MURDER CHARGE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25290, 16 September 1947, Page 8

MURDER CHARGE

WOMAN’S DEATH AT AUCKLAND LOWER COURT HEARING (P.A.) AUCKLAND, September 15. The preliminary hearing of a charge against Mrs Pansy Louise Frances Haskell, aged 49, of murdering Mrs Gladys Ruth Rusden at One Tree Hill on June 5 was opened in the Magistrate’s Court to-day i before Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M. The public galleries were crowded. Mr V. R- Meredith, with Mr G. D. Speight, is appearing for the Crown, and the accused is represented by Mr M. Robinson. Richard Alfred Rusden, husband of the dead woman, said he was married on March 19, 1925, and at the time of his wife’s death they were living at One Tree Hill. He first met the accused more than two and a haD years ago, and up till then his relation.- with his wife had been quite friendly He was friendly with Mrs Haskell, who was formerly Mrs Fiost, while she was living at Howick, continued the witness. While there they were on intimate relations. These relation: continued for a couple of months when Mrs Haskell went to Liberty House ir Upper Queen street He had visited her there, and intimacy had taken place. His wife knew of this. She had first learnt of it through an anonymous letter. Anonymous Letter Rusden added tha. the anonymous letter was dated May It, 1945. He had nothing to do with writing the letter There was trouble with his wife c ver the r eceipt of that letter He showed the letter to the accused who denied all knowledge of it. Rusden sai< that on the nights he was with Mrs Haskell he told his wife lie was on duty in the Arm; The accused came to his home one nighi in March, 1946, ano said she had come as she wanted his wife to divorce bin Mrs Haskell told his wife she would never want if she freed him, but his wuc would have nothing to do with it ac she wquld nevei divorce him. His wife called tylrs Haskell a certain name, said the witness Mrs Haskell was very annoyed. Mrs Haskell returned to the house the following morning and .gain spoke of a di.orce to his wife. She told his wife she would have him “at any cost.” Questioned- by his wife. Mrs Haskell admitted a certain natter, the witness continued. Hit wife was horrified. The witness said he got his oag and left with Mrs Hasp ell. They oo*h went to Liberty House, where the witness stayed for about a week, occupying the same room as Mrs Haskell. He returned home and asked hit- wife if she would have him back. That night back on Army duty and afterwards .eturneu home and stayed. He finished with the Army aoout March 26, 1946. He lived at home, but still visitec- Mrs Haskell through her persistently not leaving nim alone. Rusden said he remembered an assault upon his w»A while he was in camp at Cornwall Park about 18 months ago. He was called out about z3U in the morning. His wife had been Knocked about and was very upset, some time later he returned to his work a brewery. Letter from 'Accused The accused sem him a note stating she wanted to see him, continued the witness. He later saw the accused, and visits to Liberty House were renewed. Asked by Mr Meiedith whether ne Knew a man named Rix, the witness said Le knew him now tut not before. He never at any time made any arrangement with Rix. The witness said the accused had v. anted him to live with her and had wished to make her property over to him. He told her he would never break up his home. The witness said tnai about April, 1946. he lost his key to his house He mentioned this to the accused, who saidWhat would 1 wai t the! key xor?” She had had the cheek t< say his wife would be better out of the way or something to that effect. She hated his wile Accused told him she had prowled round the Rusden ’« ncuse with shoes off so she would not maxe a noise to see if she could discover i' he and Mrs Rusren were on frienuly terms Witness denied he had a row w>th his wife after the races and threatened 'to cut her throat He did not ever sav anything about giving her sleeping tablets and placing a pillow over her head to umother her. On the day before the trageoy Mrs Frost rang him at work and asked him to see her that night but ne refused. She met him at the bus terminus He told her his wife war not too well Then he went home. Witness said his wife was very well and in good spirits when he left for work on the morning oi the tragedy. She was in a bright red dressing eown