FOUND GUILTY OF THREAT TO KILL

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6677, 2 August 1928, Page 4

FOUND GUILTY OF THREAT TO KILL

| Accused Stanley Gels Six Months AND MUST LEAVE N.E. WHEN SENTENCE EXPIRES Norman Ernest Stanley, a ship’s steward, aged 33, arraigned at the Palmerston North- Supreme Court yesterday on. a-charge . q£ sending tb Mr J. P. Innes, of Palm»rston North, 'a letter containing a; threat to kill; his (accused's) wife was found guilty and sentenced to sis months’ imprisonment. Accused gave an assurance that on the jompletion of his term of hard labour he would,leave 4ne Dominion for good. ■ .. . Accused pleaded pot guilty and was defended by Mr J. A.’Grant, Mr. F. H. Cooke } 'Crown Prosecutor, conducted the Police case. The ‘ jurors empanelled to hear the evidence' were Messrs. ■ J. • P. -Blammont ■ (foreman), Gi W, Aldridge, L. Hi’Winton, C. J. Brown, A, Dry den, E. C. sTiite, W. E. -Greqnfield, ,W. Gore, J. H. ColHhs, A. P. Landeibi .P. ,6am* brill and G. Bannorman. ' ■ James Petrie Innes, solicitor, of Pal-, merstqn North, told thb jpry that he acted for Mrs. Stanley in ' dratnng up a deed of separation ;between her - and accused. On December 5, 1927, he had received a letter from accused dated New York, Nov. 1, 1927. In that, letter was a threat by accused to till his wife and her father and mother.Witness had handed the letter to the Police the day after he had received ' it. . ■ . . To Mr Grant witness said that ho had not brought, the letter under Mrs. Stanley's notice. Mr-Grant; Did you consider the letter seriously? V " \ Witness: Not knowing the man intimately I didn't know whether the threats were meant-;or-only Bluff. . However, I didn't feel inclined to take any risk. ' ' His Honour; The question of what ,the latter meant is a matter- for-the jury;. • .■ ' David James Lattimore postal superof Palmerston North, produced a letter seized by the Department because of the offensive 1 nature of its address. ; It: was intended for Mrs, Stanley and ; boro a New York postmark. The con- , tents of the. envelope contained .threats ■ to MU Mrs. Stanley. if Appropriately . 16 .other letters similarly' addressed,; < . were returned to tho country of origin. ] | '.To Mr Grant: Mrs Stanley was not < told of the receipt of the letter-by the J ■ Forton Postmaster. . Os, J , v’-C . . ' : Ivy May, Stanley, wife , of lie accubed, said she was married, oh October - J, 1924. The nuptials. bnTy 'laatpd ] one day. The day following the mar- . Ha ge-accused borrowed £5 from her / and -said ha was going: Jo, his farm . which witness found out later, did not J exist. Witness produced a number of . letters from her husband all written ; in. similar strain —all of a threatening, ( nature. She made inquiry from the J Post Office as to whether she; was « ''obliged to receive them. The ■ Post. * office , stopped some. The threats in < the letters had-made' her very much J ,afraid as "he had cajried oat threats , previously. In February,. 1027, a sep- ? aration order was by deed. <

Counsel: Did he ever send you any money! t Witness: He sent mo several cheques but they were all stopped. Counsel; Did you get a message from accused when he arrived in New Zealand! Witness: My mother received a telephone... message on June 2. And What did you do? Witness: I cancelled ail my engagements and wont home to my people at Taikorea as I was very much afraid. Mr Grant: You know that accused Saw ybar father at Taikorea? —Yes You wore in Foxton? —Yes. Counsel: Why did you go to Foxton? Witness; The Police considered it wasn't safe for me to stay at Taikorea. Counsehi You know accused apologised to your father and then returned to Wellington? —Yes. And ho was peaceable when he saw your'father?—Ho was very humble. ' Mr Cooke: Did you believe in his apology? Witness: No. I still thought he would carry out his threats. Detective H. H. Jiusseli said he caw accused on June 14 last in custody. Stanley h?.d been arrested by the Lyttelton police. Accused was shown the letter which was the subject of the charge, and the latter admitted having written it. Ho said the threats were not seriously meant and he never inteh; ded putting them into effect. The letters had. been written while he was 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. Ho had come back to Now .Zealand, witk the express purpose of apolo-. gising to those whom he had offended and to see if there was a chance of them coming together again and making a new start in life. His’ earnest desire was to prove that he was other than tho man his letters made Mm cut to be. Mr Grant intimated that he did not propose to call any evidence. Ho sub 1 mitted, however, that under tho section of the Act relied upon br the Police;, /there was no charge to answer in that the letter containing the threat had not been: received by the person against 1 whom tho threat was made. 7 His Honour: Tho section' doesn’t say so. Mr Grant quoted an English ease in support of his contention, adding that ha’i Mr Innes forwarded the letter cm

to Mrs. Stanley, tho position would have been different.

Mr Cooke also quoted an English action similar to the present case, in which the jury had been directed to return a verdict. His Honour ruled out Mr Grant’s submission, stating that in his opinion, there was no need for Mr Innes to send bn the letter to-Mrs. Stanley. Counsel briefly addreise£ the jury, Mr Grant submitting that tho letters savoured more of blulfjthan intent. His Honour said the jury could dis-. miss tho question of bluff , as the evidence was complete whether bluff was intended or not. The law set out that one person could not write to another in such a way as accused had done. The jury had only to consider whether the letter contained a threat or not. There were places where it was perfectly plainly stated. As far as his subsequent conduct was concerned, that was not rcvel'ant to the charge. ■ The fact that he was .now sorry could not have any .effect on, the question of whether he had committed the offence or .not. 11 "; .

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr Grant, in pleading for Stanley, said accused had not beeii before the Court before. Ho was rather severely iajureji ; a wound in thpAeacLv'/He'.didn't know whether those wounds, had affected his mentality or not. Possibly ho really needed some medical attention. , . Accused had spent considerable'rime'ht sea and during the last voyage had been promoted. . - ■ ,

-His Honour: What does he propose to do after the sentence of the Court has been seryed? 'v ■ ; Mr Grant THo has teen'a steward and possibly he might bo prepared to stay away from New Zealand in future.

After consulting with prisoner, counsel intimated that Stanley would give, an undertaking to stay away from New Zealand. Tho case was a difficult one to, deal with. . ,

Mr Cooke: There is nothing previously known against accused. ' ~ His Honour stated that there was no doubt_that ; ;thp language of the letters suggested-that, Stanley was not normal, maybe- as a . result of his war service However,-he had promised to go away from Hew Zealand and had better give that’promise" in writing. The sentence of tho Court would bo six months;’ imprisonment. ;