A PLEA OF INSANITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18942, 13 February 1925, Page 11

A PLEA OF INSANITY.

SIMPKIN MURDER TRIAL. AN EPILEPTIC MALADY, ACCUSED IN WITNESS BOX. « TELLS HIS STORY OF TRAGEDY. The proceedings in the trial of James Simpkin, who was charged at the Supreme Court with having murdered his wife, Emma Simpkin at Manawa Road, Eemuera, were continued yesterday, when the accused gave evidence. Mr. Justice Herdman presided. Mr. V. R. Meredith conducted the prosecution, and Mr. G. P. Finlay appeared for the accused. Senior-Dotectivo Hammond stated that when arrested after his discharge from hospital accused reflected for a minute or two, and then said: " If 1 did it, I must iiave been mad." Mrs. Dulcie A. Tarr, of Gibraltar Crescent, Parnell, gave evidence bearing upon the unhappy relations between accused and his wife. On one occasion accused thrashed deceased with a strap. On another her eyes were blackened and her arm bruised. Accused often left her unattended when ill. To Mr. Finlay: Accused seemed very fond of deceased. They appeared happy except for his occasional outbreaks. Mr. Finlay, addressing the jury, accepted the facts that Mrs. Simpkin mot her death at accused's hand and that the tragedy culminated upon deceased's refusal to return to domestic relations with him. The letter found at the scene of the murder clearly showed that accused's intention at their final meeting was to plead with his wife for a reconciliation and to leave the letter with her as a means to that end. Mere possession of the razor was no evidence of premeditation. On the contrary evidence would be led to show that Simpkin had the curious habit of carrying with him his razor, toothbrush and comb. This fact destroyed the theory of the Crown that his possession of the razor at the fatal interview was a proof of predetermination to murder. " A Singular Person." Accused was a singular person in various ways. Several witnesses had admitted that they were never able to understand him. Clearly, he was passionately fond of his wife, and yet given to strange outbursts of harshness toward her. This feature in his character would be explained by evidence as to his family history. It would be shown that he was not responsible for his actions—that his penalty should be life-long segregation, and not execution. It would bo shown that bo was liable to odd fits of abstraction from attention to surrounding circumstance*. Accused was, in fact, a classic example of the particular form of epilepsy known as petit mal, which really amounted to liability to brain-storm and was progressive in its effects. It was degeneration of this kind that had led up to the present tragedy. ... f|- _ One characteristic of the malady was lbo liability to strange automatic acts in the spasms of unconsciousness to which the patient was subject. Therefore ho anticipated that the jury's verdict would be one of insanity, and that accused would bo sent- to a meiHal hospital for life. Evidence would bo given by accused that in his distraught condition, owing to his wife's ultimate refusal to return to him, he was told by her, in their final interview, that he was not the father of her children. There came the point when sanity reeled and ho became the victim of an uncontrollable impulse. It was while in that condition that he committed the murder. His act was not designed murder, meriting the extreme punishment of the law. Accused in the Witness Box. Accused, who was then placed in the witness box, said he had been married twice, and had had four children by his first marriage. He married the deceased in 1916, and lived with her at various places which he named. For a time he held a farm at Great Barrier with a partner. This interest ho exchanged for three shops in Auckland. For the last three years he had lived in a whan- in the bush at Kauaeranga, Thames. Until war time he was always able to keep his family, but then ho became bankrupt through unsuccessful speculations. Mrs. Simpkin was never left in need of money or under any necessity of going to work. Only once, for a day and a-half, she went to a. factory, but ho stopped her from working there. Mr. Finlay: How did you get. on with your wife'!—We got, on splendidly. Did you ever ill-treat her?—l do not remember. Have you any recollection of having thrashed her ?—No. Continuing, accused said their relations continued friendly until the Wednesday after his discharge from hospital. On the Thursday evening Mrs. Simpkin told him in the street that she was not coming back to him, and resisted his persuasions ou the point. Begged Wife to Come Home, Here accused broke off his narrative, and after gazing around for half a minute in apparent aimlessness, suddenly turned to Mr. Finlay and asked, "Where was I?" Reminded of his last statement, ho proceeded in a rambling way to detail meetings with his wife later in the week, in one of which, he said, she told him that her children were not his. Afte* this he said he was greatly upset, and he spent most of the night walking about. Coming to the interview in Mrs. Ross' room on the Saturday, be said that on his knees he begged his wife to "come home," and she agreed to do so. Mr. Ross, however, was present, and advised his daughter to remain away from hiim Further, Mr. Ross threatened that if she did go back ho would never again help her. From that point she withstood his persuasions, but, finally she agreed that she would return to him, pleading, however, that ho should leave her then, which he did. The arrangement was that she would go with him to the Thames on Monday, and that he should meet her on the Sunday evening, but not come to the Ross house, t Ho did not hear his wife call out anything | in qualification of this arrangement, to | go to the Thames. Tho Fatal Meeting. Coming to the incidents of the Sunday evening, accused said that when he and his wife met, they sat down in the tramway shelter shed. Deceased had with her a bag. Witness asked why she had brought it, seeing that, as they were going to tho Thames next day, they could easily pick it up then. Deceased then said, "I am not returning to the Thames with you." Witness asked for a reason, reminding her that sho had already promised to como back to him. She answered that she had only mads that promise in order to get rid of him. "Then I asked her," said accused, " 'ls there another man ?' and she said Tes.' I asked her straight out who it was, end she told me. (Accused mentioned the name of a Thames man). She said, 'ho will look after me, and put me into business if required.' I asked, 'do you expect someone else to keep my children ? Isn't that living in prostitution ?' She laughed, and said, 'you are not the father of the children, and perhaps you are not the father of the other children.' I don't remember anything after that." Accused stated further that he had owned a razor for 25 years, and had always carried it in his pocket. Mr. Finlay: You did not go out that evening with any intention of doing anytiling to your wife, did you?— Absolutely no. A better woman in the home than his wife, a better mother or a better wife, added tho accused, no one could ! possibly have. j To Mr. Meredith: After leaving hos- 1 pita! he was not told that Mr and MrsRoss would not have him hack in their

