BRAUMAN MURDER TRIAL

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 32, 1 November 1929, Page 11

BRAUMAN MURDER TRIAL

EVIDENCE REGARDING SANITY MEDICAL TESTIMONY By Telegraph.—Press Association. Dunedin, October 31. The charge against William Henry Brauman of having murdered his wife'at St Clair, was continued at Dunedin today- ~ , Emily Mitchell, who was unable to appear previously, was called to-day by the Crown. Witness said that deceased stayed with her for six weeks in March. Once accused called and saw his wife. When the job at Brosnan’s was mentioned accused said: “If you go to Brosnan’s I will fix the two of you.” He further said: “If you get this separation (there is no law on the face of God’s earth to separate man and wife) you know what I intend doing.” The cross-examination of Dr. Moore, witness for the defence, was continued. Witness said that accused was certifiable before the tragedy, as he was abnormally jealous. Witness foresaw in a letter left by accused at Invercargill that the death of the wife was in some way a blow at the mother-in-law. Before he saw that letter witness did not consider that Brauman was certifiable, though he had no doubt he was insane. Dr. Moore’s evidence closed the case for the defence, and the Crown proceeded to call rebutting medical evidence. “Not Insane." Dr. Marshall MacDonald said that after an examination of accused in hospital he concluded that he was not insane. Witness based this opinion on the fact that instead of justifying his act, accused made absolutely untrue statements about the revolver and his movements. Cross-examined, witness said there were some indications of abnormality, but he could not testify to insane delusional jealousy. Dr. K. Ross, with considerable experience of the insane, stated that he examined accused on Tuesday. From information acquired nnd his examinations he found symptoms suggesting insanity or an unstable mind, chiefly delusions about his wife’s unfaithfulness, a common delusion among the insane. Accused was not certifiable as insane when witness saw him. Witness thought accused understood the quality of his act, and knew lie was doing wrong. Witness agreed with counsel for the defence that a .man who said what accused said, and had his ideas, was dangerous, and would do anything at any time. Accused was not insane in a legal sense, and there was doubt about a medical sense. Dr. James Hunter, acting superintendent of the Seacliff Mental Hospital, stated that in his opinion accused was not certifiable. His actions were not consistent with paranoia. Cross-examined, witness said that accused was unstable, and witness would not suggest that he was simulating insanity. The Crown case closed. The addresses of counsel were commenced in the afternoon.