ST. CLAIR SHOOTING

Evening Star, Issue 20318, 29 October 1929, Page 8

ST. CLAIR SHOOTING

TRIAL OF W. H. BRADMAN MURDER CHARGE HEARING COMMENCED NEARLY THIRTY WITNESSES TO BE CALLED Faced with the charge of murder of his wife, Annabell Dorothy Deans Brauman, at St. Clair on August 7, William Henry Brauinan appeared in the Supreme Court to-day for trial. His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy was on the bench. Mr F. B. Adams prosecuted. and accused was defended by Messrs C, J L. White and F. M. Lloyd. It is expected that the trial will last nearly three days, as thirty witnesses have to be called. Brauman, who appeared to have recovered from his injuries, answered “ Not guilty ” in a steady voice when the charge was read. THE JURY. The Crown stood down two jurors, and the defence issued five challenges. The following jury was empanelled:— George Edward Nicholson, Arthur Tyren, William John Saunders, Ivan Robert James Hind, Miller Lewis Hall Frederick Little, Henry Hassells, Francis Pringle, William Marston, James Stewart' Little, Henry Edward King, Alexander Sinclair, and Thomas John Fulton, Adams. W. J. Saunders was chosen as foreman. “ BRUTAL, SAVAGE CRIME.” “The charge is the most serious which can be placed before a jury in our courts by the law, and the duty placed upon you is a very onerous ono indeed,” said Mr Adams in his address to the jury. “ The case will take some time to hear, and will call for your unremitting attention. It is not my duty to speak at greater length than I feel is absolutely necessary to give you a clear view of the case as it proceeds. The crime was a brutal, savage one, the accused having shot his wife through her right ear with a revolver held up against the ear. Following upon the shooting of liis wife he attempted to commit suicide, but the bullet went downwards instead of inwards, and his own life was not taken. You are not called upon to consider the charge of attempting to commit suicide, because that is a matter of a separate case which might follow this one ”

There was no cause for him to give the jury a legal definition of murder for the purposes of this case, said the Crmvn Prosecutor. It would suffice to say that the Crimes Act defined culpable homicide of various kinds, one of which was that a man killed another, intending to cause the death of the person killed. ThaL, of course, was a common typo of murder, and was tho type of murder alleged by the Crown in tho present case. The statute, however, did not term every case of culpable homicide a murder. It referred to other cases as manslaughter. Upon tho indictment it was open to tho jury, as a matter of law, to find a verdict of manslaughter. MURDER ONLY POSSIBLE CHARGE.

“ But it is my duty—and I wish to say it now, at 'the commencement oi tho case—to say to you that tho fac s to he placed before you will offer no proper grounds for any such action in the present case,” said Mr Adams. “There is no other crime of which you can convict upon this indictment. The choice between murder and manslaughter is not an arbitratory choice which you may make at your pleasure, but one that must be determined in accordance with your oaths and upon the honest application of the principles of tho law. And as I have said before, it is my duty to tell you, and I wish to emphasise it, that upon the facts of this case, where a man takes up a revolver and deliberately puts it to a woman’s head and shoots her, there is nothing which will call for a reduction of the charge of murder to on© ot manslaughter.” Many cases were before tho courts in which murdoi was charged, and in which sufficient light might not be thrown upon the nature of the occurrence to enable tho jury to tell with certainty what occurred, said Mr Adams. In those cases the jury, nob unnaturally, commonly returned a verdict of manslaughter. They would recollect charges where two people had been together and one had killed Tie other. Upon the inferences of the facts, tho jury decided whether it was murder or manslaughter. But in the present case there were eye-witnesses of the act, who would be able to tell exactly what the accused did and what the person who was killed was doing at tho lime of tbo act. There would be no rooin for any such attitude as that to which ho had referred as having been adopted by juries. Nothing in the case would warrant tho jury in finding that the accused acted under such provocation as the law allowed. From his reading of tho section of the Act, the jury would see how closely the matter of provocation was hedged in by law. Many conditions required to be fulfilled before it could possibly be said that the crime of murder should be reduced to manslaughter. NO PROVOCATION, SUBMITS CROWN.

