DEATH SENTENCE ON BRAUMAN.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18411, 1 November 1929, Page 8

DEATH SENTENCE ON BRAUMAN.

DEFENCE PLEADS INSANITY. JURY RECOMMENDS MERCY. By Telegraph—Preee Association. ii........i.1, oct 31. In the Brauman murder triai, Emily Mitchell who was unau.e to appear previously, was called „>y tne Crown. Witness said the deceased stayed with her for six-w3e»*s in March. Once accused called and saw nis wife. When a job at Brosnans was mentioned, accused said: “If you to Bio&nans I will fix the two of you." He further said: “If you get this separation, there is no law on the face c-f Gods tanh to separate man and wife. You know what I intend doing." The cross-examination cf *>r Moore, a witness for the defenle. continued. Witness said accused vas certifiable before the tragedy, as he vas abnormally jealous. Witness foresaw in the letter left by accused at Invercargill that the death of his wife wi-.a in some way a blow at the mother-'iv law. Before he saw that letter witness did not consider Brauman v.as certifiable, though he had no doubt he was insane Dr Moore’s evidence closed the defence case. The Crown proceeded to call rebutting mental evidence. Dr Marshall Macdonald, said that after an examination »f accused in hospital, he concluded that he . ns not insane. He based his - pinion on the fact that instead of justifying hn act, the accused made absolutely untrue statements about the revolver and Ids movements. Cross-examined, witness said there were some indications c-f abnormality but he could not testify to insane delusional jealousy. Dr K. Ross, with considerable experience of the insane, stated that he examined the accused on Tuesday. From the information ne acquired and his examination, he found symptoms suggesting insanity or unstable mind, chieflv delusions about his wife’s unfaithfulness. a common delusion among the insane. Accused was not certifiable as insane. When witness saw him witness thought he understood the quality of the act, and knew he was doing wrong. Ke agreed with the defence counsel that a man who said what accused said and had his ideas was dangerous and would do anything at any time. Accused was not insane in the legal sense, and there v.as doubt about the medical sense. Dr James Hunter, Acting Superintendent of the Seacliff Mental Hospital. stated that in his opinion the accused was not certifiable. His actions were not consistent with paranoia. Cross-examined: Accused was unstable and witness would not nigr.e-t that he was simulating irsanity. Dr Martin (Seacliff Mental Hospital), and Dr Evans agreed with nrcvious witnesses that the accused . as aware at the time ot the shoot big of the nature and quality cf his act. and that he was doing wrong. Counsel then adressed the jury. His Honour summed up the evidence, and stated the law on matter, his address extending over tne dinner adjournment. The jury retired at a quarter past eight, and returned at 9.35 with a verdict of guilty of murder, with a strong recommendation to lercv on the ground of the medical evidence regarding nrisoner’s mental abnormality. In answer to his Honour’s question if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed on him, prisoner replied: “T do not lemember about it, your Honour." The Judge then sentenced prisoner tc death, and said, he would Pass on the jurv’s recommendation to the pr» per authorities.