THREAT TO KILL

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 208, 1 August 1928, Page 7

THREAT TO KILL

HUSBAND’S LETTERS TO WIFE.

SERIOUS CHARGE PREFERRED. SIX MONTHS’ GAOL. The trial took place before Mr Justice Smith at the Supreme Court this morning of Norman Ernest Stanley. a steward, on a charge of having sent to Mr J. P. Innes, ot Palmerston North, a letter containing a threat to kill accused’s wife. Mr Cooke appeared for the Crown and Mr Grant for accused. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs J. P. Blummont (foreman). G. W. Aldridge, L. H. Winton, C. J. Brown, A. Dryden, E. C. White W, E. Greenfield, IV. Gore, J. H. Collins, A. P. Landers. R. D. Gambnll, G. Bannerman. In evidence, Mr Innes stated tpit he knew accused and his wife, having acted for Mrs Stanley in drawing up a deed of separation in February, 1927. On December 5 last he received from accused .a letter sent from Now York on November 1, in which the threat was made by accused to kill his wife and exterminate the family. Witness handed tho letter to the police immediately on its receipt. To Mr Grant: He did not mention anything about the letter to Mrs Stanley. The letter was not such as one would expect to receive from a normal man. SIXTEEN LETTERS RETURNED. David James Latimore, of Palmerston North, postal supervisor, produced ail offensively addressed letter from accused to Mrs Stanley, and said that this had been opened by tho department to find a throat to kill her. Approximately sixteen offensively addressed letters from accused were intercepted and sent back to their country of origin. To Mr Grant: He did not tell Mrs Stanley that the department had received these letters.

WIFE’S EVIDENCE. On oath. Ivy May Stanley, wife of accused, said that she was married to him on October 1, 1914, .accused the following day leaving her to go to his “farm.” To do this he borrowed £5 from her. She later found out that there was no farm. After his deXJarture she received many threatening letters from him, some from all over the world. Eventually she told the post office at Eoxton not to deliver any more offensively->addressed to her. Such was the tone of the letters that she was afraid that her husband, ctn .his return to New Zealand, would put the threats into effect. On June 2 witness heard that he had arrived back, and she thought it safer to remain with her mother at Taikorea rather than go into Foxton. Witness admitted to Mr Grant that many of tho letters had been written in 1925. Witness knew that accused called on her father and apologised for sending the letters, which apology was accepted and he returned to Wellington. He was in a very humble mood. Witness, however, had not believed that the apology was sincere. DETECTIVE’S EVIDENCE.

Detective Russell gave evidence that accused, when interviewed in custody on June 14, voluntarily made a statement admitting that he had written the letter which was the subject of tho charge, together with others that had been received. They had been written while in a foolish and despondent mood, brought on by deep affection for his wife, who had continually repelled all attempts to make things up between them. The threats were not seriously meant, and he never intended to put them into effect. He liad returned to New Zealand with the express purpose of apologising to those whom he had offended, to see whether there was any chance of him and his wife coming together again to make a new start. His earnest desire was to prove that he was other than the man nis letters suggested. Cross-examined, witness admitted that Mrs Stanley’s father had told him that accused had apologised to him. CASE FOR DEFENCE.

This concluded the case for the Orown, whereupon Mr Grant submitted that there was" no case to answer inasmuch as the letter which was the subject of the charge was not addressed to or received by the person against whom the threat was made. Had Mr Innes sent the' letter on to Mrs Stanley the position would have been different.

Mr Cooke referred His Honour toau English decision in 1911 where the Court of Appeal had held a man guilty for having sent a letter to Mr Ramsay MacDonald threatening to kill the chief detective.

Mr Grant pointed out that the report did not make it clear whether Mr MacDonald had sent the letter on or not. His Honour said that he would have to overrule the objection. The section of the Act under which the charge was laid did not require that the letter should be received by the person threatened. It would not be reasonable to permit a letter being sent to, say, a wife threatening to kill her husband or vice versa. No evidence, was called for the defence, whereupon Mr Cooke briefly addressed the jury. The jury, said Mr Grant, should disabuse their minds of any prejudice that might have been created by the disgusting letters sent and consider only that sent to Mr Innes. This, he submitted, did not contain a serious threat; at any rate, accused was entitled to the benefit of any doubt that tho jury might have regarding the matter. It was not a question of whether the letter to Mr Innes was bluff or not, staffed His Honour, in summing up, because the offence was complete if there was any threat. The law thought it advisable that no person should be allowed to write letters to anyone else threatening to kill them. The fact that accused was sorry afterwards might be something to be said in his favour, but it could have no effect on the question of whether he had committed the offence or not. The jury retired at 11.30 and came back 40 minutes later with a verdict of guilty.

TO KEEP AWAY FROM NEW ZEALAND. Addressing His Honour, Mr Grant stated that accused had not been before the Court before. He had been severely wounded in the war and had sustained an injury to his head, which may or may not have affected his mentality. Possibly he needed medical attention. . . His Honour enquired what accused proposed to do after the sentence of the Court had been served. • Mr Grant: He has been a steward, and possibly he may be prepared to stay away from New Zealand in the future.

Counsel then conferred with accused, thereupon intimating that lie was prepared to give an undertaking to keep away from New Zealand. Nothing was previously known against accused, said Mr Cooke. There was no doubt, stated His

Honour, that the language of the letters suggested that ho was not normal, possibly as a result of his war injuries. However, he had promised to keep away from New Zealand. The sentence of the Court would be six months’ imprisonment.