JEALOUS HUSBAND

Evening Star, Issue 23130, 2 December 1938, Page 15

JEALOUS HUSBAND

DRAfvIA m KITCHENETTE AIH3RAFTSMAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL ll’tti United Tress Assoc u i ion. | AUCKLAND, Dec 1. An altercation involving two members of the start associated with the Hcbsonville air base and the wife of one was desciibed m evidence during the hearing a charge against I’oef Alexander Spring-Rice, aircraftsman, aged 35 (Mr Hubble), in the Police Court to-day. He pleaded not guilty to a charge E assaulting Kenneth George Apia Callingham ro as to cause actual b. dily harm on November 16. Before evidence was called, Detective Sergeant Nalder outlined the case and counsel applied to have the charge reduced to one of common assault. He submitted that the accused acted under extreme provocation, and if the case went to the Supreme Court there was a 'ood prospect of the accused being acquitted by a jury. If he were convicted the penalty would not be great. The mag ! :trate (Mr C. R. Orr Walker), refusing to alter the charge, said it was hardly his duty to do so, and one could not contemplate what view a jury might take of the case.

Detective Sergeant Nalder said that Callingnam had been a frequent visitor to the accused’s home, and he was there on the night of November 16 when the accused left to go on duty. The accused returned suddenly some time later, and what he saw suggested that something improper had been taking place between his wife and Callingham. “He rushed at Callingham and the assault took place, first with, his fist and then with a knife and a pair of scissors,” continued Detective Sergeant Nalder. “ Callingham was cut on the head, arm and hand, in addition to suffering concussion, and he had to receive medical attention.” In evidence Callingham said he was a photographer. He was single and was aged 24. He had known the accused and his w”a for about two years. He was teaching them photography and frequently visited their home. When the accused returned on the night in question he made a foul accusation against his wife and rushed at witness. In the struggle both used their fists, and witness escaped when a door was opened by two neighbours who were investigating the cause of the disturbance.

The two neighbours said that they found the accused and Callingham fighting on the floor. Later the accused was seen with a bayonet, and he told one witness that he would “ half kill Callingham if he c ~ht him.” The accused, however, listened to reason and returned home. Constable Pollard, of Henderson, said he was summoned to the air base at 11.30 p.xn. on November 16 and saw Callingham in bed wit 1 , his clothes on. He had cuts and other abrasions on his head and arms, and the accused, whom witness saw an hour later, was also knocked about. He said that anybody would have done what he had done in the circumstances, but when arrested for assault he declined to make any explanation. Witness said he found broken crockery on the kitchen floor in the accused’s home and there were blood smears on a cupboard, He also found a Knue on the floor and a pair of scissors on a chair, but there were bloodstains on neither. A statement made by the accused to the police next day was produced. It stated that Callingham had been in his house on his invitation be* cause his wife had expressed a desire for younger companionship. Callingham was teaching her photography, and a few weeks ago the accused requested that his visits should not be so frequent as people were talking. His wife raised some objection, accusing him of mistrusting her, and to prove that this was false he permitted the visits to continue. “ When I went back to change my uniform last night,” the accused’s statement continued, “ I was surprised by what I saw as I entered the kitchenette. I lost my temper and flew at Callingham. A fight took place and my wife tried to pull me off by my face. The rest of the fight is fairly hazy until it was interrupted by two neighbours. Callingham then escaped, and that was the last I saw of him.”

Counsel again asked the court if It would consider reducing the charge, and when an order was refused, he added that there was hardly any purpose in calling evidence for the defence in the meantime. It was inevitable that the accused would lose his job at the air base, although normally he was of good repute and had a good record in his work. His outburst was occasioned by extreme provocation, counsel added, applying for suppression of the name, which was also refused.

The accused pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was fixed at £SO and a surety for £ 50.