TRIED FOR MURDER

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 120, 13 February 1925, Page 10

TRIED FOR MURDER

THE REMUERA TRAGEDY DEFENCE OF JAMES SIMPKIN “A PECULIAR MAN” By Telegraph-—Press Association. Auckland, February 12. The trial of James Simpkin, charged with the murder of his wife, Emma Simpkin, at Hemuera, on October 5, which began before Mr. Justice Herdan at the Supreme Court yesterday, was continued to-day. Mr. Meredith ■ appears for the Crown and Mr. Finlay for accused. In outlining the defence, Mr. Finlay said that he wanted to assure the Court and jury that no matter what the defence might be at bottom there was the most profound sympathy for the unfortunate wife- Neither the prisoner nor he (counsel) would deny that the woman was killed by prisoner with his own razor. Tho Crown’s case was that the couple had . led a continually unhappy life, and it culminated in the premeditated and deliberately planned murder of the wife by the husband, but it was significant that the young woman, despite what the Crown said, had for nine years remained true >to her husband. Except for spasmodic occasions the pair must have been happy’ and contented. That did not agree with the Crown’s ■ case. Then again there was a letter written by prisoner to his wife and found alongside their bodies. It was not a threatening letter, but one with a pathetic appeal to his wife to come back and be happy with . him. That letter was unopened, and it was handed to his wife bv prisoner for her to take home and consider. That did not look like a premeditated murder. The theory of the Crown was that Simpkin had taken a razor and met his wife and then carried' out a predetermined murder, but Simpkin was a peculiar man. Evidence would be given to show that he always carried a razor with him, also a tooth and nail brush. Friends would say that Simpkin had at different times shaved at their homes with his. own razor, which he carried with him. Then again for nine years Simpkin had been challenged with badly treating his wife, but never once did he give any explanation of his acts. Why ? The explanation had to be found. It could not be disputed that ho loved his wife. He was passionately fond of her. Instances would be given to indicate that prisoner was suffering from a mental complaint, and sudden loss of consciousness- If the jury found that Simpkin suffered with disease —and counsel said that the evidence would show that he did—and the jury found that during such an occasion of these spasmodic attacks he committed the crime, then the verdict would have to be that the act was committed at a time when he was insane. Accused’s Statement. Accused then went into the-witness box. In answer to Mr. Finlay, he said:— “I am 51 years of age and have been married twice. Of the first marriage there wore four children, three girls and a boy. In 1916 I married my late w-ife, and then lived at. various places, doing various work, including farming and bushfelling. For the last three years I have been living at Tauranga and Thames, and we came to Auckland in order that I could go under an operation. My wife went to stay at her mother’s place, and I went into hospital. I was in hospital about 20 days. Never during our married ' life had Mrs. Simpkin been hard pushed for money. On one occasion she went to work, but only a day and a half.” ... Continuing in answer to questions from Mr. Finlay, prisoner said that' he and his wife always got along well together. He then dealt with his admission to and discharge from hospital. also his wife’s decision not to live with him again. On the Thursday prior to the tragedy he called on Mrs. Ross and asked her to try and persuade her daughter to return to him. The same night he called again at the house of Mrs. Ross and saw his wife. He went there because he understood that one of the children was sick. When he told her that was his reason she replied, “Lies and deception.” She then took off her rings and placed them on a table. He told her that she would want the wedding ring because it was a protection for her and the children. During that interview she told him that tho children were not his. On the Saturday he again saw his wife at the-house and pleaded with her to return with him to Thames. She agreed to go, but Mr. Ross, who was present, said to his daughter, “If you go back to him I will never assist you again,” However, she promised to go to Thames with him, and he left the house, saying good-bye to his wife and Ross. Ho had made an appointment to meet his wife on the Sunday afternoon, but ho was not to go near the house. Ho went out to keep the appointment, met his wifo. and they walked along to a shelter shed. Another Man. “Wo wero sitting down in the shelter shed when I noticed that she had a bag with her,” lie continued. “I asked what the bag was for, and she said. ‘I am not going back with you.’ I asked, ‘What? You promised you would go back with me.’ She then said that she had given tho promise just- because she had wanted to get rid of me, I then asked her why she would-not keep her promise, and also if there was any other man. She said, ‘Yes. Bert C-ollins,’ and added that she had been carrying on with him. That was a man I had worked for at Thames. I said, ‘Wh,at? Isn’t that prostitution, and you expect someone else to keep the children?’ She then said, ‘They ana not your children.’ I said. ‘What?’ and she laughed. I don’t know what happened then.” To Mr. Finlay he said that he had carried a razor about for many years. Lengthy evidence was given to show that accused was a man of strange habits. The ease was then adjourned-