ASSAULT ON WIFE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27226, 18 December 1953, Page 6

ASSAULT ON WIFE

MAN SENTENCED IN SUPREME COURT

IMPRISONMENT FOR 18 MONTHS

William Foubister, aged 68, a retired foreman stevedore, who was found guilty by a jury on a charge of assaulting his wife. Evelyn Norman Foubister, on August 21 so as to cause her actual bodily harm, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with hard labour when he appeared before Mr Justice McGregor in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr R. A. Young, who appeared for Foubister, said all the details of this very tragic case would be fresh in his Honour’s mind. This case was Foubister’s first appearance in any Court. He was a quiet, rather meek sort of man, perhaps over indulgent to his wife. Through her long illness last winter he attended her every need and nursed her back to reasonable health. Everyone who knew him spoke of his kindness and gentleness. Then Foubister’s own health failed and his heart was affected. He was happy at his son’s home and in doing odd jobs there. The breaking in of a new, rough section at Governor's Bay was a labour of Hercules to Foubister, said Mr Young. It was far beyond his strength; he was tired in body and mind. His wife could not see it that way. Her mind was set on a new home. She first nagged him and then abused him Something snapped and he struck her down. By a miracle, the wife had recovered and was better in health than she had been, said counsel. She was happy and contented and was waiting for her husband. She had no recollection of what had happened but ; thought the two of them had been in a car accident and that was why : her husband had not come home. The ' family hoped that they would be given ‘ the opportunity of looking after their I father for the rest of his days. The : jury had acquitted Foubister on the ■ major charge and had added a recom--1 rhendation to mercy to their verdict. L “In sentencing the prisoner I ask ? the Court to bear in mind that he *is a frail find ailing old man; his ; unblemished record; his four months t in close confinement; his remorse; the 1 wonderful recovery of his wife; the 3 jury’s recommendation to clemency; , and that a devoted family will care 1 for him if given the opportunity, said Mr Young. ; “Grave Assault”

In view of the facts of the case it was most difficult to decide what was the fitting punishirfent, bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the Court’s duty in the matter and all the circumstances in (mitigation so ably put before the Court by counsel during the trial and again today, said his Honour. Over almost a full span of life Fouzister had been a blameless and reputable member of the community. Up to the time of the offence he had been a good and considerate husband and father and he had served his employers faithfully and well. The Court was also bearing in mind the prisoner’s state of health and the remorse and shame he undoubtedly suffered. But the Co ur J must also bear in mind that he had committed an assault of the gravest character. The jury by its verdict found that the act was intentional. Whatever the exasperation he had received and whatever justification there had been for anger or impatience, there could be no excuse for the almost frenzied assault on an ailing wife with a heavy, steel bar. The Court could not overlook violent conduct of this nature and had no alternative but to sentence the prisoner to a term of imprisonment. During that term the attention of the authorities would be directed to his state of health.