THE HOPE CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 29 November 1945, Page 5

THE HOPE CASE

TRIAL OF MRS WEBBY IN SUPREME COURT THE HUSBAND’S EVIDENCE WIFE’S AUTHORITY IN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS Thp Crown has 25 witnesses to call in the Supreme Court trial of Corona Efflg Webby, aged 30, charged with, on 31st August, 1945, at Hope, the attempted murder of Keith Douglas Webby; and with causing actual bodily harm to Keith Douglas Webby in such circumstances that if death had been caused she would have been guilty of manslaughter. The case commenced before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, yesterday afternoon. Th e Crown Prosecutor is Mr C, R. Fell. Accused, represented by Mr W. V. Rout, pleaded not guilty. A large number of exhibits was displayed in Court, including a wardrobe, bedding, a shotgun and cartridges. The chief evidence yesterday was that of accused’s husband. Duxdng to-day’s proceedings the major charge was withdrawn, with the approval of His Honour. The following common jury was empanelled: E. Wilson, A. J. Leahy, G. Curnow, C, G. Scarlett, K. M. Black, J. Hoy, E. J. Graves, A. NBrown, H. K. Chjng, W. C. Baldwin, J: S. Cockrahc, C. H. Middlemiss. Mr K. M. Black was elected foreman. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION Mr Fell said there were two counts. The first one, attempted murder, carried an intent to kill. The second did not carry the same intention. The principal parties were husband and wife. They lived at Hope. On the last night of August the husband and wife were sleeping in a bedroom, the husband in one bed and the wife in another. The evidence was that the wife got up in the morning, left the room and came back. Something happened and the husband felt a blow on the head and found h e was bleeding. He was taken to the doctor’s by a neighbour. Mr Fell then outlined th e evidence to be called by the prosecution. MEDICAL WITNESSES The arrival of a man at his surgery with his head swathed in towelling through which blood could be seen oozing, was described by Dr. J. T. Shearer, of Richmond. He now knew the man as Keith Douglas Webby. On examination he found the man had a scalp wound six inches long. Webby was emotional and upset, but coherent. He was told by Webby that it was a shot-gun wound. There were no signs of powder bums on his head. Dr. P. C. E. Brunette, medical superintendent at the Nelson Public Hospital, said Keith Douglas Webby was admitted on 31st August suffering from a wound on the scalp, alleged to be a gunshot wound. The patient was operated on on the same day. He described the wound in detail and said th e scalp was lacerated, almost pulped jp places. The forehead belo\y the wound was pitted with fine lacerations. These extended on both sides of the woiund. He thought th e lacerations were caused by grains pf unburnt powder. He thought the wound was a gunshot wound fired from in front, from a range of three to six feet. He did not think it could have been at pointblank range. Apart from mechanical contrivances being used h e did not think it could hav e been self-inflict-ed. To Mr Rout witness said he could not say whether the range was likely to.be three feet rather than six feet. Webby was in a tens e and excited state on arrival at the hospital and remained in that condition till his discharge. Photographs of Webby’s house, taken at th e request of the police, were produced by Frank Terence Hall, photographer. ACCUSED’S HUSBAND The husband of the accused, Keith Douglas Webby, then went into the witness box. He said he was 34 years of age, a farmer living at Hope, with two children. He carried on early cropping. His brother lan had been helping with the farming. lan lived at Hope with witness during the week and went home at the week-ends. One day while ploughing on the hill lan jarred his hand and had to go to see a doctor. In the afternoon, assisted by his wife and two boys, aged 10 and 4, witnessed fenced a pea paddock. When they returned home his wife prepared tea. TASTE OF FOOD They had soup for tea, said witness, H P did not eat th e soup because it didn’t tast e nice. He just put it aside 1 . It tasted like some coffee he had had about a week before which tasted very strong. Th e .day after the coffee he and lan each took a bottle of tea to drink when they went out to work. His drink tasted strong. After the soup episode h e went to bed at about 9.30 o’clock and slept in the double bed. The children had gone to bed first. They used kerosene and candles for lighting the house. He used to keep a torch in th e bedroom in case of emergency. Sometimes the torch was kept on the floor and sometimes under his wife’s pillow. WHEN THE INJURY WAS RECEIVED The alarm awoke him shortly after 6 o’clock next morning and he told his wife it was tim e to get up. She left the room for a minute or two and when she returned he was in bed. He had his eyes open most of the time, but was dozing. H e thought h e heard a click. H P put his hand to his head and said, “You’ve thrown the torch at me.” His hand felt wet and he thought the torch had been thrown at him. His wife was sitting up in the single bed with her back to the wall. She frightened him; when he talked to her she couldn’t speak. He said, “What’s happened?” but she wouldn’t speak. He went to the bathroom and wrapped a towel around his head. Going back to the bedroom he smelt gunpowder. His wife was still in the same position. SHOT-GUN FOUND Between th e two beds he found a shotgun which he recognised as his own. It was usually kept in the shed., When he opened it a cartridge fell out. H e hid the gun in a hedge. The gun had last been used a fortnight before. Going back to th e house he went into the boys’ room. The eldest boy was awake and he asked his mother to write a note to Mr Chisnall asking him to come and get witness, as he wanted a doctor. He then told the boy not to bother about a note, but just to tell Mr Chisnall to come. His wife walked to the gate with him. His wife said, “I onlv meant to frighten you,” and he said, “All right, dear.” Mr

Chisnall took him to the doctor’s and then he went to the hospital, being discharged on 6th September. BUSINESS MATTERS He went back to the house with the police and saw a mark on the wardrobe which was not there th e night he last went to bed there. The pillow on his bed was also different His farm was 114 acres in extent and he had owned it since before the war. It had mortgages on it to the Odd Fellows and Messrs Pitt and Moore. When he bought the farm h e did a little of the business himself. In 1940 he bought a Chevrolet truck on terms. Till recently he thought the truck had been paid for. About 18 months ago the doctor told him to be careful or he would have a breakdown, so h e decided to nut up a glasshouse. His wife always did a bit of banking. She had authority to endorse cheques. He arranged for a mortgage to buy glass from Messrs Smith and Smith. He was going to raise a mortgage on his Monaco pronerty. His wife was doing the business of arranging for th P mortgage. She said it would be all right; they would get the money in a lew months. The glass was going to cost £l5O or £l6O. His wife could endorse cheques. After buying th e property at Monaco he put a house on it. TRUCK, GLASS AND CAR One day his wife told him his brother-in-law had borrowed the truck. It did not come back and he asked her what had happened to it She said she would go and see that it came home. She told him the truck had a broken spring. Again he sent her for the truck. She left a note saying that Barclay had got the truck. The note said “Don’t follow me.” H e caught her up and she told him that the truck had been taken to pay for the glass, Barclay had taken it. She said she was trying to get a mortgage through Mr Walshe. When he followed her she said she did not want to go back and he told her he loved her and wanted her home. He had had his suspicions about the glass not being paid for. He mentioned going to the police about the truck, but she said she hzd done so and they could do nothing for her. His wife told him the truck had been sold for about £4OO and after th e glass had been paid for she bought a Morris car from jtylr Vining. He wanted a car. They were always talking about a car. He knew nothing about glass being taken away from the farm. Vining had got th e Morris car back. Smith and Smith had got th e glass back. He knew nothing about his wife borrowing from Barclay on the truck. He knew nothing about a cheque from the Guarantee Corporation made out to C. E. Webby, or an authority signed C. E. Webby for K. D. Webby to Waimea Transport Ltd. to uplift glass, or an authority to Smith and Smith, signed by his wife, to collect the glass. To His Honour, Mr Fell said this evidence had a bearing on motive. His Honour said he felt disposed to advise the jury to concentrate on the second count, though that need not be taken as conclusive. TRADE ACCOUNTS Questioned on an account of £124 17s 10d with the Brightwater Trading Company, withess said he had asjeed his wife about it and she had come back with the account with a note on the back stating, “Dear, Bronte, I don’t understand how this has com e about. However, it is all a mistake. Hoping this goes no further, H. Nock (manager of the company).” He denied having signed letters (in his wife’s writing) to Mr Frampton, manager of Park Davis Ltd. He knew nothing about accounts for loans from Park Davis. The signature on a letter to Thomson Bros., Wellington, asking for a loan of £IOO, was not his. The letter was written in his wife’s handwriting. He knew nothing about a cheque endors - ed by his wife. Nor was letter to Thomson Bros, seeking a loan of £SO signed by him. The cheque for £SO was not endorsed by him. A letter to Turner and Growers asking for a loan on the glasshouse was also not signed by him. A cheque in answer to the letter was endorsed in his wife’s handwriting. He knew nothing about it. Witness’s bank pass-book was also produced. PURCHASE