Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NEIGHBOURS’ EVIDENCE

Witnesses in . Rusden Murder Trial Fifth day of hearing P.A. ! AUCKLAND, Nov. 21. A further 12 witnesses gave evidence when the trial of Mrs Pansy Louise Frances Haskell, aged 49, a domestic, was continued in the Supreme Court. It was the fifth day of the hearing of the charge of murdering Mrs Gladys Ruth Rusden at her home in Horotufu road, One Tree Hill on June 5. Several of the witnesses were neighbours or acquaintances of the accused who described alleged conversations with her. The public accommodation was taxed throughout the day and women were again in the majority among the spectators who ran for the best places in the galleries as soon as the doors were opened.

When the trial of Pansy Louise Frances Haskell for the murder of Mrs Gladyfc Ruth Rusden was continued today, William Hancock, a coal and firewood merchant, a former employer of the witness Rix, said that on the day of the tragedy Rix arrived at work between 8.30 and 8.40 a.m. On his arrival Rix started out in a truck to deliver orders. It would take five minutes to go in the truck from his yard to Horotutu road. Rix delivered his orders very well that day. He got back about 11 a.m. or 11.30. Mr Justice Callan: You realise that the hour Rix arrived at work is of some importance in this case? How soon after the tragedy did you realise that some question would arise? Witness: I did' not stress on any point, as I did not”think he was implicated. All witness could say was that Rix was late. He did not take any real interest in the time. Mary Ann Edwards testified that she lived at Liberty .House in January, 1946. She had seen Rusden there. Sometimes the accused was infatuated with Rusden and sometimes she wanted to get rid of him. At the request of the accused she took a letter to Mrs Rusden’s house and she was supposed to bring Mrs Rusden back to Liberty House." Mrs Rusden commented that she thought the letter was from ‘‘that Frost • woman.” She skimmed through the letter and seemed a bit agitated, but more angry than anything. She said bitterly, “If this is true my brothers;will make him pay.” Mrs Rusden refused to go to Liberty House, saying it might be a hoax. “Outstanding Walk” Continuing .her evidence, Mrs Edwards said the accused had an outstanding walk. She drooped her head and shoulders, forward, and sometimes clasped her hands in front of her. She took quick steps and walked rather jerkily. Cross-examined, witness said the accused appeared to be very fond of her former husband, Frost. She said she hoped to get out of her affair with Rusden so that she could effect a reconciliation with Fost. Mr Robinson; for .the defence: Can you say that she was keeping up her association with Rusden on account of fear?

Mrs Cynthia Eleanor Callaghan, of 133 Newton road, said she was living at her present address when the accused was there on the evening after the murder. The accused showed her a newspaper and asked her to say if she saw the accused on the morning of the murder. Witness agreed and made a statement to this effect to the police. After thinking the matter over, witness went to the police and said she had not seen the accused that morning. Answering Mr Robinson, witness said she haa never noticed anything peculiar about the accused’s walk. , , Witness normally left for work between 7.45 and 8 o’clock, and at this time the accused was usually in her bed. There had been nothing to make her think the accused was not in her bed on the morning of the murder. Ernest Cyril Wagstaff, builder, said he was living at 133 Newton road and left for work between 7 a.m. and 7.15 a.m. on June 5. He did not see the accused that morning. On Sunday night, after the accused had returned from the detective office, she asked Mrs Callaghan in witness’s presence if she had told the police that she had seen the accused at home on Thursday morning. He had remarked that this might put Mrs Callaghan in a tight spot. . - ~ j Fire in Yard Mrs Lillian May Fry, of 133 a Newton road, said she saw a' fire in the accused’s yard on the morning of the murder. Answering Mr Robinson, witness stated she could not remember the accused ever mentioning to her that she intended to give up Rusden. She was positive that the fire m the accused’s yard had been on Thursday and not Friday, and that the accused had told her she had burned a green (not navy) frock and a pair of shoes (not slippers). She had not seen any fire before 10.10 a.m. ~ , Mr Robinson: You knew thq accused was frightened of Rix? Witness: I never knew until after the date of the murder when I told her someone was hanging around the gate. Mr Robinson: Did this man look like Rix?—No, not a bit. To ■Mr Meredith, witness said she went outside and told the man off, and after that she did not think he would come back again. Any suggestion that it was Rix who was around was ail W hearing will be continued on Monday. _____

Witness: You could f&ke it like that. When Rusden was not there she did not want to see him again, but when she did see, him he seenjed to have some power over her. Counsel suggested that witness’s visit to Mrs Rusden was made for the purpose of destroying the association between Rusden and the accused. Wituess said she could not deny that. Evidence- was given by William John Vrede, a second-hand dealer, that he purchased from Rix.,on April 9, 1947, a blue felt hat and dark spectacles for 10s. , Heard Screams Basil Theo Underell, a resident of Campbell road, said die heard .'screams on the night of the assault on Mrs Rusden. He assisted her to his hoqse.* She was exhausted and had marks on her throat like bruises. He went to the Cornwall Park camp and returned with Rusden. Questioned by the foreman of the jury, witness said the night was pitch Details of conversations with the accused were given by Clara Aitken, a married woman, of Newton. The accused, witness said, had told her that she expected Rusden to get a divorce so that she could marry him. She looked forward to the divorce coming off and when it did not eventuate’ she became very angry about thipgs. The accused had said on one occasion that , Mrs Rusden was going into hospital for a serious operation and she hoped she would not come out of it. There was an occasion when the accused said that “ Homey ’ woman had made trouble for her by suggesting Mrs Rusden should visit the house in Newton on a Sunday afternoon. Mrs Rusden had done so and the accused said she had told Mrs Rusden that she could divorce her husband'now. Mrs Rusden had said she would never divorce him and tne accused stated that she had replied that Mrs Rusden would have him over her dead body. Asked for Gun “ One occasion when the accused told me about the ‘ Homey ’ woman she asked me if I had a gun to shoot that mother Rusden through ' the trees at the back. Then she asked if I had a cut-throat or a good heavy spanner. The accused stated:; ‘It is worth £2OO to you if you will help me to kill that Mrs Rusden ’ I said the money would stink. Then she asked me if I knew anybody who would do it. I told her I did not mix with that type. Then she said: ‘lf you hear of it being done you won t say anything will you? ’ I replied: ‘ Don’t let it happen or I would have to squeal to the cops.’ The accused also told me she would sneak out to the Rusden house in the early hours of the morning with a shopping basket and hang around the gate. Nobody would know her,” the witness continued. ' , , When the accused walked, her right foot 1 went out further than the left, witness added. At Mr Robinson’s request, she came out of the witness box and gave several demonstrations on the floor of the courtroom in front of the jury. She said she had not seen the accused walking in the street. Answering Mr Robinson, who claimed that Mrs Rusden never went to 133 Newton road, witness said this was what the accused had told her. She was only going by what the accused had told her. Not Concerned With Reward Mr Robinson:--You know, of course, of the £SOO reward? Witness: That does not worry me m the slightest. There was no reward on the Thursday night of the murder. I read about it in a newspaper.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT19471122.2.71

Bibliographic details

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26625, 22 November 1947, Page 8

Word Count
1,498

NEIGHBOURS’ EVIDENCE Otago Daily Times, Issue 26625, 22 November 1947, Page 8

NEIGHBOURS’ EVIDENCE Otago Daily Times, Issue 26625, 22 November 1947, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert