MURDER CHARGE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 30, 5 February 1941, Page 9

MURDER CHARGE

.WATERSIDER'S DEATH

WIFE ON TRIAL

CASE FOR CROWN

The trial began in the Supreme Court today of Jean Laurentine, aged 31, charged with the murder of her husband, Francis Norman Laurentine, a waterside worker, aged 36. on November 2 last. Laurentine was taken from a house in Willis Street suffering from knife wounds in the left groin and chest, and died in hospital at 8.30 p.m., forty minutes after admission. He had lost a considerable quantity of blood, and a transfusion was tried in an attempt to save his life. There will be twelve witnesses for the Crown.

Mr. Justice Johnston is presiding. Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C., with him Mr. W. R. Birks, is conducting the case for the Crown, and Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, with him Mr. N. T. Gillespie, for the accused. The following jury was empanelled: Walter Dames (foreman), Lyal Waller. James Paterson, John Loughridge, Edward Baker, Albert Edward Greenfield, James Rowe, .Walter Norman Bates, Lancelot George Davison, Sylvester Vernon Stem'pa, Lester Albert Gannaway, John Albert Lindsay.

* His Honour intimated that the jury would have to be kept together during the trial, and the Court adjourned while the jurors made their domestic arrangements. His Honour said the case would last more than one day.

Opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Weston said the couple occupied a flat on the second floor of 263 Willis Street. The accused was employed in the Genera] Post Office tearooms, and her husband was a waterside worker. On Saturday, November 2, they had been to a trotting meeting at Hutt Park and returned to the flat between 7 and 7.15 p.m. Both were very, much under the influence of liquor. They were heard to be quarrelling by a neighbour, Mr. H. R. Avery, who turned up his wireless so as not to hear what was being said.

Some minutes later, continued Mr. Weston, the accused came to his frontroom door and cried, "Quick, Mr. Avery, get a doctor. I've stabbed Laurie." She went out to a slot telephone and rang the hospital, from where a porter summoned ■ the ambulance and the police. HUDDLED IN CORNER. Avery went to the Laurentihes' flat and saw Laurentine huddled in the iarcorner of the room, half-lying and half-sitting. There was blood on the floor. - Avery. also rushed for assistance. One doctor was out, but Avery met the ambulance in Willis Street. When ha returned to the flat Laurentine* was unconscious and lying in the same position. The accused had evidently taken off some of Laurentine's clothes and was _holding his .legs up with the idea of stopping the bleeding. The bleeding, however, had stopped because of lack of blood. Large quantities of blood were on Laurentine, underneath him, and on the floor.

The accused, continued Mr. Weston, was apparently still very much under the influence of liquor and was quite hysterical. To Mr. C. L. Hogg, -the ambulance driver, she said, "He "tHt me and I stabbed him." Hogg would say that she was in a highly nervous state, pushing him aside and preventing his making a proper examination. She said to Avery, "You know I would not do it deliberately, Mr. Avery."

The accused was trying to make Hogg do as she wanted, and kept saying, "Why don't you do something? Why don't you get a doctor?" Because of the accused's interference Laurentine v/as put on a sling and taken down to the ambulance, and the accused accompanied him to the hospital.

There was no delay in getting Laurentine to hospital. Hogg was in the flat for only five minutes, and was ■at the hospital by 7.50 p.m. Laurentine revived as he was being taken down to the ambulance and revived momentarily when he was taken from. the ambulance to the casualty station. The accused went up in the lift with her husband and said, "You might be the biggest rotter en earth, but you know I would not do this." She offered to give a blood transfusion, and when she was not. allowed to go into the casualty station she went down in a praying position and said, "You know I would not do it, God."

Everything was done in an attempt to save Laurcntine's 'life, but he had lost so much blood that he was practically dead when he reached hospital. There were three knife wounds, one between the ninth and tenth ribs, another in the" left groin, and the third two inches below the second.

In the meantime Detective-Sergeant McLennan and Detective Smeaton had arrived. The accused was still smelling strongly of drink and was hysterical. Her arms, hands, and the front of her frock were covered with blood, and the detectives would say that her first inquiry was whether her husband was dead. Shortly afterwards they took her to the police station, and on the way she told them that she and her husband had quarrelled and that he had hit her twice on the face. She had fallen and struck her head, and she invited Detective Smeaton to feel the lump. She also said she had stabbed him with the knife with which she had been cutting lamb's fry. Her husband said: "Jean, you quick-temper-ed , you have stabbed me," and she replied: "I know; I meant to stab you." Later she said to the detectives: "I love him. Is he dead?" EXAMINED BY DOCTOR. That evening the accused was examined by Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Griffin, and she was still under the influence of liquor and highly nervous. She had a lump on the left side of her head and a smaller one above the ear on the right side, and there was a bruise on her left arm and another on her back. Dr. Lynch, the consulting pathologist at the hospital, would say that in his opinion either of the two upper wounds on. Laurentine were sufficient to cause death. . The wound through the ribs must have taken the full length of the blade. The urine contained 3 per cent, of alcohol, and, according to the medical authorities, that amount was evidence that the man, when struck, was very drunk.

There could be no doubt that the accused was actually responsible for the killing, and that her action 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 circumstances reduced murder to manslaughter, and that was the real issue, it was submitted, for the jury to decide.

Under cross-examination by Dr, Mazengarb, A very . said that Laurentine had been addicted to liquor, and in recent months had been very drunk.

Quite frequently he brought liquor home, and when lie was drunk one had to be very careful in conversation with him, as he became violent when anything displeased him. In the last three months before the tragedy witness could hardly recall one occasion when he had seen Laurentine not drunk. He had drinking bouts and frequently became ill as a result, and in the following days his wife would stay home from work to see to his meals. Witness thought she gave Laurentine.more attention than he deserved. Under the influence of liquor Laurentine had a rather nasty habit of showing spite. Towards the end the couple had very little to show for their combined earnings, but if there was any squandering of money it was done by Laurentine in his drinking bouts.

Witness had been told that the accused had been saving money for the grave of their child who had died a few years ago, but he believed that Laurentine found the money and used it for drink. Witness could see no reason why a woman should stick to a man like Laurentine, but the impression he gained v/as that she had the greatest affection for him. When the Court rose for lunch the seventh witness for the Crown was in the box. (Proceeding.)