WOMAN'S DEATH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22864, 20 October 1937, Page 18

WOMAN'S DEATH

HUSBAND NOT GUILTY INSANITY PLEA SUCCEEDS JURY'S VERDICT AT DUNEDIN [BY TEEEGRArn —PRESS ASSOCIATION'] DUNEDIN, Tuesday A verdict of not guilty on account of insanity was returned by the jury to-day in the trial before the Supreme Court of Arthur Richardson, labourer, of Berwick, on a charge of murdering his wife. Mr. Justice Kennedy presided. Mr. F. B. Adams conducted the caso for the Crown, and Mr. 0. G. Stevens appeared for the defence. The jury retired lato in the afternoon and returned with its verdict alter barely 15 minute.?. The prisoner was ordered to bo detained in strict custody at the Paparoa prison until tlio pleasure of the Minister of Justice was made known. Giving evidence for the defence, Dr. Malcolm Brown, acting-superintendent of the Seaeliff Mental Hospital, said he had had 16 years of experience in mental cases. Two months after the accused's committal ho canio under witness' control. He was convalescent and under full parole, and was well spoken and conducted. Witness saw Richardson on' August 9. He was still a sick man, and no sign of gross mental disorder could bo seen. With the knowledge he had of the mental history, he would say it was probable that the accused would be committable if ho drank heavily. He had examined him twice weekly since. His condition was ono of mental enfeeblement following abuse of alcohol over a long period of years. Temporary Loss ol Memory Richardson had amnesia for crimein other words, loss of memory for that period, witness continued. It was not a sharp-cut loss of memory, and it appeared to have coma on more or less gradually since the afternoon of July 17. Where it ended it was very difficult to say, because his mental condition was complicated by the fact that after the crime he was suffering from a severe gunshot wound. Witness was satisfied that the amnesia was genuino, and gave as his opinion that at the time of the crime accused was in a condition of disordered consciousness of such a nature that he would not know the quality of his act. Mr. Adams: Do you consider that at the time he knew what he was doing? —He would know tho physical quality of his action—that he was putting a gun together and putting cartridges in it.

And ho would know what ho was doing when he took tho kitbag and got his gun?— Yes, he woidd know in a dreamy sort of way. He would not have the knowledge of tho act that an ordinary person would have. After ' putting tho gun together would he know in the same way that he was taking a cartridge from his pocket and putting it in the gun?—Ho might.

Judge's Summing tTp

In his summing up His Honor said that the burden of proof of the crime was on the Crown, but that was on the assumption that tho accused was sane at the tims of the alleged offence. The burden of proving insanity in the legal sense, if that were the defence, rested upon the defence. He reviewed -the evidence, saying that it had been shown that the accused did kill his wife, but it remained to be decided whether or not he did mean to kill her. Tho defence was that at that time he was legallv insane and the question to be decided by the jury, if it did agree that the crime itself was committed by the accused beyond all doubt, was not whether the accused was sane or insane in the medical sense nt that time, not whether he was certifiable or uncertifiable, but whether he was sane or insane in the legal sense. His Honor quoted the law and pointed out that in thiscase there was no question of natural imbecility. He touched upon incidents in the accused's previous life which had been produced in evidence and upon the opinions of medical experts, and advised the jury that it had three findings open to it — guilty, not guilty or not guilty on account of insanity.