OF STRYCHNINE Witness admitted that he had asked his wife to buy some strychnine for poisoning rabbits. He did not know whether she had got it. He had not seen the poison about the place. To Mr Rout witness said it was' in last July that he spoke to his wife about buying strychnine. He had been married for 11 years. He had been a market gardener and had continued at that till he bought the farm, WORK ON THE FARM WITH WIFE His wife used to help him and they were a very happy couple. He had saved enough to pay a deposit on the farm. The farm when ho bought it was in a neglected condition. To-day it was in first-class condition. It had a new dwelling and practically new furniture throughout. He had all he needed in the way of outbuildings and plant. He agreed that he was a hard worker and that was partly responsible for his threatened breakdown. His wife had been more than a fair second in helping on the farm. The truck belonged to his wife. He did not like to leave the farm and left all the business transactions to hi s wife. She had authority to do all his business for him. He knew no money could be raised on the Monaco property without his signature. At all times he knew no money had been raised on that property. His wife had been doing most of the spending for witness and the property during the last two years. Receipts he had seen for payments during that period came to over £6OO. His wife usecl to do all the weekly shopping for him. His wife was somewhat extravagant, said witness, and he admitted he was tarred a bit with the same brush. Cash purchases on semiluxuries from town amgunted to 30s a week- She also paid for petrol for the truck. H e knew there was £l2O due to her from Vining’s, the balance payable in connection with the Morris ear. A STATEMENT CORRECTED He admitted saying j n the lower court that he saw his wife lying like a statue on the bed on the morning of the accident. He corrected the statement made to this court about sitting on the bed. He meant “lying on the bed.” When he returned to the bedroom his wx was in (he same position; he could not rouse her. She was sitting on the outer edge of the bed with her back against the wall. Her feet were under the blankets. She was in a nightgown. Witness said he was lying on the side of the double bed nearer the single bed which he was facing. Witness said lie was inclined to be moody and nervy and had suffered from moods of depression at odd times. He had spoken jokingly once or twice about committing suicide. "IT’S NOT TRUE!" Mr Rout put it to witness that the

prosecution had suggested that his wife had tried to poison him. Witness: “It’s not true!” He had been in touch with his wife for a while during the last two months while she had been away, but then the letters had been stopped; he did not know why. When the the boy Graham Charles Webby, aged 10, was called the judge queried as to whether it was necessary to call him. Mr Fell said he would stand the witness down while he considered it. Evidence of being called to the Webby house on 31st August was given by a neighbour, Raymond Buxtop Chis- I nail, who .said Mrs Webby had said her husband had hurt his head and it had affected his nerves. He drove Webby to the doctor’s. TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS CHARGE OF “INTENT” DROPPED j HIS HONOUR APPROVES When the trial was resumed this j morning Mr Fell said he had thought over the suggestion of His Honour and j had come to the conclusion, subject to the judge’s approval, that he would not proceed any further on the first count in the indictment. The evidence he would call would only have reference to the second count (causing bodily harm). "I think you are quite justified in doing that.” said the Chief Justice. "It is certainly the more merciful course.” He added that he did not see that the evidence as far as he understood it, would warrant the jury finding “intent.” Mr Fell indicated that the course to be taken would shorten proceedings. SENIOR-SERGEANT’S INSPECTION A description of his visit to the Webby farm on the morning of 31st August and his meeting Mrs Webby, was given by Senior-Sergeant H. E. Knight. He said Mrs Webby showed signs of distress. He gave details of his inspection of the Webby’s bedroom. One pillow was burst open and on it were blood smears and a number of human hairs. In the wardrobe, on the level of the pillow, was what appeared to be a charge of No. 4 shot. Loose shot was found on the floor, on the box ottoman, and on the sheet on the double bed. The signs indicated that the muzzle of the gun from which the shot had been discharged had been some distance away from the pillow. A sheet and an eiderdown spattered with blood were found in the beedroom, and these were exhibited in Court. A single-barrelled shot-gun (produced) was found underneath a macrocarpa hedge at the back of the house. The gun showed signs of fouling and smelt of recent discharge. He found a black C.A.C. 12gauge shot-gun empty cartridge near the back of the