SORDID TALE OF CRUELTY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 726, 27 July 1929, Page 1

SORDID TALE OF CRUELTY

Farmer Committed for Trial admissions by daughter STUCK NEEDLES INTO MOTHER ENTERING a plea of not guilty on the allegations of cruelty to his wife, the Waerenga farmer, Peter Alexander Elmsley, was committed in the Police Court this morning for trial in the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed. A surprising feature of the evidence this morning was the admission by the younger Elmsley girl, Justina, that she had sometimes stuck needles into her mother and had sworn at her. A doctor said that Mrs. Elmsley was physically capable of leaving the farm, but not mentally so.

The detailed charge against Elmsley, who is 67 years of age, was that, within the past four years, being ju charge of Letitia Ann Elmsley, a person unable owing to fear and weakness, to withdraw herself from his charge and provide herself with the necessities of life, he, without lawful excuse, neglected to supply her with the necessities so that her life was endangered. Chief-Detective Hammond conducted the case for the police, and Mr. A. Noble represented accused. After the end of the evidence this morning, Mr. Noble said that Elmsley would plead not guilty. Mr. Hammond did not raise any objection to the allowing of bail. This was fixed at £SOO, in two sureties of £250. In the opening of the case yesterday, the wife stated that she had not received proper food, had been driven out of the house at night, had been struck by her husband, had been threatened and called offensive names, and further had had needles stuck into her by her daughters. The daughter who gave evidence considered that her mother had not done unusually heavy work, and Elmsley, in a statement to the police, said that his wife had received proper food.

Mrs. Elmsley, continuing her evidence, said that the effect of her husband’s beatings with the stock-whip had been to draw blood. She had attended to the wounds as best she could herself. Accused had, on more than one occasion, thrown a poker and tongs at her.

Mr. Noble, contrary to his earlier statement, decided not to cross-exam-ine witness. Arnold Roy Rlmmer, a police constable, of Waihi, said he had gone to Waerenga on July IS with the intention of keeping the Elmsley home under observation. He had stayed there until the arrest of Elmsley at 645 on the morning of July 19. Witness had stationed himself about 150 yards from the cowsheds. Accused and one of the girls were in the cowbail. One of the girls chased Mrs. Elmsley out into the cow-yard and the woman brought in a cow. Each time a cow was required the performance was repeated. The woman had driven the cows over the hill. She appeared In be wearing clothing made out of sacks.

Later, when the mother was set to wood-chopping, the daughters ■would make her carry on as soon as s bo appeared to lag. It was obvious that she had difficulty in lifting the uxe. On another day he saw Mrs Elmsley struggling up the hillside with a log of wood. The youngest Sitl was with her mother, but gave no assistance. The same afternoon a Sale sprang up, blowing a tin chimney down, and witness saw Mrs. Elmsley climb upon the roof and repfir it. After this she began chopJnng the log she had carried up the hill.

Another evening witness stationed himself near the house and the conversation was discernible. He heard the girls using indecent language. On the evening of July 2, witness heard Mrs. Elmsley tell Mrs. Bruce that she had not nad a bite of food that day, with the exception of a cr ust of bread; and a day or two later witness met Mrs. Elmsley on the proPorty. After a short conversation, ®he stumbled up the hillside, saying that she had to find a black cow.

Witness (Constable Rimmer) enumerated the various occasions when he had seen Mrs. Elmsley ill-treated and heard her lashed by the tongues of her family. One of the girls had threatened her with a poker and accused said, “Next time I will cut her neck deep.” Witness considered the Elmsley house absolutely unfit for human habitation. Mud oozed from the floor beneath the bed, and the building was not weatherproof. Evidence given by Dr. C. H. Tewsley was to the effect that he had visited the Elmsley home on July 20. Witness described the house and concurred with the opinion of the last witness that it was unfit for human habitation. There were three beds — two made of sacks stretched on manuka frames and the third with a wire mattress. The bed clothes were mainly sacks and there was a table cover on one bed. An examination of Mrs. Elmsley had disclosed the fact that she was very thin. Though tall, she weighed only eight stone four pounds. She was in good health, but in poor condition physically. Her hands were hard. She had not wished to give any information about herself or the conditions under which she lived. “I think her reticence was inspired by fear,” added witness. “I think the treatment accorded her has had an injurious effect on her health, using the term in its widest sense.” Every day, according to George Bruce, a neighbour, he had seen Mrs. Elmsley doing a man’s work about the farm, pulling tea-tree and chopping firewood.

