“SHE DROVE ME TO IT"

Evening Star, Issue 22685, 26 June 1937, Page 1

“SHE DROVE ME TO IT"

MAN'S PLEA IN MURDER CHARGE To the surprise of the court, when a man was charged with the murder of his wife at the Old Bailey, London, recently, he pleaded guilty, emphasising his plea in a loud, decided voice. Mr Justice Finlay, however, refused to accept the plea, and directed that one of not guilty be entered. The man was convicted later of manslaughter and sentenced to three years’ penal servitude. He strangled *his wife—the defence said—after he was driven to distraction by her temper. She nagged him and scratched him for three-quarters of an hour before he lost his selfcontrol. Deciding that the man, Charles Bird,, aged 45, of tßalham, acted under great provocation, the jury acquitted him of the murder of his wife, Charlotte, and in finding him guilty of manslaughter, entered a recommendation of mercy. Refusing to accept Bird’s plea, Mr Justice Finlay declared: “I think the case is one_ which, in the public interest, requires investigation, and the more so because it may not be clear that the plea accurately represents the truth in the matter. It may bo that another verdict would be more appropriate.” , B. M'Clure briefly outlined the facts for the prosecution. ” Bird,” he said, *‘ earl# on Sunday morning, January 31, walked into Baiba™ Police Station and handed to the officer in charge the key of his flat; dec‘a™Jg he had strangled his wife. She deserved it,” he told the officer. “She drove me to it.” Mrs Bird, Mr McClure said, was found in the flat with an overall round her neck, but Sir Bernard Spilsbury, the pathologist, was of opinion that the cause of death was manual strangulation. Divisional Detective Inspector Bridget noticed scratches on Bird’s face, apd the sleeve of his shirt was missing. It was found by the bed. Inspector Bridget then entered the witness box, and in his evidence declared Bird made a statement that he was married in August, 1934. j ® night in question he was in bed when his wife came home intoxicated, as she had done before. She started “ rowing ” him, and he went to a chair bedstead. Later, thinking she was asleep, he returned to the bed. The inspector said the statement went on; ‘‘Then she started fighting and scratching me for about three-quarters 0 a n k°ur. She made to hit me with a flower pot, but instead she knocked me m the face. I could not get anv pace, ep. I strangled her with a pinafore and my hands: She is a very badtempered woman, especially when in drink. She has ‘ rowed ’ me: practically the whole time we have keen married, t "END OP HIS TETHER,” Bird’s neighbour, Mrs Violet Redden, declared She had seen Mrs Bird come home on occasions the worse for drink. _Sir Bernard Spilsbury entered the witness box, and stated that a woman under the influence of drink might be strangled more easily than a normal woman. Bird himself did not give evidence. ' On Bird’s behalf, Mr Henry Elam submitted the proper .verdict waa “manslaughter.” He described Bird as an inoffensive little man, who had been led a “ cat-and-dog ” life by a woman who . drank. “If,” he went on, “ you think this wretched man waa at the end of his tether because his wife had been nagging and scratching him, and you think he went too far, that is manslaughter.” Mr Justice Finlay, summing up, said he wag sure the jury, after hearing the evidence, would think he rightly refused to accept Bird’s plea of guilty to murder. The jury was absent only five minutes, and, passing sentence a* stated, Mr Justice Finlay told Bird; “You must know that this .terrible crime must be followed by severe punishment. There can be no donbt that under this provocation you deliberately strangled your wife. I must regard that as a crime of the utmost gravity. I put the sentence at the very lowest range I feel consistent with my duty as a punishment for a crime so terrible as this.” . When he left the dock Bird wai smiling broadly.