COURT ACQUITS ELMSLEY

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1929, Page 11

COURT ACQUITS ELMSLEY

jtfIFE COULD FAVE ESCAPED **WOULD NOT LEAVE THE GIRLS. JLBRVPT END OF FARMER’S TRIAL. “THIS UNFORTUNATE WOMAN.” By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. Th© trial in the Supreme Court of peter Alexander Elmsley, charged with failing to provide his wife with the necessities of life and so permanently endangering her health, as a result of which she was unable through fear, weakness, or any other cause to remove herself from his charge, ended abruptly. He was acquitted. Mrs. Elmsley gave evidence on the lame lines as in the Police Court. Asked by Mr. Justice Herdman whether she could not have gone away from the house, she said: “I could have gone, yes, but you did not expect that I would have gone and left my girls, did you?’ His Honour: I assure you I appreciate your sentiments.

Witness: I am sorry, sir. His Honour: Do not worry, I can understand. ' ~ Replying to further questions, witness said that in years gone by she could have got away to neighbours, but lately she was forbidden to go near them. On one occasion when she wanted to go to neighbours accused said: ‘lf yon go there you stay there. His”Honour: Why did you not go? Witness: “I would not leave the girls. She added she did not blame her daughters in any way for their treatment of her. It was not their doing. They were trained from infancy and saw their father turn from her. The Court adjourned and on resuming the Crown Prosecutor said that in the light of the evidence given it was useless to proceed. It had to be proved that the victim of such treatment was unable to get away from the husband through fear, weakness or any other reason. . The judge, in directing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, said: “No matter what we may think about this case or about the treatment meted out to this unfortunate woman, the fact is she was able to go away.” The jury accordingly returned a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.