“ Putting it briefly, it must appear that an accused acted upon the sudden impulse, which deprived him of his self-control,” said Mr Adams. “Now, you can well imagine circumstances of deadly insult done to a man, perhaps by his wife, which have deprived an ordinary person immediately of the power of self-control, and when there was such a weapon within his reach capable of dealing injury, culpable homicide would follow. Tfien, yon can say the circumstances are such as to reduce culpable homicide to manslaughter.” _ The Crown would place before the jury evidence to show that the accused did not act on the spur of the moment. He had harboured the scheme in his mind for some considerable time, said Mr Adams. It was true that accused said that his wife was acting improperly with another man at the moment, or just before the moment of the killing. The facts were that Mrs Brauman had been out in a motor car with two men and her daughter. The motor car pulled up near the St. Claii baths and Mrs Brauman. her daughter, and one of the young men left the car From the evidence it would bo cJear that nothing was done to provoke the accused and nothing occurred to which he could take reasonably exception. While his wife was chatting, Brauman came up with a revolver and shot her. It was true that the accused had given a different account. He said ho saw four people come out of the car, and his daughter began “ cuddling one of the men, and

his wife did the same to the other.” “ Of course, his statement is no evidence of what occurred, and evidence will bo given that nothing of the kind occurred,” said Mr Adams. “So the inference 1 ask you to form is that the ‘ kising and hugging ’ was merely an afterthought by the accused to give some sort of basis for the suggestion that he acted upon the of the moment. However, that suggestion will be entirely disproved.” QUESTION OF SANITY. Nothing could be made, continued the Crown Prosecutor, of the suggestion of provocation. That led them to one other possibility in the case. The sanity of the accused might be brought into question by the defence. He did not propose to discus's the question at length because the law presumed" a man to be sane until the contrary was proved. He would await the presentation of evidence of insanity by the defence before he tendered proof in rebuttal. It was necessary, however, for the jury to have a clear idea of what the law meant by insanity. It was not every degree of mental derangement which the law allowed to be an excuse for criminal responsibility. There was a great controversy on the subject of sanity about half a century ago, and certain rules were formulated by law, these now being the definite rules in this country. They required a very specific kind of insanity before such a defence could be established in a criminal case. What had to be answered was: Did he know what be was doing, and did lve_ know it was wrong? If such questions could be answered “Yes,” then his mental disease was utterly foreign to the case, and the defence of insanity could not be made out. The Crown case was that the accused knew full well what he was doing, and knew full well he was doing wrong. THE CROWN’S CONTENTION. “It will not he disputed,” continued Mr Adams, “that the accused killed his wife. The question for you is whether that act of killing is to be dealt with as murder, or as manslaughter, or whether you will acquit him on the ground of insanity. Those are the three possible courses, and only those. The case for the Crown is that the circumstances do not leave you free to find a verdict of manslaughter, and that the facts do not justify a verdict of insanity. It becomes my duty to urge this upon you even at this stage of the case. THE FAMILY LIFE, Mr Adams said the deceased woman was thirty-five years of age, and the accused was an older man. There were four children, the oldest being eighteen years of age, Mrs Brauman leaving married at the early ago of seventeen years. Twelve or thirteen years ago the family lived in Nelson, and then wont to Invercargill. There would be evidence that there was trouble between Brauman and his wife at Invercargill. Matters seem to have come to a crisis about the middle of 1928, twelve months before the commission of the crime. At that time Mrs Brauman left home, and came to live in Dunedin. Then the accused himself came to Dunedin, and for some months before the murder was living here. Two of the girls had also established themselves here, and also one of the boys. The deceased earned her living by working in other people’s homes, and the girls were also out at service. The speaker was unable to say whether tlie other son was hero at the time, hut in any case he was in the custody of Mrs Brauman, wiio was granted it under the separation agreement. Learned counsel went on to refer to the evidence in the lower court to show the nature of the trouble at Invercargill. It was stated there were many quarrels and that Mrs Brauman went to her daughter’s room to get away from the accused. On one occasion when she refused to go to his room lie ordered her out of the house, and she was outside till early next morning. She went to the room of one of the boys, who said to the accused when he came - “Leave my mother alone.” On mu occasion, it was stated, the accused carried Mrs Brauman by force from the daughter’s room to his own room.

