ACQUITTED OF MURDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21115, 24 February 1932, Page 10

ACQUITTED OF MURDER.

CASE AGAINST WIFE.

JURY ABSENT AN HOUR.

CROWD AITLATIDS VERDICT.

CLOSING STAGE OF TRIAL.

JUDGE'S SUMMING-UP. Cr.Y TKi.KCTtAPn. —rnicss association.] WANGANUT, Tuesday. After an hour's retirement, the jury in the Supreme Court today acquitted Elizabeth Onice Donaldson on the charge of murdering her husband. Alfred George Donaldson, on December 13. The verdict of not guilty was applauded by the crowded gallery, but the demonstration was quickly checked by tho Court orderlies. When the second day's proceedings were opened accused entered the witness box and gave evidence. She said she married Donaldson on May 23, 1925, and resided first at Mar ton. She spent a holiday in Auckland and came to Wanganui in February, 1927. In the following August, when sho was ill, Donaldson kicked her so severely that she had to have medical attention. About 18 months ago her husband's manner changed and his brutality became worse. She loved her husband and worshipped the ground lie walked on. Donaldson, she said, on occasions nearly choked her. On one occasion he struck her with a piece of lead, a poker and a broom. He had told her not to recogniso him on tho street. He then struck her on tho chin and below the car. On another occasion lie threw her against the wall and injured heir back. Judge's Comment on Evidence. At this stage Mr. Justice Ostler said the questions that were being asked the witness were irrelevant, for no matter how bad the character of the man was it was no excuse for his wife to stick a knife into his neck. Continuing, accused said that Donaldson told her she was only his housekeeper. On the day of the tragedy he left home early and witness went to look for him at a friend's place. She said she would do "something drastic" and would leave home. Later, when Donaldson returned, she asked him where he had been all day. His reply was a blow that felled her to the floor. He kicked her on the thigh, hit her with a shovel and punched her arm. Witness said that her husband picked up a knife and said, "I'll do for you," but dropped it. Witness picked up the knife and Donaldson ran out of the back door. She went to shut the door to keep him out, but Donaldson rushed in and ran on to the knife. Her hand, holding tho knife, was raised high to shut a bolt on the door. After the Tragedy. Continuing, witness said she went for a doctor when she realised Donaldson was hurt. She could not recall having used the words "stabbed" or "murdered" to any of the neighbours. When she went for help on a nrevious occasion Donaldson had threatened to cut her throat. In answer to the Crown Prosecutor, accused said Donaldson rushed at her with force at the back door. She could not see in the dark whether he was standing up straight. He did not say anything. The Crown Prosecutor: How did you know in the dark that the knife caught him if he did not speak ? Accused: I knew by the feel I must have struck him. Dr. Earl, prison surgeon, described a bruise on accused's shoulder and a large bruise on her hip. The former was consistent with a shovel blow and the latter with that from a kick. This concluded the evidence for the defenceCounsel Makes Eloquent Plea.

Counsel for accused made an eloquent plea, extending over an hour and a-half, in which he submitted that accused, after being bodily assaulted by her husband, was rushing to lock him out when lie turned and ran into the knife, severing the jugular vein. A strong feature of the case for the defence was that accused went into the witness box and gave her account of what happened.

Counsel for the Crown ruled that the onus on the Crown was discharged vvhen the killing was proved. The jury had to consider whether the knife would have gone ljin. into the body if the affair was pure misadventure. His Honor, in the course of his sum-ming-up, said that three courses were open to the jury, to convict of murder, to convict of manslaughter or to acquit the accused, lie ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to convict of murder. If, on the other hand, accused had been stung to passion by her husband's provocation, then they were entitled to convict of manslaughter. The jury then returned its verdict and the accused was discharged.