Elmsley Acquitted When Case Collapses

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 734, 6 August 1929, Page 7

Elmsley Acquitted When Case Collapses

WIFE NOT CAPTIVE COULD HAVE LEFT FARM Dramatic collapse of the prosecution terminated the trial of Peter Alexander Elmsley, the Waerenga farmer, with surprising suodenness in the Supreme Court late yesterday afternoon. J7RANK admissions were made by the principal Crown witness, Mrs. Letitia Ann Elmsley, at the conclusion of her evidence-in-chief, that she could | have escaped from her dilapidated ! home to neighbours or to her parents at Takapuna, and that a neighbour had j offered her money to enable her to j leave. Her sole reason for staying, she said, was to be with her girls, J otherwise she would have left Elmsley years ago. This virtually ended the prosecution and the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, decided not to proceed. He added that any remedy that Mrs. Elmsley might have was still open to her. On the judge's direction the jury rej turned a verdict of not guilty. A pitiful story of her treatment by Elmsley was unfolded by Mrs. Elmsley in the box. Greatly distressed at times, she broke down and sobbed quietly. She described how her husband’s attitude to her had changed 10 years ago, and how she had been beaten with a stick, a leg-rope, and a stockwhip, which had drawn blood. Foul and insulting language had been hurled at her frequently, she said. Her working clothes comprised a pile of dirty rags, prominent among which were pieces of sacking, which were exhibited in court. Pointing a gun on either side of her head, Elmsley had on one occasion ordered her to take a last look round and say her prayers. “I knew in my mind, however, that Ihe wouldn't shoot,” she added. Two or three times Elmsley had driven her out at night, and locked her out until morning, she being compelled to sleep in the cowshed with a few sacks for covering. Food had been denied to her, and as often as not she was given a piece of dry bread and a cup of cold water, while her daughters and husband had breakfasted on bacon and eggs. She described one incident in which Elmsley had given the dog breaw, sugar and cream, and then gave her bread and skim milk. The girls had stuck needles into her and had been told by their father to kick her out of their road. She, however, did not blame the girls for their behaviour. saying they had been brought up like that from childhood. Mrs. Elmsley stated she had not been allowed to visit her parents for 15 years, to write them or receive letters and clothes. The woman added that she considered it was her duty to cut the firewood, as her husband had suffered with his heart for years. At this stage the case collapsed, when Mrs. Elmsley admitted to his Honour that she could have escaped, but had stayed because of her girls. After receiving confirmation of these admissions, his Honour directed the jury to rqturn a verdict of not guilty. He pointed out that the ingredients of the charge could not be proved —that Mrs. Elmsley could not draw herself from her husband's charge. The woman had declared that she could have escaped if she had wished. In conclusion, the judge made his recommendation of not guilty, no matter what opinion the jurors might have formed regarding the treatment meted out to the unfortunate woman. After a brief retirement the jury j returned a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.