SIMPLE QUESTION OF MURDER. “The trial is not a trial,” continued the Crown Prosecutor, “of the marital relations between Brauman and ins wife. We should bo at a grievous disadvantage now were we to disentangle all tho facts, chiefly due to the fact that Mrs Brauman is now dead. I do not propose in the present case to direct my efforts wholly to attempt to vindicate the name and reputation of the late Mrs Brauman. Those matters must come in to some extent, but 1 ask you always to bear in mind that it is no part of the duty of the Crown to place before you full details of the married lives of tho pair, even if it were possible to do so. Whatever you get I ask yon; What is its precise bearing towards the charges? Will marital failure on tho pari of Mrs Brauman justify the action of the accused, or will it not?” Mr Adams went on to say that whether Mrs Brauman left homo because of _ her husband’s illtreatment or in spite of love and affection were matters which were not crucial to the court. The question ultimately was a simple onfi as to tho muider which ho had explained. ALLEGED THREATS. Mr Adams went on to recite to the jury certain acts which ho asked them to regard as preparation lor tho crime of which lie was charged. At Invercargill the accused told the son Richmond that he would “ do for ” his wife and that he would “swing for it.” Such a man, commented the Crown Prosecutor, seemed to appreciate the quality and nature of the contemplated act, and seemed to know the precise consequence the law attached to it. Tho daughter had also said that in Dunedin Cio accused had threatened to shoot her mother. The idea of the murder seemed to bo formed shortly after tho mother left Invercargill, and was not due to an intent formed for anything she had done in Dunedin. Accused seemed to have a propensity for borrowing firearms, and his statements about wanting to shoot cats seemed to have been made to conceal the real motive for which he had tho revolver. in hospital, after he had wounded himself, accused had said that he had obtained the revolver for shqoting cats which wore stealing his fowls; that he made a small box for it, and intended to post it from Dunedin, but remembered it was illegal to send it through the post; that he took the revolver to St. Clair with the intention of going on the rocks and throwing it in the sea. Counsel suggested that it would have been far easier for a man who wanted to get rid of a revolver to go to the wharf and throw it into the water. The jury should also bear in mind that tho revolver which this man said he intended to throw into the sea was fully loaded. A FAREWELL LETTER. The Crown Prosecutor said he would refer to a document which the accused had left in a box at Invercargill with a neighbour for safekeeping. That document read:— (Publish every word or nothing.) The other letters found in my possession are proof of my mother-in-law’s influence, also my wife’s doings in deceiving me.

