NOT PROVEN.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19690, 6 August 1929, Page 13

NOT PROVEN.

alleged cruelty to WIFE. AN UNUSUAL CHARGE. [THS PHSSB Special Serrte*.] AUCKLAND, August 8. There was an unexpected and abrupt ending to the trial in the Supreme Court of Peter Alexander Elmsley, « farmer, of Waerenga (Mr Noble), charged with failing to provide his wife with the necessities of life, and so permanently endangering her health, as the result of which she was unable through fear, weakness, or any other cause to remove herself from his charge. After lengthy evidence had been given by Mrs Elmsley, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr Meredith) said that it was useless to proceed further with the case in view of the woman's statements. Mr Justice Herdman agreed that the offence could not be proved, and on hia direction the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Accused was then discharged. 4 ' This is a most unusual charge, and fortunately one that has very rarely been invoked in this country," said Mi Meredith, in opening the cast. "The rarity of the instances in which it has been invoked is due to the fact that it is not often that one finds a family prepared, if the evidence of the prosecution is to be believed, so inhumanely to treat one of their number." There had been responsibility upon Elmsley to provide his wife with the necessities of life, these including decent food, clothing, and proper shelter. It would be necessary for the Crown to prove that for some reason or other Mrs Klmsley was unable to withdraw herself from her husband's charge, and to escape his treatment. The suggestion for the Crown was that the system of studied cruelty, insult, and terrorism to which she had been subjected for a number of years had reduced her to such a condition that she was entirely in the power of accused, and that she }i:ul lost hf-r own power of volition and initiative, Mr Meredith added. Mrs Elmsley said she was 53 years of age, and was married twenty years ago. She had lived at Waerenga for about eighteen or nineteen years. Her two daughters were eighteen and fifteen years respectively. About ten years ago her husband's attitude toward her changed noticeably. During the past few years he had struck her frequently, twice with a stock-whip, once with a leg-rope, and once with a stick. The blows with the stick had leaised weals on her back._ On the second occasion the blows with the lash had brought blood. Twice witness had been locked out of the house, once all night, and onoe from about two o'clock in the morning until days'At times 1 would get as much food as I liked and at other times nothing at all," witness said. Witness described an occurrence some time ago when her husband called her inside the house and made her watch a dog eat bread soaked in milk and cream from a plate. He then took a tin in which meat had been cooked, broke a slice of bread into it, p°or®d a little skimmed milk over it, and then said: —Here, take that outside. That is all vou deserve." Mr Sleredith: When did you last receive money from your husband r I never, remember getting any money from him. , Witness said her parents lived at Takapuna. but she had not been allowed to see them since her second child was born 15 years ago. Her mother used to send her clothes, but accused stopped this. In addition, sne had not been allowed to write home or even to receive letters from her patents. * ~ . , His Hondur: Could you not get awav ?—I could have, gone, yes, but you did not expect that 1 would have gone and left my girls, did you? His Honour: I assure you that I appreciate your sentiments. "I am sorry, Sir." said witness. "Do not worry. ' the Judge replied, ''l can understand. Mr Noble: Do you mean to say, Mrs Elmsley, that your two daughters would stand by and eat bacon and eggs while their mother ate food froin tne do"-'s plate?—l do not blame the girls in "any way. It was not their doing. They were trained from infants ana saw their father turn from me. . Witness said that she did not object to cutting wood "It was my place to do all 1 could ® not been in good health tor years, she added. Mr Noble: Are you not exaggerating a little when you say you have been starved?" , Witness (heatedly): I am not. His Honour: You could have got away at any time to your neighbours xf vou wanted tot—l conic! m years gone by, but lately I was forbidden to go near them. „ _ Were you frightened to go?—On one occasion I wanted to go to Braee s, and my husband said: "If you go there, you will stop there." Why did you not got—l would not leave my girls. , Was there any' other reason T—-.no other reason at all. If it had ttot been for the girls I would have left him IOI At 'this stage the Court adjourned at Mr Meredith's request. On resuming the Judge questioned Mrs Elmsley again, and she repeated her statement that she could have left if she had wanted to. She had no money, but could have got it, and she was quite able physically to leave. Her I husband made no efEort to stop her. On the contrary, he wanted to get rid of he «in the light of that evidence it is useless to proceed," Mr Meredith Mid. He stated that it had to be proved that the victim of such treatment as was alleged was unable to get away from her husband through fear, weakness, or any other reason. .... "It is not fitting that I should at this stage make any comment or criticism or this man's conduct toward nis wiic, I the Judge jaid in addressing the jury. "The evidence of Mrs Elmsley shows that one of the ingredients of the offence has not been proved. She said that she could have gone away if she wished. In the face of that evidence it is quite impossible to suggest that the offence has been proved, and the ! Crown has decided to proceed no further with the case. Tt is my duty therefore, to direct you to return a verdict of not guiltv. No matter what we niay think about this case, or about the treatment meted out to this unfortunate woman, the fact is that she was able to ! go awav." _ . | The jury, after a brief retirement, i returned a verdict of not guilty, ana accused was discharged.