A MELBOURNE DRAMA

Southland Times, Issue 18968, 15 June 1923, Page 11

A MELBOURNE DRAMA

ACQUITTAL OF HANNAH MITCHELL. DRAMATIC STORY FROM DOCK. Hannah Elizabeth Mitchell, a midwife, of Burnley street, Richmond, was presented before Mr Justice Macfarlan, in the Criminal Court, Melbourne, on May 25, on a charge of having, on January’ 13, wounded, with intent to murder, Frank Bonfiglio. There was an alternative charge of having wounded with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Mr Macindoe conducted the prosecution ; and Mr L. V. Cuasen and Mr Shelton (instructed by Mr Ridgeway! appeared for Mitchell. The Crown case (says the Argus) was that Mitchell, who was previously the wife of Bonfiglio, but who had divorced him, had, on the return of Bonfiglio from Western Australia in January, said to him “I do not want you to have something on me all my life,” referring, it was alleged, to the body of a girl that had been removed from her house (Mitchell was acquitted of a charge of its murder!. Mitchell asked Bonfiglio to marry her, but he said that he was going out, as he had an appointment. While Bonfiglio was looking for his coat in the bedroom. Mitchell had fired a number of shots at him, and left him for dead on the floor. BONFIGLIO IN THE BOX.

Frank Bonfiglio said that he was a marble mason, residing in Victoria street. He was at Mitchell’s house at Richmond on January 13 last. During the morning Mitchell asked him to go for a drive with her. He refused, as he had an appointment to keep. Mitchell said “I do not want you to have anything on me all my life; will you marry me this afternoon? He (Bonfiglio.) replied: “I will marry you when I can afford to spend £3O or £4O a week on you.” He his coat, and she said “I am sure it is not here. She added: “I have burned that body; you can do what you like now.” This remark referred to a girl who had died in the house in the previous November. He and Mitchell had taken the body up to Coldstream and left it in some scrub. While he was looking in the wardrobe for his coat he heard the door open. Mrs Mitehell fired a shot that missed him. and the plaster of the wall fell near his feet. He rushed at her, and caught her by the wrists, jamming her arm in the door. She had the revolver (produced! in her hand, and fired two more shots, which missed him; the next hit him on the left arm, and he went down in a crouching position. Mitchell fired two more shots at him while he was on the floor. Witness struggled to his feet, and, getting out of the window, went to a neighbour’s house. He then hailed a taxi cab, and was taken to the hospital. One bullet was still in his body. MITCHELL’S STORY.

Mitchell made a statement from the dock. She said that when Bonfiglio returned from Western Australia, on January 12, he asked her why she was so cold towards him. She replied: “What did you expect me to be after the way in which you have treated me, sending telegrams stating that I had left you to starve in the bush? Bonfiglio said that he wanted £5O; and she replied: “I gave you £4O when you went away; what have you done with that?” He eaid that he had borrowed money from a man named Peters, of Kalgoorlie, and that he had promised to return it at 2 o’clock. On her refusing to give him the money Bonfiglio became angry, and struck her. She stayed in her room for the remainder of l the afternoon. In the middle of the night, feeling something cold on her cheek, she opened her eyes to find Bonfiglio with a large knife in his hand. He said: “I will cut your head off with this if you do not give me the £5O by 9 o’clock in the morning.” She replied: “Cut it off; I am sick and tired of your treatment of me.” During the morning she was preparing to go out when Bonfiglio came into her room and attacked her. She told him that she had no money to give him, adding that he would get no more money out of her. Bonfiglio said: “b will get £5O from you now, and £5OO to-night.’’ She replied: “You will never get another penny out of me.” Bonfiglio then struck her, and “called her names.” She was so ill and worried that she again lay down on the bed. Later, when she was seated in her motor car preparaton’ to driving out, Bonfigio referred to her in opprobious terms, “made a dive at the car,” and interfered with the engine. “I want that £50,” he said. She replied: “I have not got it. You will get no more money from me.” He replied: “You are not going out,? and spat in her face. Then he struck her across the face, and she threatened to have him arrested. She got out of the car and walked towards the kitchen door. Bonfiglio caught up a hair broom, and struck her across the back with it. Because she was ill she did not go to the telephone, but went and sat in her bedroom.