home. Ho denied that he had thrashed his wife. When asked why he had not answered accusations that he had done so, he said, "there are some things connected with my wife that I wouldn't like to mention." Though his habit was to have his razor with him, he might occasionally leave it in his room. "If it was settled ou the Saturday that, your wife was coining back to you and you knew nothing to the contrary till the Sunday evening, why did you write the letter you did on the Sunday morning?" accused was asked. "I cannot explain," he replied. In the greater part of his examination accused was collected in manner. Occasionally he rambled away upon points other than those led by his counsel and had to be abruptly recalled to the subject. Once or twice he showed emotion. Evidence as to Queer Habits. Samuel Colmore Williams, of Daxgaville, said he had known accused for four or five years, while accused was farming in the Kaipara district. Witness had always regarded him as a man with a "kink." Victor R. Millard, art student, who had known accused for ten years, testified | to accused's habit of carrying about his j razor and tooth-brush. He was always the quintessence of cleanliness, and often shaved twice a day in witness' studio. To Mr. Meredith: Other than the razor, he used witness' shaving requisites. Barton G. Ross, dentist, said accused was given to lapses of consciousness in conversation. Once, in 1914, when Simpkin was driving witness from Whangarei to Dargaville, he suddenly broke off from conversation and dropped the reins. The sulky swayed toward the bank, and witness had to seize the reins to prevent an accident and to shake accused back to consciousness. Ou coming to, accused asked, "Whore am I?" but for the rest of the journey he drove properly. He had not been asleep or fainted, because his eyes were open. Lapses from attention were of frequent occuirence to accused. To His Honor: Witness could not testify to any other specific instance. The lapse lasted about, three minutes. Mental Wanderings. Arthur Smith, step-brother of accused, also testified to accused's addiction to mental wandering. On the occasion of such wanderings his eyes had a glassy look. Sirs. Hannah Hook, sister of accused, said accused had a reputation in the family as being "dippy." Mrs. Valentine Bicker ton described accused, who is her half-brother, as being "peculiar and forgetful" in conversation. Mrs. Rebecca Dudding, sister of accused, deposed that an aunt of Simpkins was subject to epileptic fits, and died in one. Accused was very absent-minded at, times. He would ask a question and then appear as if he had not, heard the answer. Also, in making a statement he would break off suddenly and not return to the subject. Mrs. Jessie Barron, who had lived in the same house with Simpkin at times, swore to an accident in which accused was thrown from a horse some years ago and lay unconscious on the road for half an hour, afterwards being laid np for a week. Witness also spoke of occasions when accused, <m times of anger toward horses aud cattle, was seized with fits. On one such occasion hj« bit his own hand. At such times he would shed tears. Lost Energy and "Drifted." Stanley Buddie, solicitor, said he knew accused during his residence at Dargaville as a substantial man, owning several town properties, and a hard worker, certainly not a loafer. In later years, after they both came to Auckland, he lost his energy and became a drifter. Witness corroborated previous evidence as to accused's lapses from attention. It was more marked than absent-mindedness. His face became absolutely vacant. About 1917 accused received about £7OO through witness, and ho had other money from time to time. Certainly he was never without means. Accused was always a difficult man to find, on account of his wandering habits. Once, through his failure to keep an appointment, he was made bankrupt on a creditor's petition, though witness had told him that if he came the matter could be settled. He did not seem to notice the position. Afterwards the creditors were paid 20s in the £ and the bankruptcy was annulled. As there still remained a considerable body of medical evidence for the defence, the case was adjourned until to-day.