MURDER CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 113, 6 February 1941, Page 9

MURDER CHARGE

Waterside Worker’s Death WIFE STANDS TRIAL Case For The Crown Concluded The trial of Jean Laurentine, aged 31, charged with the murder of her husband, Francis Norman Laurentine, waterside worker, aged 36, in Wellington, on November 2 last, was begun in the Supreme Court Wellington, yesterday. Laurentine was taken from a house in Willis Street, Wellington, suffering from knife-wounds in the left groin and chest, and died in the Wellington Hospital at 8.30 p.m., 40 minutes after admission. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Johnston, and the jury comprised: Walter Daines (foreman), Lyal Waller, James Paterson, John Longbridge, Edward Baker, Albert Edward Greenfield, James Rowe, Walter Norman Bates, Lancelot George Davison, Sylvester Vernon Stempa, Lester Albert Gannaway, John Albert Lindsay. Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C., with him Mr. W. R. Birks, conducted the ease for the Crown, and Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, with him Mr. N. I. Gillespie, appeared for accused. Accused, accompanied by a police matron, entered the dock sobbing bitterly and broke down several times throughout the day, during which, for 1 the greater part of the time, she kept ' her head averted. 1 Case For the Crown. '

In opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Weston said it appeared that accused was living in a flat in a house in Willis Street. She and her husband had been that day to the trotting meeting, and both returned to their flat in Wellington very much under the influence of liquor. The first indication of the tragedy was when Mrs. Laurentine rushed out and called for assistance. Accused was very much under the influence of liquor and was hysterical. When the ambulance arrived accused was in a most excited state, telling the ambulance men how to handle her husband. Accused went with her husband to the hospital and said to him, “You may be the biggest rotter on earth, but you know I wouldn’t do this.” She had offered to give a blood transfusion for her husband. Dr. Doyle, at the hospital, on a preliminary examination of Laurentine, found that there were three wounds, all of which had been inflicted through the clothing. On the way to the police station, accused said she told the police that she and her husband had quarrelled and that she had stabbed him with a knife with which she had been cutting up lamb’s fry. Accused had wounds upon the head and body. Dr. Lynch, who conducted a post mortem examination said that the knife which made the first blow under the ribs must have gone in right up to the hilt. There could be no doubt that accused was actually responsible for the kill- ’ ing, and that her actions came within the definitions of murder as set out in the Crimes Act. If the jury found that murder had been committed, however, the matter did not end there—provocation in certain cases reduced murder to manslaughter, and that was the real issue for the jury to decide. Heard Accused Call. Hira Robroy Avery, driver for a bakery firm, said that he occupied a flat in the same house as the Laurentines in Willis Street. On November 2 last the Laurentines returned home about 7 p.m. He met them coming up the stairs, and he paid Mr. Laurentines the rent of the flat. Both appeared to be very much under the influence of liquor. He heard a “row” in the Lauren tine’s kitchenette, and not wishing to hear what was being said he turned up the wireless set in his front room. After some seven or eight minutes he heard Mrs. Laurentine call out, “Quick, Mr. Avery 1 I have stabbed Laurie. Get a doctor.” Witness went into the Laurentine’s kitchenette and saw Laurentine reclining against a box. There was a small quantity of blood about. Witness then went for a doctor, but noticed a Free Ambulance car approaching and he found that the ambulance was going to the house. Witness returned to the house. Mrs. Laurentine was still under the influence of liquor and was in an hysterical state. She made frantic efforts to get a doctor. The ambulance driver asked Mrs. Laurentine how it had happened, and she replied that Laurentine had struck her and she had stabbed him. She said, “You know, Mr. Avery, I .would not do it deliberately.” Cross-examined by Dr. Mazengarb, witness said he had resided at the house in Willis Street for about 20 months. For only part of that time he had been a sub-tenant. He would say that Laurentine was very much ad-

