THE FLAT TRAGEDY

Evening Star, Issue 21569, 15 November 1933, Page 14

THE FLAT TRAGEDY

DEFENCE OF JAMES PASSION AND LOSS OF CONTROL [Pen United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, November 14. The trial was continued to-day before die Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) .if George Edward James, who pleaded not guilty to a charge of murdering Mrs Cecilia Smith on Friday, June 30, at the flat which he had occupied with her and her little son, George Noel iiuith (aged four), in Ohiro road. Among the witnesses called was Mrs House, of Fotone, who said James was icr foster-father. She was the sole beneficiary under her foster-mother’s will, and that had caused unpleasantness between the accused and herself. About the beginning of Alay ho mentioned Mrs Smith, said he was very fond of her, and that they hoped to get married soon. As far as he knew the accused enjoyed good health, and she had not known him to bo subject to fits.

Noel H. Rouse, solicitor for the executor of Mrs James’s estate, gave evidence of being approached by James for help and being told by James that if he could not do anything for him he was going to contest the will. Witness read letters which had passed between him and the legal firm that James consulted. Witness said that the executor said that there was no cash in the estate at *the date of death, aud even if there had been, in view of his client’s past conduct and witness’s knowledge of Airs James’s wishes, he could not consider any claim made by James.

To Mr .Macassoy, witness said there was really nothing in the estate. Evidence was then heard regarding the accused’s demeanour in hospital.

Opening tlie case for tho defence, Mr Leicester stressed the fact that dames was charged with tho murder o', the woman only. He said that the question of admitting evidence concerning the bov had caused -him anxious consideration. It might easily be true that the accused had left the boy at some spot and that the boy might have stumbled, struck his head, and been rendered unconscious and slithered down into the water. Counsel said tho defence admitted that in a struggle between the accused and Mrs Smith the latter received a blow or blows from which she died. James was therefore guilty of culpable homicide; it might be murder and it might be manslaughter. Giving an outline of tho circumstances leading up to the crime, counsel stressed the disturbed state of James’s mind. In the matter of his wife’s will Janies felt that he had been unjustly treated. He was tortured with feelings that had a not unimportant bearing on the developments of the case. Counsel detailed the story which James later told from the box, and suggested that after Mrs Smith’s death the emotional shock of seeing the woman lying there had the effect of blotting out all the after events from James’s consciousness. There was a special provision in New Zealand statutes, counsel continued, for th reduction of a charge of murder to one of manslaughter if the person causing death hud done so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation. The present case fell under this section. It was during such a moment of passion when deprived of self-control that accused struck the blows that caused Mrs Smith’s death. Every possibility was against the theory of a deliberately planned and carefully executed coldblooded murder. Every possibility pointed to the fact that the death of Mrs Smith was due to actions committed in the heat of the moment. ACCUSE!) IN THE BON. In the witness box James stated that lie was on affectionate terms with Mrs Smith, and intended marrying her. As for the child, if he had been his own flesh and blood he could not have loved him more. On the morning of Friday, June 12, Mrs James began to argue about money. The boy was playing on Mu floor, whittling a piece of wood with a tabic knife. The boy cut his finger, and witness bound his hand with a handkerchief. Ho threw the knife oh the table, and the boy picked it up again. “ 1 went to take it from him." witness continued, “ and as I went towards him the boy throw the knife, Mrs Smith picked it up, and I said to her: ‘He deserves a good thrashing, and if ho were my own boy I would thrash hint.’ Mrs Smith went towards the bedroom. 1 tried to take the knife out of her hand. She picked up a piece of wood and hit me over the side of the head. As my head was that morning this made me very angry. Mrs Smith took the knife into the bedroom and called the boy in. I told him to stay where he was. When 1 went into tlio bedroom Mrs Smith was sitting on the side of the bed near the duchesse. and tho knife was on the duchesse When she called the boy in I thought she was going to give him the knife, i said: ‘ Neither of you shall have the knife. I’m going to put it away, i went to pick up the knife, and Mrs Smith made a grab at it. We started to struggle as I tried to get the knife from her. 1 was angry and site was angry, and she called me a , and said I was good enough, for anything. 1 was put into a frenzy. Mrs Smith started to say something, but 1 can’t remember what it was. Wo continued struggling, and during the struggle 1 must have lost my‘senses. I don’t remember what happened after that. 1 was in hospital for a few days, and still didn’t know what had happened or why 1 was there. Mr Leicester: It is suggested by the Crown -that you intended to kill Mrs Smith.

Witness: At no time did I form any intention of killing Mrs Smith. I loved her, and nobody could have been more fond of her. I really worshipped her. .1 loved the hoy, and I was the only man the boy ever took to as his father. This was the end of James’s evidence, and as he said the last words he showed signs of breaking down. Cross : examination by Mr Macassey was deferred until to-morrow, when further witnesses for the defence will be heard.