Provocation Plea In Murder Charge

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30191, 24 July 1963, Page 16

Provocation Plea In Murder Charge

(New Zealand Press Association) PALMERSTON NORTH, July 23. The main point of the defence of a 29-year-old woman against Ihe charge of murder will be one of extreme provocation, said defence counsel, Mr H. Y. Gilliand in the Supreme Court, Palmerston North, today. The woman, June Laura Chamberlain, mother of two children, is charged with murdering her husband, Joseph Henry Chamberlain, a carpenter, aged 33, at their home at 46 Vogel street, Palmerston North, on the night of May 31. She has pleaded not guilty.

Mr Justice Haslam is on the Bench.

Mr J. A. Ongley is appearing for the Crown. Mr Gilliand has with him Mr K. H. Mason.

Mr Ongley said Mrs Chamberlain had lived with her husband in Vogel street in a double-unit State house. Her statements would show there had been considerable discord in the family and neighbours would support that contention. Her husband was alleged to have been sometimes of violent temper, and to have beaten her.

The first that was heard of the occurrence on the night of May 31 was when Mrs Chamberlain, in a distressed condition, knocked at the door of a neighbour. Cyril Edgar Stevens, wno subsequently found the women’s husband lying in a pool of blood and with a shotgun nearby, Mr Ongley said. Mrs Chamberlain then said that her husband han come home that night and started picking on her and the two children. Some time after 9 p.m. the husband went into the bathroom. Mrs Chamberlain secured a shotgun from the bedroom, took with her into the kitchen cartridges bought by her husband, loaded the gun. and went into the hall. When Chamberlain came into the hall, she said: "I have had enough.” and let flyLater, according to Mr Ongley, she said: “I did not mean to go that far. I only meant to frighten him. I only meant to hit him in the arms.” Mrs Chamberlain’s statement that she only meant to frighten her husband was at variance with her actions She had deliberately gone into the bedroom for the gun, into the kitchen to load it, and back into the hall, said Mr Ongley. Evidence along the lines of that in the Lower Court was given by Crown witnesses. “No Intention”

Addressing the jury at the conclusion of the Crown’s case, Mr Gilliand said the defence was based on the points that accused had had no intention of killing her husband, and what was done on the night of May 31 was carried out under the greatest provocation. That provocation was not confined to that evening but was against a background of a lifetime of ill-treatment.

The deceased. Chamber La in. had few friends. He was a meticulous tradesman and the trend of his mind was such that nothing in his toolshed or garden must be disttrbed from their compulsory straight and orderly lines. Mr Gilliand said Evidence would be called to show that tn October. 19(12. Mrs Chamberlain’s buttocks and backs of her legs were seen by another woman in hospital to be black with bruises Another instance of the deceased's bad temper was when he knocked hi* child’s face against the mudguard of their car. thereby breaking two of her front teeth.

There was frequent subjection to the foulest of language, which was repeated ad nauseum and often followed by a display of physical violence.

The question might arise in the jury's mind, said Mr Gilliand. why the accused had not left her husband. She had a fattier who in many respects was of the same type as her husband, and she did not want her children to have to live in an orphanage. The welfare of her children was her dominant consideration. The jury was entitled to take into account the effect of ill-treatment by her husband over a long period.

The case is expected to finish late tomorrow afternoon or early on Thursday.