SEADOWN TRAGEDY

Southland Times, Issue 21001, 6 February 1930, Page 6

SEADOWN TRAGEDY

OLDFIELD ACQUITTED ACCUSED ADJUDGED INSANE PATHETIC STORY RECOUNTED (Per United Press Association.) Timaru, February J. In the Supreme Court, Jack Oldfield, against whom a true bill was returned by tire grand jury yesterday, was arraigned on a charge that he did at Seadown on January 13 murder his wife, Christine Oldfield (nee Sutherland) by striking her on the head with an axe. Mr Justico Adams was on the bench, Mr W. D. Campbell (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the prosecution, and Mr F. J. Rolleston appeared for the defence, the accused pleading not guilty to the indictment.

The proceedings aroused much interest, and the Court was crowded. The accused is a member of a highly respected Seadown ■ family, and his farm is comprised of some of the best land in South Canterbury. It was stated in evidence by a witness that the accused was short of ready money, but otherwise his financial position should not have given him any cause for worry. Before her marriage the deceased was a masseuse, and practised her profession in Timaru and Christchurch.

Mr Campbell said that the case was a distressing one, but the facts were simple. I The jury would have no difficulty in arrivI ing at a decision. Dr Scannell repeated the evidence given by him in the lower Court, saying that he arrived at the scene at 7.30 on the morning of the tragedy, when he saw the body of the deceased in bed with a gaping wound in her skull, apparently inflicted by an instrument such as an axe (produced). Eldred Charles Oldfield, a brother of the accused, related in detail the evidence given in the Magistrate’s Court, saying that his brother came to witness’s farm about 6.30 asking for the loan of cartridges, as he wanted to shoot rabbits. The accused obtained the cartridges from the house, and then made to leave for home. Before he had gone far the accused called out, “Goodbye, Eldred.” Witness saw the accused with a gun evidently endeavouring to reach the i trigger with the intention of shooting himself. Witness closed with the accused and obtained possession of the gun, and then obtained assistance, and had the accused secured. The latter said: “You may as well let me finish it, as I have killed Chrissy.” The gun was loaded. It did not go off, because the accused did not know how to operate the safety catch. Financial Worries. Witness gave an account of his visit to the accused's house, aod the finding of the dead woman. When witness reached the house Mrs Oldfield was still breathing. He informed the police of the occurrence. The accused had served in the Great War, where he had suffered certain injuries. He was the recipient of a war pension. Witness lived about half a mile from accused’s resii dence. After returning from the front the accused continued to work on his father’s farm, but about four years ago he acquired two properties of his own. The accused was married on December 19 in Christchurch. He returned to Seadown on December 28. Prior to his marriage witnesa saw the accused frequently, as they were co-managers of the Oldfield Estate, and after his marriage he saw him daily. As far as witness was aware the accused was happily married. He was an industrious man. The accused was always talking about money troubles. He seemed to be afraid that he could not make the farm pay now that he was married. Witness had offered to. lend him money. The accused had obtained £BOO from the estate on the Saturday night before the tragedy. Witness and the accused had discussed the latter’s financial position. He was solvent. Arthur Duncan, a labourer, employed by Eldred, stated that he saw the accused between 7 and 7.30 a.m. on January 13, when he was struggling with his brother. Witness assisted Eldred Oldfield to overcome the accused. The latter said: “I’ve killed my wife,” and then added, “I’ve killed Chrissy.” Witness asked the accused if he and his wife had quarrelled, but his reply was in the negative. In answer to questions the witness agreed that the accused was a very hard worker. He was probably overtaxing his strength. He was glum and irritable. The accused was cheerful before his marriage. He told witness that his married life was all right, but it meant additional worry. Murdered Woman’s Letter. Opening for the defence, Mr Rolleston read a letter written by deceased to a sister on January 9, in which she said, in part: “We are slowly getting rooms straight and they look very nice, I think. I get very, very tired and John gets very worried if he sees me looking ill (so I always pull a long face when 1 see him coming). However, I suppose I will soon get used to it. I’m afraid, Annie, things are far from satisfactory on the farm here. It has come as an awful shock. No wonder. Jack has been worried about money. The fact of the matter is the farm is gradually dropping money every year and is not paying. I feel I must tell you, Anne, so don’t breathe a word to mother as it all goes to Aunt Harriet, but you can tell Nettie and Lily if you like. Jack is nearly off his head with worry and what with trying to pacify him and to keep a brave face myself, I can tell you it’s hard. I really have been too dispirited to write before. I don’t know what we will do as I can’t see how he canmake a success of thus place at all. It looks as if he will lose every penny here.” After lunch, Dr Beale, in evidence, in reply to Mr Rolleston, said melancholia had insanity as one of its accompaniments. From events following the tragedy, he was of opinion that accused was actually suicidal and thought that was accused's condition before the tragedy. There was evidence of a clouding of consciousness after : the tragedy when the constable charged I him with murder. He only shook his head, ' but at 8.30 o’clock when the confused mind was passing off, his first remark was; “Why did I Jo it?” The fact that accused did not think of the safety catch on the gun was further evidence of his muddled state of mind at the time.

