WIFE-BEATING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6114, 14 September 1881, Page 3

WIFE-BEATING.

A conteaip.ir.iry mantioaa the following cas» as instancing the extraordinary decisions sometimes given iv wifs-beatiug cases: —

In the Central Criminal Court, L ndoo, in May last, before the Lord Chief junt.ee, a navvy named Huut waa tried for the wilful murder of his wife. They had been marketing and drinkiug, and the man was drunk. They quarrelled because tho wife kicked the uiuuV dog. The man elia»ed her, pushed or knocked ht.r rdown, and kicked her with hia heavy boots on the head or neck. She died almost immediately from extravasation ol blood upon the brain, though at the pout mortem no external marss of violence were seen. When the woman lay on the ground the man was aaked if he was sorry, and ho said " No, aa it Berved her right." When he kicked her he had said, " That s fer kicking my dog; it will teach you better in future." He ex pressed sorrow afterwards, and said they had had a thousand previoua quarrela, but none half bo bad as that. It appeared, however, that there had been affection between them ; and on that ground the Jury, in finding the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, atroDgly recommended him to mercy. The Lord Chief Justice said that "be must pass a sentence to ahow that human life waa a precious thing in the eye of the law, aud could not be taken without punishment;" and he sentenced the prisoner to six weeks hard labour. The tame Judge on the Game day sentenced another man convicted of manslaughter to five years' penal servitude. The prisonor in this caaa was a fish-porter- Tht> woman with whom he was living had neglected to get nix tea, aud had npt-ni the money he had given her for it in getting drank. He threw her out of bed and kicked her in the back, causing injuries from which she- died. Now, although the lines of these two casea are not parallel, the contrast batween the eontencea in strong enough to suggest the inquiry whether thb difference between them was anything better than the result of blind chance. Io ia trm, as the Daily Nowb remarks, that the wom»u killed by the fi3h-porter waa not hiß wife ; but, as tnat journal adds, " aurely Lord Coltridge cannot hold that the murder of a wifo ia more venial than the murder of a mistress."