house. Witness said he asked Mrs Webby if she recognised the gun, and she said she recognised it as her husband’s gun which usually stood in the implement shed. Near the gun were kept shotgun cartridges. Three boxes of cartridges found in the shed were produced. A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE Mrs Webby made a statement to the police She said she and her husband slept in the same room, she on a stretcher and her husband on the double bed. Next morning she heard her husband go outside and return. Her husband said he had a sore head. The next she knew was the elder boy running into the room and asking what had happened and what was the noise like a gun. Her husband was standing in the room with his head bleeding and asked the boy to go for a neighbour. He wrapped his head in a towel and said he was going outside to finish himself. She did not hear a further shot. A neighbour took her husband to the doctor’s. She remembered her husband jumping out of bed and saying: “Cora, Cora, what have I done?’’ She had nothing to do with his injuries. Her husband did not accuse her in any way of having caused his injury. Her husband had been worrying and had talked about selling out. In a further statement before the police left, the accused said that /her husband on two previous occasions had threatened to take his life. On each occasion he had returned and said he had changed his mind. She did not believe he would take his life because be was too much of a coward. ANOTHER VISIT When he visited the farm the next day, said the senior-sergeant, accused said that on the previous morning when she was up and saw her husband standing at the foot of the bed with his head bleeding, she had seen the shotgun between him and the bed end, and that he took it outside and returned without it. After consulting her solicitor, the accused made a further statement in reply to a statement made to the police by her husband. A portion of the husband’s statement was read to the Court, describing the events of the morning of 31st August. After he had been injured he found the shotgun which he hid under the hedge. He asked his wife why she did it and she replied that she pnly intended to frighten him. Cross-examined, witness said that when he said the muzzle of the gun was a considerable distance from the pillow, he meant at least three feet. DISCHARGE OF THE GEN Witness explained the connection between the position of the pillow and the marks in the wardrobe and said it would .have been impossible for the person on the bed to have discharged the gun without an elaborate mechanical contrivance. It could no.t have been discharged just by the use of a piece of siring. Counsel for the defence suggested that a gun could be discharged with the gun lying on the bed, a person holding the muzzle with one hand and pulling a string attached to the trigger with th e other hand. Witness said it was not practical. As Webby was shot he must have been lying on one shoulder. Under certain circumstances the gun could be held with one hand while the other hand fired it, but not while a person was lying down v Counsel suggested that the gun could be resting on the bed. Witness said that if the gun rested on the bed the shot would not have gone in a downward line as it had. Mr Rout said that it could have if there had been another pillow under the gun. To His Honour, witness said that accused, in her statement replying to her husband’s statement, sajei her husband’s version of the shooting was quite wrong. She had never handled a gun in her life. Witness admitted to Mr Rout that the accused had asked to see hexhusband and Webby had on a number of occasions asked to see his wile. To Mr Fell witness said considering the length of the gun the pei-son firing it would have to be in or on thp single bed. AN ARMS EXPERT An arms expert, Senior-Sergeant G. G. Kelly, who examined the . Webby bedroom, described in detail the condition of the room and furni- , ture. A shot with the type ‘ of cartridge examined had to j be fired from more than 24 < inches for there not to be scorching. . The area of the patern of shot in the 1 wardrobe indicated either that the shot was fired from 8 yards, which was im- j possible, or that the shot had touched ( s 1 \elhing on the way. From what . he saw of the position of the pillow and j shotmarks he did not consider the shot

could have been fired by the person on the pillow, without a Heath Robinson contraption of some kind. He would say the shot was fired from four feet from the floor about halfway along the single bed. Cross-examined by Mr Rout said one could have stood at the foot of the single bed and fired from the bed. One could have been sitting on the bed and aimed from the shoulder. A person on the double bed could have tied a piece* of string to the trigger and fired it but he would still have had the barrel up in the air. He agreed with counsel that there were ways by which a man could hold the muzzle at arms length and discharge the gun. (fVoceeding)