“I put my head in my hands,” continued Mrs Mitchell. “I did not think that life was worth living. I cared for this man very much, and this was thp treatment that be gave me. Suddenly I heard a noise, and looking up saw Bonfiglio standing near a couch, and pointing at me what I thought was a revolver. How I jumped up and got out of the door Ido not know. I only know that ti was the first time that I had seen the revolver in the house. I did not know that Bonfiglio had one. I certainly did not have one. Screaming ‘Don’t shoot me,’ I ran down’ the passage. As I turned towards the kitchen doir 1 heard the front door bang. I thought that he had gone round the house to intercept me. I was thinking of my life, my safety. I ran back towards the bedroom with the intention of locking myself in there. I opened the door, and there on a washstand nearby was the revovler. I thought ‘Well, 1 will hide that revolver.’ ” Raising her voice dramatically, Mrs Mitchell said: "That was the revolver which he had in his hand. He had pointed it at me. I heard Bonfiglio say ‘Put that down.’ I was surprised to see him, because I thought that he had gone out. He had something in his hand which I thought was a razor. He rushed at me with it, and all I remember was going like this (Mrs Mitchell extended her arm as if she were holding the revolver at the level). Whether I wanted to shoot or not, I do not know. My intention was to hide the revolver. I knew that he camp up to me and we struggled. My firm intention was to defend myself. I did retain the revolver, gentlemen. Ido not know whether shots were fired or not; T forget. {do know that he was lying on the floor, and I was safe. I was pleased that the revolver was in my hand. He said that he would kill me. Many a time he was desperate. What could I do? I heard him say, ‘You shot me.’ That was ringing in my ears. I replied: ‘lt is your own fault, Frank. This is the end of my life.’ ”

“ I was very sorry for it,” Mrs Mitchell declared. “I had loved this man passionately,” she continued. “I did not know his weakness, nor did I know what a wicked man he was. I told him that he had brought it on himself, and I was terrified. It was not my intention to shoot him. Why should I shoot anybody ? I suppose that I had to put all my strength and might ! ; nto the struggle to retain the revolver. I thought nf my children. Hp was an Italian, end an Italian temperament is not verv nr*. I suppose. 1 did not spp anything to >'ake me believe that hp was really hurt. vent to the telephone and rang up the p?iire. I said ‘I have shot Bonfiglio,’ bea :se he had told me that I had shot him. face, hands, and wrists were bruised ere he had struck me. I never shot n? man; and if the revolver went off in .no struggle it was not through any intention of mine.” ADDRESS FOR THE CROWN. Addressing the jury, Mr Macindoe said that nowadays the death sentence was not passed in such a case. It had to be recognised that Bonfiglio and Mitchell were not in one sense normal people. That was evidenced by their resumption of relationship after they had been divorced. It was i obvious that Mitchell had asked Bonfiglio I tn marry her, because she did not want • anybody to know about the disposal of the

body that had been in the house. It was a fact that if he had married her he could not have given evidence against her so long as they remained man and wife. He (Mr Macindoe) suggested that the only conclusion was that she intended to shoot him in order to “close his mouth.” She had suggested taking him for a drive. Where would she have taken him ? Probably, he (Mr Macindoe) thought, into the hills to shoot him there. Had she left him in the bedroom, would she then have rung up the police, or would she have done what she had done once before—taken the body out into the bush and left it there? When she returned to the bedroom and found that her victim had gone, she thought that the first thing she had to prove was that his story about the shooting incident was a lie. She placed a razor on the floor and a carving knife under the mattress. A bullet, “by accident, found itself alongside the knife.” Her story was that Bonfiglio had been outrageously cruel to induce her to give him £5O with which to pay “poor Peters.” If the jury credited that story, be (Mr Macindoe) thought that they wout : credit anything. When the two narratives were compared, what conclusion could be reached but that that of Mitchell was a pack of lies from beginning to end. Bon figlio’s mouth had to be closed, by fair means— marriage, or foul means—murder. The melodrama recited by Mitchell was one which would be hissed off the stage. JUDGE SUMS UP. In his summing up, Mr Justice Macfarlan pointed out that the defence was a compound one. It conveyed the contentions that Mrs Mitchell acted in self-defence; that she did not intend to shoot him; and that the revolver went off accidentally. Urging the jury to have their minds unbiased by what they had read or heard of previous cases, Mr Justice Macfarlan directed attention to the fact that, although the charg l was serious, Mrs Mitchell had made an un sworn statement. Bonfiglio, he said, gave his evidence on oath, and his character was ‘‘raked fore and aft.” The Crown held tnat her story from the dock was incon- "• tent with that given to the police. In addition to considering the evidence in respect to the main charge and the alternative charge, the jury could consider whether the accused was guilty of unlawfully wounding. The jury returned at a quarter past 12 o'clock, and returned about an hour later with a verdict of not guilty on all counts.