To Mr Campbell: Witness had been regarding Oldfield from a medical point of view and all his observations and conclusions were based from every point of view possible. The cause of the tragedy would be his indefinite mental condition. Immediately before killing his wife, accused would be insane, also at the time he struck. When asked by Mr Campbell to fill in the prescribed form certifying insanity, witness said he was not working on the actual facts, but the facts as communicated to him. Accused’s general morbid outlook gave visible signs of .impending insanity. At the present time, ’witness thought ho could certify accused for a mental hospital. Depressed Mental Condition. ’Dr F. F. A. Ulrich, of Timaru, said accused first came under his charge in the Timaru Military Hospital some years ago, when he was suffering a certain paralysis caused by a gunshot wound. • He was a nervous man and a bad sleeper) His depression would be worse in the early morning. His depression and agitation was most marked when witness saw him first and his opinion was that .he had already made up his mind a week before the tragedy to take his life. In his opinion, accused was suffering from simple melancholia. No doubt accused thought over the shame and misery for his -wife if he committed suicide. On the morning of the act he evidently suddenly decided to-take his wife with him and the tragedy was the result.

In answer to a question drafted by his Honour, witness said he was of opinion that

melancholia was the cause of the act! In answer to othet questions, witness said he considered that accused had been driven on by a dread of calamity. His action was accentuated by impulse. To Mr Rolleston, he said the murder of his wife would be part and parcel of his own suicidal impulse. That was based on accused’s symptoms of melancholia. Mr Campbell then presented the Crown’s medical. evidence. Dr A. C. McKillop, superintendent of the Sunnyside Mental Hospital, stated that he had examined accused who described the tragedy to him. The symptoms were difficult to base any particular form of insanity on, but there was no doubt he was under an acute depression. Accused would know what he was doing at the time and know it was.wrong. Witness did not think it was a sudden impulse that caused the act.

. Dr T. W. J. Charles,, superintendent of the Seacliff Mental Hospital, said that from an examination of accused he had gathered that accused was mentally depressed. Referring to the tragedy, accused had stated that he had considered doing away with himself. This state of mind had been growing on him for some time and definitely took shape about seven days before the crime. In witness’s opinion, accused had planned what he intended to do. He would know that killing a person was wrong, but no doubt felt justified in the state of misery he was in. The act would not be impulsive, but accused no doubt had toyed with the idea and gone over it lots of times.

Counsel and his Honour addressed the jury comparatively shortly and the retired at 5.27, returning twenty minutes later with a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity. Accused was committed to Sunnyside Mental Hospital till the pleasure of the Minister of Justice was known. The Judge stated he thoroughly agreed with the verdict.