MURDER CHARGES

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 May 1944, Page 2

MURDER CHARGES

MOTHER AND BABY EXPRESS TRAIN ALLEGATION WANGANUI, May 16. The public portion of the Supreme Court was crowded to-day, when Grace Rosaline Robertson, an adding machine operator, aged 26, of Auckland, a single woman, was charged with the murder of her infant son, aged 14 days, near Mangaweka, on December 18 last. The Crown alleged that the child was thrown from a north-bound relief express train as it was passing a point about three miles north of Mangaweka at 9.45 p.m. The case is being tried before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury. Mr. N. R. Bain is the Crown prosecutor, and Mr. I. J. Goldstine, of Auckland, is appearing for the accused. “The inquiry we have to embark upon is pathetic from every point of view, but the jury must bear in mind that it takes a great deal to justify the taking of a human life,” said Mr. Bain, in opening. The evidence would show that the body of a male child was found near the railway line near Mangaweka. It was fully developed and was without clothing ox any kind. Mr. Bain traced the police investigations, which, he said, involved an, inquiry being made at every maternity home in the North Island and some in the South Island, resulting in the discovery of the birth ol a male child at Nelson to a Mrs. Jones. This person had left Nelson by air on December 18 and had boarded an express at Wellington for Auckland. Evidence would show that she left Wellington with a child and arrived at Auckland without it, and the Crown would also call evidence to show that Mrs. Grace Jones was die accused. “Accused admits the facts outlined and admits that the child was hers,” said Mr. Bain. Evidence was called in support of Mr. Bain’s opening. j . Cross-examined by Mr. Goldstine, Sister Rosemary Trafford, of the Nelson Public Hospital, where a child was born to a person known as Mrs. Jones, said that the mother attended monthly clinics and took all care of herself for the protection of the child.

Mr. Goldstine: And when she entered the hospital she had a complete set of clothes? Witness: She had good clothes, everything a little baby would require. Counsel: If you had known she was going to travel to Auckland with the baby the day after leaving hospital, would you have been agreeable? Witness: No.

Further evidence was called to show that the accused seemed happy at the prospect of having a baby and was very fond of it. Ronald Graham Putt, a passenger on the train, having read a newspaper report of the Lower Court proceedings, said he recalled incidents on the train and identified the accused as a fellow-passenger. Witness said accused appeared to be quite normal. He saw her leave the car on one occasion,, but did not know where the train was at the time, but it was not long after leaving Marton. Accused was carrying something which may have been a baby, but witness would not like to be definite on that. She was absent 10 minutes or so and was carrying something on her return. Detective-Sergeant John Tretheway, of Auckland, read a statement which he said accused had made to him. In this she described the father of the child as an American serviceman. The statement added that there were two wedding parties in the carriage on the train, and because of them it was impossible to get any rest. This upset the baby, who became sick. Accused also was sick herself, and the statement alleged that in a fit of desperation she had thrown the child off the train and was on the point of jumping out herself.

The Crown’s case ended to-day, and evidence for the defence will be called to-morrow. , OTAHUHU TRAGEDY. HUSBAND’S TRIAL ENDING. AUCKLAND, May 16. The trial of Thomas Phillip Haworth, a foreman chrome tanner, aged 32, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Callan and a jury. Haworth is charged with murdering his wife. Patricia Florence Haworth, at Otahuhu on March 16. Mr. V. R. Meredith and with him Mr. E. O. Wil•liams, appeared for the Crown; and Mr. J. Terry appeared for Haworth. Bernard Dennison Osgood, United States Army Corporal gave evidence of meeting Haworth and his wife at a friend’s place. When he asked if he could visit them Haworth had said “Yes, as long as your intentions are honourable.” He visited Haworth’s house a number ■of times and during the .week-end prior to Mrs. Haworth’s death stayed there two days. Witness told Haworth he planned getting a divorce from his wife in June, and it was suggested that Mrs. Haworth should get a divorce and marry him. They were talking all night ovei' it, and next morning when witness was leaving Mrs. Haworth fainted three times. The following Wednesday, in response to a message from Mr. and Mrs. Haworth that they wanted to see him, he was there again, but stayed only a few minutes. He thought he was with Haworth only* a few minutes, though he was with Mrs. Haworth from 7 to 11 o’clock that night. Cross examined by Mr. Terry, witness said it was planned that he should look after Mrs. Haworth until after the war.

