THE ELMSLEY CASE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 266, 6 August 1929, Page 10

THE ELMSLEY CASE

CHARGE AGAINST HUSBAND COLLAPSES SUPREME COURT HEARING ENDS ABRUPTLY WIFE “ABLE TO GO AWAY” On the ground that she could have loft her husband and gone away if she had chosen to do so, the charge against Peter Alexander Elmsley, the Waerenga farmer, of illtreating his wife collapsed in the Supreme Court at Auckland yesterday. Dominion Special Service. Auckland, August 5. There was an unexpected and abrupt ending to the trial in the Supreme Court to-day of Peter Alexander Elmsley, a farmer, of Waerenga (Mr. Noble), who was charged with failing to provide his wife with the necessities of life and so permanently endangering her health, as a 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 his direction the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Accused was then discharged. “This is a most unusual charge and fortunately one that has very rarely been invoked in this country,” said Mr. Meredith in opening the case. “The rarity of 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 a 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. Elmsley was unable to withdraw herself from her husband’s charge and to escape hiS treatment. The suggestion for the Crown is 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 had lost her own power of volition and initiative, Mr. Meredith added. Mrs. Elnisley’s Evidence.

Mrs. Elmsley said she was 53 years of age and was married 20 years ago. She had lived at Waerenga for about 18 or 19 years. Her two daughters were 18 and 15 respectively. About 10 years ago her husband’s attitude towards her changed noticeably. During the past few years he had struck her frequently, twice with a stockwhip, once with a legrope, and once with a stick. The blows with the stick had raised weals on her back. On the second occasion the blows with the lash had brought blood. Twice, witness said, she had been locked out of the house, once all night and once from about 2 o’clock, in the morning until daybreak. “At times I would get as much food as I liked, and at other times nothing at all,” witness said. Witness described an occurrence some time ngo, 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, poured a little skimmed milk over it, and then said: “Here, take that outside; that is all you deserve.”

\ Mr. Meredith: When did you last receive money from your husband? Witness: “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, she had not been allowed to write home or even to receive letters from her parents. His Honour: Could you not get away? Witness: I could have gone, yes; but you did not expect that I 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. “I can understand.” Daughters Not to Blame. Mr. Noble: Do you mean to say, Mrs. Elmsley, that your daughters would stand by and eat bacon and eggs while their mother ate food from the dog’s plate? Witness: I do not blame the girls in any way. It was not their doing. They were trained from infants and saw their father turn from me. Witness said that she did not object to cutting wood. “It was my place to do all I could. My husband has not been in good health for 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 if you wanted to?—“I could have in 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 Bruce's, and my husband said, ‘lf you go there you will stop there’.” Why did you not go?—“I would not leave my girls.” Was there any other reason?—“No other reason at all. If it had not been for the girls I would have left him long ago.” 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 she could have got it, and she was quite able physically to leave her husband. Her husband made no effort to stop her; on the contrary, he wanted to get rid of her. Case Collapses. “In the light of that evidence it is useless to proceed,” Mr. Meredith said. 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 of this man’s conduct toward his wife,” the Judge said in addressing the jury. “The evidence of Sirs. 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. It is my duty therefore to direct you to return a verdict of not guilty. No matter what we may think about this case or about the treatment meted out to this unfortunate women the fact is that she was able to go away.*’

The jury after a brief retirement returned a verdict of not guilty and actaiaad was dischaxstxL