WOMAN ATTACKED

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 250, 22 October 1935, Page 8

WOMAN ATTACKED

YOUTH ON TRIAL.

WAS ACCUSED INSANE? EVIDENCE NOT DISPUTED. (By TelegTaph.—'Press Association.) DUNE DIN, this day. The trial of John Haig Roebuck, aged IG, on a charge of attempting to murder Mrs.' Isobel Lindsay Henderson at Tapui, North Otago, on August 11 was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Kennedy. There are also alternative charges of wounding. Mrs. Henderson with intent to dA grievous bodily - harm, and assaulting her so as to cause bodily harm.

The evidence yesterday showed that Mrs. Henderson was attacked with a butcher's knife while asleep and wae seriously wounded in the throat.

Sergeant McGregor, of Oamaru, said he heard accused tell a detective that he was responsible for Mrs. Henderson's injuries. Accused "I don't know what made me do it. I have been a silly young fool." Then he began to cry, and said: "It is a good thing she did not die. It is a relief to tell you and get it off my mind." Witness said he did not notice anything abnormal in the conduct or manner of accused.

Detective Thomas, of Timaru, gave jvidence that he told accused he suspected him and accused admitted he had attacked Mrs. Henderson, but said he did not intend to kill her. Something came over him, he said, which made him do it. He was sorry for what he had done. Accused seemed to be quite relieved to tell the story of what had occurred.

This closed the Crown's case. Mr. Swindley, for the defence, said the evidence for the prosecution was not disputed. The only question the jury had to consider was whether the accused was. in a legal sense, sane at the time. He submitted that the evidence not only favoured insanity, but could not bo reconciled on any other basis. The action of accused was highly consistent with the fact that he did not know the nature and quality of his act. The previous evidence of the woman attacked and c others had revealed that accused had no grievance against her, and that he was attached to his employers. Professor's Evidence. Profeesor Shelley, of Canterbury College, a psychologist, stated that from his examination of accused he concluded that he not only didn't understand the nature of hie act but also wan unconscious of it. This was due to gradual dissociation, which came after accused awakened from sleep. Dissociation was a mental disorder.

Witness believed there was partial dissociation due to a complex strongly associated with the break-up of accused's home and feeling towaids an aunt, this being linked up with the most violent action of the previous day's experience, namely, the slaughter of sheep. According to witness' investigation, the breaking through of that complex to normal consciousness occurred witli the scream of Mrs. Henderson. (Proceeding.)