To the Judge, witness said that Mrs. Haworth had asked Haworth if they were going to continue living under the same roof and he had replied it was up to her. Witness admitted that he had kissed Mrs. Haworth, but said nothing improper beyond that had occurred between them. After the Thursday of her death he received a letter from her written earlier which was in endear- i ing terms. EVIDENCE BY ACCUSED. Accused said he and his wife had lived happily for their 10 years of married life, and had one child, a boy aged seven. There was a birthday party for their boy. Phillip, and Osgood was present. That night he had said to witness: “You’ve got a great wife,” and then: “You can trust me.” Witness had replied: “I trust my wife, too.” At his wife’s suggestion he had agreed that Osgood, who was on leave, should stay the night. Osgood said he was due to return on Saturday night. About 9.10 p.m. on Saturday witness had said it was time to go, but Osgood said he wouldn’t bother, but would leave in the morning. “We were all sitting in the sittingroom.” continued witness. “My wife said to me: ‘We have something to tell you. I am in love with Ossie (Osgood), and he is in love with me. He is coming back for me after the war.’ Osgood said: ‘Yes. That’s right.’ This knocked me, and I said: I ‘ls this a joke?’ and my wife said. | :No. It’s no'"joke. We mean it. We have made our plans.’ I said: ‘What about Phillip?’ and she replied: ‘You can have him.’ When I asked what about her father and mother, she said: ‘I am sorry about them, but I’ve my own life to live, and no one matters but Ossie.’ ” Witness said there was some more talk and he had later said’ “What

are you going to do in the meantime?” She had said: “I don’t know.” “I said to Osgood: ‘You had better get out,’ and my wife .said: ‘lf he goes, I go with him.’ I argued with them for two or three hours, and about 2 a.m. on Sunday morning Osgood lay down on the couch, and my wife and I went to our bedroom. Neither of us undressed, and I did not sleep for about two hours. At 7.30 a.m.' I wakened and went and woke up Osgood, and pointed to the door. He had no sooner gone than my wife called out something, and dashed to the front door. Osgood was then going out of the gate, ana she ran up to him and I followed. 1 tried to bring her inside, but she struggled and fell to the grass. When I lifted her up she broke away and ran after Osgood.” Witness said he ultimately got his wife home, and she went to sleep. Referring to the day of the tragedy, accused said: i All that morning I was thinking how I could stop my home from being smashed up. I thought there was only one way, and that was to see Osgood and force him never to see my wife again. I knew he was in Otahuhu, and would visit her every time I was out of the way. I was working alongside a bench, and I picked up a hammer and stuck it in my belt. That would be about 10 o’clock. This would be the only chance since Sunday of seeing Osgood, and I was going to force hing out of my home, and I was taking the hammer to frighten him, and if it came to a fight, I vzould use the hammer to de-' fend myself. He was a much bigger man, and about three stone heavier.

“I cycled home, and my wife was in the scullery. She said: ‘What are you doing home?’ I said: ‘Where’s that Yank?’ and she replied he was not there and went into the bedroom. I followed her, and caught her by the arm, saying: ‘Pat, please.’ She said it was no good talking, saying: ‘I told' you on Saturday night that I love ’Ossie.’ She pushed me away, arid struggled, and I went mad. When I came to my senses she was lying on the floor bleeding, and I had the hammer in my hand.” Cross-examined by Mr. Meredith witness said that when he left the works he felt pretty certain that Osgood would be at his home. Mr. Meredith: Did you think there was a possibility of a fight with Osgood?—Yes. Re-examined by Mr. Terry, he said he told his wife on that Saturday night that in no circumstances would he give her a divorce. This concluded the evidence and addresses to the jury will begin tomorrow. COUNSEL’S ADDRESSES. AUCKLAND, May 17. Mr. Terry, addressing the jury, today, said that the accused had taken the hammer not with the intention of killing his wife but of driving the American away. He emphasised the strangeness of tile love declaration between the American and Mrs. Haworth, after Osgood entered into clandestine arrangements to deceive the husband. This declaration staggered and shocked Haworth. Baulked of his purpose by Osgood’s absence on the day of the tragedy, and met by his wile’s cold rejection of his overtures, Haworth went mad and was not responsible for his action, therefore he was not guilty of murder. Mr. Meredith, addressing the jury, said the jury must say there had been a crime of some sort, either murder or manslaughter. The Judge, summing up, said that bursts of rage were not things by which people escaped total legal liability for criminal acts. If an attack on his wife was in Haworth’s mind when he took the hammer and went home, it could not be said that he acted suddenly before ’his passion could cool. It might have been that he hoped to find trie American at his home and to make him go away by the use of the hammer or otherwise. Accused’s evidence breathed sincerity when he said that he expected to get his wife to change her mind. His Honor’s direction to the jury was that if, remembering Haworth’s experiences in the preceding days, they felt that the provocation of trie wife’s attitude to him when he returned home and pleaded with her to return to him, was such as would cause an ordinary man, in such circum-, stances, to lose self control their porper verdict was one of manslaughter. The jury retired before the luncheon' adjournment.