said Smith had been in the hospital for 23 days. He had a long, deep wound on the right side of his neck. Smith was very weak from loss of blood at first tnd" was depressed. Later his condition changed and he became exalted and *,nxious to discuss his affairs. Before lie left the hospital Smith told witness •■bout the tragedy. He remembered the events leading up to the striking of his ■wife, tut lie was not clear as to what followed. ? - 4 Accused's story did not vary in any particular, said witness. Smith did not ippear to be concerned regarding the outcome of the tragedy as it affected himself. Witness did not consider him as a normal type of man. Smith told him that he was unable to control the impulse to kill his wife, and witness considered he was speaking the truth. There was an absence of remorse and regret regarding his wife's death. To his Honor witness said he did not think accused was suffering from imbecility or disease of the mind. To counsel witness said he did not suggest that accused was callous. Question of Mentality. Dr. John Williams, superintendent of the Porirua Mental Hospital, said he had examined accused, and had heard the evidence in the case. He had been puzzled to know why it was that after , accused's act lie exhibited complete normality. Smith in his opinion was a man not up to normal in his mental make-up, by which he meant that he , might stand a certain amount of social and economic strain, but that a break- ; nig point was reached sooner in him than in the case of a normal man. This was borne out by Smith's history, continued witness. Smith was on the verge of a nervous breakdown prior to the tragedy. Witness did not think Smith had the strength of character to kill Ms wife and attempt to commit suicide in cold blood. There was no evidence of premeditation, witness- considered. He believed that when Smith attacked his wife lie was so overco; le by a surge of emotion and by lack of self-control that he was not really conscious of what he was doing. Consciousness soon returned, and, realising the nature of his act, he , tried to kill himself, but failed, largely ( because of physical weakness. ( Lack of Realisation. To his Honor witness said he was of 1 the opinion that when he committed the 1 act Smith was suffering from disease of < the mind to such an extent that he was 1 incapable of understanding the nature < and quality of his act, and that the act ] was wrong. Smith, knew that he was \ going to exterminate his wife, but men- ] tal disease at the time precluded him •( from knowing what he was doing. Ihe improvement in Smith's condition since ] his arrest was due to the shelter and s th« treatment he had received. ] Dr. Williams considered that at the j time of the act Smith was suffering ] from neurosis or minor insanity. i Dr. St. L. H. Gribben, mental special- a ist, said the accused had given him the 1 impression that he regarded himself with 1 pity and as the injured man. He spoke a of killing his wife with detachment. 5 Witness formed the opinion that there * was no premeditation of the crime. Up r to the time he procured the knife Smith s knew the nature and quality of the act c he was about to commit, but that, act- 1 ing as witness believed he did, under t a surge of emotion, there was in witness' 1 mind a doubt as to whether accused a knew it was' wrong. It was evident to 1 witness that when accused was assailed 1 by remorse after the act that he realised <; he had done wrong. In witness' opinion Smith acted under i an uncontrollable impulse, and was in- 1 capable of knowing what he was doing when he killed his wife. Immediately before the act lie knew what he was doing and immediately afterwards he knew what he had done. He was suffering from a mental disorder when lie killed the woman. Counsel Addresses Jury. a Addressing the jury counsel for the £ defence said three verdicts were to be " txmeidercd, namely murder, manslaughter and not guilty on the ground of insanity, j The charge could be reduced to manslaughter if the act was done under pro- / vocation. In the event of the laJst ver- f diet being given accused would not go (

! free, but would be sent to a mcnta i asylum until the authorities were satis fied that he was cured. He urged tin jury to believe accuseds statement im • plicitlv. Prisoner had been asked to tel ; this story about twenty times and lit i had never varied it. If prisoner was oui for deception, and if he had the capacity he could have made his story very mud . better for himself. Counsel said Smith was given a fine character by several witnesses and was apparently a model husband. He suggested that Smith would never have done the act in his sane moments. He had never seen a more terrible example of hereditary insanity. Smith's father died in an aslyum from a certain disease seven years after prisoner was born. He had died an awful death. | Forty-three years after the son was I charged with murder.

" Not Guilty " or " Manslaughter." Counsel submitted that Smith was endowed with a weak brain and nervous system. During the war Smith was attacked in his weak spot and 14 years later his financial and domestic troubles had assaulted him in the same way. Counsel read the testimony of several independent witnesses in support of this view. Smith was 011 the verge of a nervous breakdown. He urged the jury to hold that at the. time of the tragedy prisoner was suffering from definite mental disease. If his wife had had any care and affection for her husband she would have hurried him off to hospital. Smith was ill and needed mental attention. If his wife had given Smith any excuse for her conduct he believed Smith would have made it up. The Crown had suggested that .prisoner would cure the disgrace to his children brought about by his wife's unfaithfulness by killing her. Such a suggestion was untenable and it proved prisoner's insanity at the time. Counspl contended that had Smith died by his own hand the jury at the inquest was bound to have brought in a verdict of suicide while temporarily insane. Ho asked the jury to find prisoner not guilty 011 the grounds of insanity, and. failing that, a verdict of manslaughter. Case for Crown. The Crown Solicitor claimed that defending counsel had used his art to cloud the issues. It was not contradicted that prisoner's story had always been the same. Counsel considered the suggestion that the wife's act in turning her back away from her husband was a confession of misconduct was grotesque. To give a verdict of manslaughter, the jury would have to believe that the act had been done in the heat of passion under sudden provocation. There was no evidence of that. On the contrary, prisoner had self-control throughout. Counsel pointed out that if the contention of defending counsel and Dr. Williams were upheld it would mean the subversion of much of our criminal law. It would mean that the suggestion of some slight mental deficiency would onlv hare to be raised when in every case the jury would have to acquit accused on the ground of insanity. Counsel claimed that "the only evidence supporting the theory of nervous disorder was sleeplessness. The defence's story of amnasia appeared to be a concoction. Prisoner was certainly goaded, but he deliberately took his wife's life knowing what he was doing. (Proceeding.)