dieted to drink. He frequently broughl liquor home with him, and liquor hac the effect of causing him to become verj argumentative. For the last three months that witness knew him he could scarcely remember an occasion when Laurentine was not drunk. He frequently had heavy drinking bouts, after which he would be ill. Mrs. Lourentine gave her husband more attention then he deserved. When under the influence of drink, Laurentine used to become very sarcastic. Mrs. Laurentine did not take drink often; she was a person who could not carry much liquor. About three glasses of beer would be her limit. Witness was under the impression that Mrs. Laurentine at the time did not fully realize that she had stabbed her husband. Ambulance Driver’s Evidence. Charles Lorenzo Hogg, driver for the Wellington Free Ambulance, said that he was on duty on November 2. He received a call at 7.30 p.m. that night from the Wellington Hospital to go to 263 Willis Street, and did so. On arriving at the house, witness found a man lying in a room on the second floor. Mrs. Laurentine was holding the man’s legs up. The man was unconscious, and there was a pool of bipod in the centre of the room. Mrs. Laurentine was in a very hysterica! state. The first words she said were: “Why don’t you do something? Get a doctor. Why don't you du as I say?” He asked Iter what the trouble was. and she replied, “I stabbed him.” When he proceeded to examine the injured man, he could not do so through the interference of Mrs. Laurentine. Cross-examined by Mr. Gillespie, witness said that Mrs. Laurentine was trying desperately to do the right thing for her husband. Jafnes Dillon, a porter at the Wellington Hospital, said that, when going up in the lift at the hospital. Mrs. Laurentine remarked to her husband. “You might be tire biggest rotter on earth, but you know I wouldn't do it.” She appeared to be a person who had done something, very much regretted it, and wished to do all she could Io make amends. Dr. D. .1. A. Doyle said that in November he was on the stall of the Wellington Public Hospital. On the

evening of November 2 Laurentine W’as admitted suffering from severe haemorrhage. He had received three stabs from a knife in the chest and groin. One was on the left chest between the ninth and tenth ribs; the second wound was on the left groin; and the third in the same region. Bleeding had ceased, but the patient was in a very shocked state, and in a dying condition. He was given a blood transfusion almost immediately, and other transfusions, but his condition became ■worse, and he died about 8.50 p.m. Arrest of Accused.

Detective P. C. Smeaton said that about 8.15 p.m. on November 2, Detective Sergeant McLennan and he arrived at the Wellington Hospital, and saw accused sitting in a waiting-room. There was blood all over her hands and on parts of her dress. He asked if her husband was still alive. She was hysterical, and smelt strongly of liquor. Accused accompanied him and Detective Sergeant McLennan to the Central Police Station in the police ear. When in the police car, accused said: “We quarelled. I fell and hit my head; feel the bump on the back of my head. I stabbed him with the knife that I was cutting lamb’s fry with. Laurie said, ‘Jean, you quicktempered b , you have stabbed me.’ I replied, ‘I know; I meant to stab you.’ Is he still alive? I love him.”

Cross-examined by Dr. Mazengarb, witness said that accused did not attempt to conceal anything, or put the blame on her husband. She said that her husband had struck her twice, and that there was a big lump on her head. Witness felt a lump on the back of her head.

Dr. E. M. Griffin said he examined accused at 10.20 p.m. on November 2. She had a good deal of blood on her hands and knees. Witness described the wounds he had discovered on accussed. He was of opinion that she was under the influence of alcohol. He considered that the marks on accused had been-caused by her falling and striking articles of furniture.

Cross-examined by Dr. Mazengarb, witness said accused was very remorseful over the death of her husband. She remarked, “Why don’t, they take me away and hang me.”

Dr. P. P. Lynch, consulting pathologist to Wellington Hospital, produced a report of a post-mortem examination he had made of the body of Laurentine at the hospital. Death was due to haemorrhage. Ho later examined a carving knife found at the Laurentine’s flat, and found that this contained stains of human blood.

Robert Leslie Andrew, Acting-Do-minion Analyst, said that he bad examined samples of urine sent to him by Dr. Lynch on November 4 last, and had found 300 milligrammes of alcohol 'in 100 grammes of urine. A man with this extent of alcohol in his urine would be heavily intoxicated. This concluded the case for the Crown. Case for Defence Opens. In opening the case for the defence, Dr. Mazengarb said that not all killing was murder. At the other end of the chain there was justifiable homicide, as in the cases of a soldier who killed an enemy, a sheriff, or someone who protected his life from attack. There was also such a thing as excusable homicide, as in the case of death by accident. Self-protection was the first law of nature. This woman was trying to protect herself from an unprovoked assault. Her husband was very drunk; lie struck her; she was down twice; an.l, in falling, her baud come in contact with a knife and she used it to ward off further blows. “You have to judge something that happened in a few seconds,” continued Dr. Mazengarb, addressing the jury; “but you have to judge also by what happened in the next hour, and what had happened throughout their married life.” Evidence as to the g-wd character of m-cused was given by Myrtle Dooley, Nora Reid. Rem- Veamikis, Hugh McGillivray and Frederick Miller. The hearing of the case will be continued at. 10 o’clock this morning