BRAUMAN MURDER TRIAL

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 31, 31 October 1929, Page 12

BRAUMAN MURDER TRIAL

SECOND DAY’S HEARING ACCUSED’S MENTAL CONDITION By Telegraph—Press Association. Dunedin, October SO. The charge against William Henry Brauman of murdering his wife, Annabell Dorothy Deans Brauman, was proceeded with in the Supreme Court to-day. The tragedy, which followed a long period of domestic infelicity, was enacted at the St. Clair Esplanade on the night of August 7, and was succeeded by an attempt on the part of Brauman to take his own life. Mr. Justice Kennedy was on the Bench. Mr. F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the prosecution, and accused was defended by Messrs. C. J. White and F. M. Lloyd. Further evidence was given in an endeavour to show that there had been a series of threats and molestations by William Henry Brauman towards his wife, with whose murder he stands charged. Brauman’s health has obviously suffered since he first appeared in the Magistrate’s Court a month before the fatality, when his wife proceeded against him on private complaints. Phillis Maud Brauman, aged 17, related instances of molestation in the street, one occasion being when accused told her grandmother, who was with them, that he was going to cut her throat. Cross-examined, witness said that, when her father told deceased that she had called him a criminal, and he was going to prove one, she imagined that he meant he would do for her. To the Crown Prosecutor: Brauman had said that his wife would be under the sod by Christmas, as a Christmas box for Grandma. James Jelley said that Mrs. Brauman and her daughter Olive called him by the name of Thomson. He did not know where they had got that name from. ' He had arranged with them to go to a musical evening on August 7. He took McMillan, with them for a motor drive. On returning to St. Clair witness did not leave the car. He saw no improper conduct or any embracing. Cross-examined, witness said he told the police that he was supposed to be Thomson. He had previously given deceased and her daughter a ride in his car to the theatre. He did not know that Mrs. Brauman was married. He was told so later. It must have been true if the girl said that he was introduced under the name of Thomson. Shooting Described. Jack McMillan, aged 18, who accompanied the others for the motor drive, said that there was no hugging or kissing between witness and either of the two women. When accused said, “You are having a good time,” the deceased said that it was no affair of his. Accused did not say, “For God’s sake don’t bring disgrace on my daughter.” Brauman held a revolver to his wife’s head and fired. He pulled the revolver from his overcoat pocket with a quick action. Witness stepped towards accused, who warned him to keep back, at the same time pointing the revolver towards him. When accused fell wounded witness picked up the revolver. Witness was to have attended a musical evening that night at the deceased employer's house, Jelley did not appear to go under the name of Thomson. Witness was calling him-Jelley. , , Ashburn Holland, who resided where deceased was employed as a housekeeper, said that he had never seen any impropriety on deceased’s part. He had no idea that a party was to have been held at the house on the night of the tragedy. William Black, an ambulance driven said that the accused said. She ruined mv life: she ruined my girl. Later ne said: “I did it. Why don’t you take me Kirton said that, on the way to the hosritnl. the accused said. “Oh, mv God, what a mother. She has been ruining my lovely girls of fifteen and sixteen.” Case for Defence Opened. In opening the case for the defence, Mr. Lloyd said the defence was that accused was insane and did not know the nature and quality of his act, and that he was doing wrong. Dr Stuart Moore was the first witness called. He said he had made a special study for twenty years of cases of abnormal psychology, cases of nervousness, and cases of illusions such as were said to be found in this case. Witness dealt exhaustively with the actions of a man suffering from mental disease, and said accused was brooding over a sense of persecution of his mother-in-law and also the conduct of his wife. He maintained that the real grievance of accused was against his mother-in-law, who was predetermined to take from him his wife. After giving an intimate account or tne mentality, as he judged it, of accused, he said that although he had killed his wife it wits his mother-in-law he should have His Honour asked towards the close of the cross-examination of witness: Are you prepared to swear that when accused killed his wife he did not know he was doing wrong? Witness: I am prepared to do so. Dr. Moore was still being cross-exam-ined when the Court rose for the day.