My Dear Friends,— I write to you to relieve xny soul of a terrible burden by informing you that 1 cannot continue to tolerate this life of misery. Yet in reading remember that I have been unciuly interfered with practically all of my married life through the cursed interference of my mother-in-law in in* Uuencing and having prejudiced my wife against me, with the result that / I have lost heart, being provoked to desperation, and 1 now feel it impossible for me to give of ray best. My home has been broken up on several occasions, and has thrown a slur against me and my children, who have had to suffer in many ways, until 1 can bear it no longer, and that herein, through this link of pen and paper, I stretch out my hand to you across the gulf of death. Though. I am dead, yet I am with you in this hour as you read. My sufferings, physical and mental, are more than I can bear, and when such small arrangements as I hava to make for the future well-being of my children are completed it is my. intention to put a period to them* May God forgive me if 1 do wrongIn the contents of this letter yon will fiud sufficient to prove it. _ K write this in my right mind, being driven to make confession by the fact! that my remorse for my intended crime has become intolerable. You may publish this letter to tha world if you choose, since by thej time it reaches you I shall be dead. Forgive me this. I am an innocentj man driven to desperation, and thaJ bitterness of it ondureth yet. As I lay in my bed at'night, rest* less and sleepless, thinking of the past and the future, as a result of that bad, wicked woman, unfortunately my mother-in-law, who hat done every miserable, deceiving, con* temptiblo thing to rob me of my wifol and happiness. The home comforts* together with my wife and children! that I longed for, hare been torn 1 asunder, crushed with a sense ofi worldly ruin, of hopeless poverty, of a future absolutely without prospectsI am determined to take from her; for all time what she has been determined to take from mo (my wife), ai life which I cherished. I fully intended to take her life also, but on second consideration death would be too good for such aj curso of a woman I fully realise that she for the rest of her life must! live to be tortured indirectly by her; own actions that she has shown towards me. A debt is a debt, and has got to bo paid, whether it is owed to God or to a fellow man. Confession or death. There’s nothing else for it, no other relief from torture. It’s got to be done, even after all these years. This should act as a, warning to interfering mothers-in-law, also to people employing married women who leave their home and children to suffer without sufficient cause to do so. As regards my children, I hope and. trust in the authorities to sec that’ some kind and genuine mothers will take and care for them and keep them as near to each other’s company as possible. It is my dying wish that my mother-in-law shall not have access to them or anything to do with any arrangements concerning them in the future. I am proud of them allami want them to grow up to be good men and women. I wish to give my watch and chain, etc., and whitehandled pocket knife to ray youngest son, any other belongings to bo realised on and divided equally amongst ray four children. As regards my wife, I hope and trust that she will receive a decent burial. As for myself, do what you think fit with ray body. The only favours I ask of von is that, if in spite of my confradon of guilt the world should regard ray actions as those of an innocent man’ driven insane with torture and grief. Kindest wishes to all relatives and friends. Farewell. • “ A PIOUS APHORISM.” Air Adams asked the jury to contrast that letter with one written from Invercargill by accused to his wife, in which “Claude,” presumably a relative, was mentioned as hoping that Mrs Brauman would take a sincere view and re* turn home. He would be pleased when Almighty God closed his eyes'in death, but until that lime ho would always try to win hack the wife whom ho cherished. Only death could tear asunder his love for her. “ What a lovely wife and mother you are if you could only settle down to solid facts! Noble actions and good character defeat all evil minds and tongues.” “A pious aphorism that he might have made to himself when he was writing this abominable letter,” remarked. Mr Adams, as lie hold up the farewell letter. Continuing, Brauman wrote: “You need not be afraid of returning to me, for notwithstanding what v ou have been told concerning me my v. ...no heart, soul, body, and mind have been, wanting you. If you have been respectable to me, as I have been to you, I am proud to say, you will do me all my life. That, said Mr Adams, showed that Brauman had no evidence of infidelity. “If I lived a double existence I would not be writing and pleading to you,” continued the letter- “ Dear wife, you will find before Jong who lias been your most trusting friend.” It was his desire to make a home again for her. His only aim in life was to give her an easier time, and to give her health and happiness. Ho would smash down every barrier between them, and every effort would bo for making, not breaking. But the keynote of this letter, said Air Adams, was his appeal to her to keep secret his letters. If lie wanted them published he would publish them in the newspapers. “ The contents of my letters strengthen my position and weaken yours,” stated the letter. UiT letters, said Air Adams, were nice, sumptions, pious letters, and for that purpose Brauman wrote this diatribe.’’ The letter was a particularly lengthy one, concerning many statements, ail of which were read by the Crown Prosecutor. “BETTER DEATH.” A second farewell letter was found in the accused’s possession after th» shooting, said Air Adams. He cursed his mother-in-law as a wicked woman. Ha had been wronged and robbed of all interest in life, yet lie had done his duty to his wife and children. Tim curse hanging over him had made his life more than he could boar. It was his intention to put an end to the purpose. “ Better death than to bo dragged through the mire by falsa tongues.” “But,” said Air Adams, “what about his previous letter in which ho wrote of noble actions and evil tongues?” _ Accused realised the nature of his actions when he wi to that ho hoped no disgrace would bo brought on his innocent children. It seemed that about rho end of April Brauman went to a Air Brosnan, who. he learned, was proposing to engage Airs Brauman as his housekeeper. Brauman threatened to shoot his wife and Brosnan. When asked a specific question by Brosnan whether he suspected another man in the case, Brauman stid “ No.” Brauman threatened

Brosnan several time's, and when leaving the house Brauman said he was fullv determined to shoot his wife. What he had given was by no means a full resume of the facts, said Mr Adams, but would vouch for his first submission that it was not a crime on the spur of the moment, but a murder on a plan consciously and definitely formed many months before by a man who knew he was doing wrong, and of the consecpiences provided by the law. He asked the pnry to give the case their gravest and most careful attention, and not to allow anything to sway them unduly against the accused. To all the facts, the .jury, he appealed, should give due weight, and at the conclusion bring in a. verdict in accordance with the evidence. Mr Adams’s address lasted one and a-half hours. The first witness was Dr William Evans, whose evidence was proceeding when the luncheon adjournment was taken. JURY TO BE LOCKED UP. Addressing the jury. His Honour said the law was that when persons were accused of murder, the jury should be kept together and no person was to have communication with them upon the subject of the trial. Therefore, ho directed that during this adjournment and ohter adjournments during the course of the trial, the jury were to be kept together and proper provision was to be made to prevent them having communication with any one. Tf the jury required, the polic' would take, during the luncheon ad iournmoht. -essages to their home md procure necessary . personal need". The court adiourned to 2.15 o’clock.