and pyjamas He clocked out of work about 4.30 p.m. and reached home about 5.20 n.m The house was locked lie climbed through a window. He foufld her in the kitchenette in a pool of blood He straight away pot a neighbour to ring a doctor. His wife was dressed as she was when he left for work. The dishes were all washed up and out away Everything was clean. He saw a detective find a Key to his front door in his wife’s handbag. This key had numbers or- ’it. The .ne he lost had no numbers on it Shown a key by Mi Meredith, witness said it looked like the »ne he had ost. ' • i Schoolboy s Evidence Lionel John Peter Flashman, aged 13, a schoolboy, said he knew Mr and Mrs Rusden, who lived opposite. He recalled June 5. He got up and went io mass at the Catholic . Church at Ellerslie Mass was at ~.30 a.m. and at 8.10 a.m he left ♦he church to go h«»me. It was between R 2O a.m. and 8.25 -i.m when he got home He looked over towards the Rusdens’ house and saw someone. “I saw a lady .n the right side window’.” witness said "I could not see what she was doing She was wearing a red coat that I thought was ? dressing ,own. She had her back to me. i- could see her hair and shoulders. She seemed be leaning against the window-sill The woman he saw he thought was Mrs Rusden. he added He took it for granted. He then went straight inside his he me. William Sim, faciu:«r hand, said ne was the next-door neighbour of the Rusdens, but did not know them very well On June 5 he left tor work at about 6.30 £.m. and got home at about 5 J pm. He sat down to tea and Rusden came m and asked if Mrs Snr. had seen Mis Russen day. He appeared to oe himsflf and went bacr to his own place. A few minutes afterward Rusden returned "He seemed dazea.” witness said. As a result of what Rusden told him. witness went for < doctor and on his return he went with Rusden to the Rusdens’ , °. u ?_ e - sa ~ R usden lying in the kitchenette. Dr Wagstaff was next to arrive. He looked at Mrs Rusden and said it was a case for the police. Witness telephoned fo* the police from a neighbours’ house Dr. Ronald Wagstaff said Mrs Rusden bad been a patieni off and on for two cr three years She was treated mainly .or nervous debility and also or goitre lie last saw her some months before her death when her health was ‘mpi oving On June 5 he was called to the Rusdens’ house where he saw Rusden and a neighbour. Close Examination Not Maae Dr. Wagstaff said he saw Mrs Rusden’s body but did not examine her closely. He judged she had been dead for some hours and that she had probably died some time in the morning. It was about 6 p.m. She was in pyjamas and dressinggown. There was a lot of blood on the floor. The bed in the front bedroom had not been fully made, although it appeared to have been started. *. Mr Robinson: You made no examination to give an accurate time when the death took place Witness: No. I cannot say any accurate time from my superficial examination. Mrs Ella Jane Kitson said she knew Mrs Rusden, who usually fed the fowls about 8.30 a.m Deceased, if not going out, often wore her dressing gown when feeding the fowls. On June 5, witness was on her front veranda about 8.30 a.m., and she heard a cough that seemed to come from the front of the Rusden house She had often heard Mrs Rusden coughing. Detective-Sergeant James Bain McLean said that at 6.5 p.m. on June 5 he went to the Rusdens’ house, where he found Rusden, Sim, and Dr. Wagstaff. In the kitchenette he saw deceased’s body. Beatrice Maud Bernhard, nurse employed by the Dominion Breweries at Otahuhu, said she saw Rusden board her bus taking workers to the brewery at 7.25 a.m. on June 5. His conduct was quite normal. Clifford Cave Whatford Way, acting works manager of the Waitemata Breweries. said he knew Rusden. who was head cooper. The time card for June 5 showed that Rusden booked in at 6.34 a.m.. but the clock was an hour slow, and it should have read 7.34 He booked out at his normal time of 4.49 p.m. Hugh Slewart. a cooper employed at Dominion Breweries, said he worked in the same wprkshop as Rusden. On June I 5 he had lunch with Rusden, who did not'i leave work that day for longer than five or 10 minutes at any period. His behaviour that day was normal. Several tradesmen and a postman gave evidence. # At this' stage Mr Meredith said the 1 evidence of the next witness would take 1 two or three hours, and he did not think it should be broken. The Court then adjourned. |