Giving evidence this morning, Dr. H. W. Buchanan considered that Mrs. Elmsley was under-nourished and badly clad. Her weight was out of all proportion to her height. Her general health was good, but she was suffering from privation. Witness told Mr. Noble that Mrs. Elmsley might have been physically fit to leave the place, but she was not mentally fit. Her reticence was caused by fear. “I did not interfere with Elmsley, because I considered he was a bad. man to interfere with,” Robert Henry Bruce stated. Witness said that he first noticed Mrs Elmsley’s condition four years ago. and. since then, she had been “fading.” Mrs. Elmsley had pulled tea-tree —a man’s job—had chopped wood, and had sledged cream. Elmsley was lazy, he said. DAUGHTER’S EVIDENCE A daughter, Justina Alice Elmsley, aged 15i, thought that Mrs. Elmsley need not have done hard work. There was no actually heavy work on the farm. "Once or twice she has had to go a little short. She has not always had sufficient food, but she has had as much as we have,” witness said. “I have always had sufficient.” Mr. Hammond: Do your parents get on well together?—Not too well. Witness said that she had seen her father strike her mother twice. Once he struck her with the stockwhip, but lightly. On the other occasion her mother had been struck by her father’s hand. On some occasions her father had called her mother names. Mr. Noble objected to such evidence,

saying it was not admissible, hut the justices would not accept the objection.

“My mother has been called vermin,” witness said. Continuing, the

witness said that she had never liked her mother, hut she could not say why. She did not think her mother liked her. Witness could not remember her mother staying out all night, and she did not think her mother had been maltreated for drinking milk. Witness repeated her statement that her mother had the same food as the rest of the family. To Mr. Noble witness said her mother had complained of hunger sometimes, but food was always given to her. Mr. Noble: Was it common for your father to strike your mother with the whip?—No. Has your mother ever gone to the pictures?—She went with us every time except once. Witness said that visitors had come sometimes at night and her mother took part in the entertainment. Her mother had written letters and had corresponded with her people at Taltapuna. To Mr. Noble, witness said that her mother could have left the place at any time. DID NOT LIKE MOTHER

Mr. Hammond: You would like your mother to go?—Yes, I would. Mr. Stratford: Why would you want that? —Because I do not like her. My father would like her to go, too. Mr. Hammond: And you have stuck needles into her, haven’t you? Witness: Not very often, and not for some time. The daughter told the Bench that she had done this because she had been annoyed. Her father had been present when the mother had been called names and pricked with needles, and had told witness not to be rude, although he had not chastised her. Mr. Hammond: Have you called your mother “scabby-face?”—l don't remember. “Yermin?”—Yes. And you have sworn at her? —Yes, but my father has checked me. Witness said that the rule that her mother could not get her own food had been made up between father and the daughters. The family had not been to the pictures for over a year. The mother had written letters and some were dictated by Elmsley. A neighbour, Mrs. Alice Amelia Bruce, said that she had visited the house recently but she had not suggested to accused that Mrs. Elmsley was not getting sufficient nourishment. Elmsley had not complained about his wife or said anything disrespectful, although he had stated once that his wife was “always doing what he did not want.”

Tbe neighbours, however, seemed to have formed the opinion that Mrs. Elmsley was ilhclad, ill-nourished and overworked. They also had the opinion that, if something were not done, Mrs. Elmsley would not live long. She feared her husband and was poorly dressed while about the farm. Mrs. Elmsley had complained to witness that she was not receiving proper food. “Complaints have been made to my father and me by Mrs. Elmsley about her treatment,” Phyllis Brown stated. “I formed the opinion that something should have been done for her. She was very poorly dressed and the home suggested extreme poverty.” To Mr. Noble, witness said that Mrs. Elmsley was frightened. When she complained of her treatment she seemed so hungry she could not help confiding in witness. That the whole district was concerned over Mrs. Elmsley was the opinion of James Bruce. She seemed to be starving and badly treated, he said. He had seen her carrying wood down a hill. He went one night to the house with Constable Rimmer and listened for an hour. “I didn’t hear anything said —it was a quiet night,” witness said, “but I heard two smacks, though I don’t know who received them. In the last four years Mrs. Elmsley has been going downhill all the time, and she has not been allowed to visit our place for years. Elmsley told me that. I have never seen Elmsley doing any work about the place.” Mr. Hammond: But you have been there 15 years.—l have never seen Elmsley work. Mr. Noble: Did Mrs. Elmsley know the police were watching- the place ? No.

A police matron, who visited Waerenga, said that conditions on the homstead were dreadful. Mrs. Elmsley was poorly clothed and was reticent. The girls did not seem to have a favourable attitude. Visits to the property four years ago, in response to complaints, were described by Constable G. N. Douglas, of Mercer. On November 6, 1925, he met Mrs. Elmsley, who asserted that she was “all right.” She became agitated, however, when asked if she was afraid. Her husband had a loaded revolver and had threatened to shoot her. “My God! If Peter knew I had said anything, he would kill me,” she had cried. Elmsley told the constable that he had the loaded revolver to shoot a rat. He said that his wife had

enough to eat and denied that he had threatened her with the revolver. At a later visit accused said his wife had as much as she could eat. When Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike read the warrant for arrest to the accused, he said in evidence, Elmsley said that he had always treated his wife well. Witness described the conditions in the house. The premises were not fit for human occupation, witness thought. Coming to Auckland, Elmsley told witness: “I told my wife to go, but she would not. She is a good, moral woman. Anything she tells you will he the truth.” Further on, during the trip, Elmsley asked to be able to make a statement. IH it, he denied that he had locked Mrs. Elmsley out at night, and said that she received food the same as that for the rest of the family. She took no interest in the house, Elmsley said, and he had threatened to divorce her.