FORGOT HIS "WEDDING."

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11148, 5 August 1914, Page 5

FORGOT HIS "WEDDING."

"WIFE" FRANTICALLY CHEERED IN COURT. THE POISON STORY. That his wife had attempted to poison him with a supper of bread and cheese sandwiches containing a quantity of strychnine was alleged by a gamekeeper named John Whnlley, at Mold. North Wales, whose wife was brought up to answer tho charge. AVbailey, who was employed on Mr P. Tatton Cook's estate at finnsnncy, hnd an extraordinary story to tell of his '■ mystery " marriage to tlie woman whom he accused of poisoning his food, a story which counsel for the wife described as the utterings of a "discredited liar." Mrs Whalley, who was stated to have been a district nurso in Wolverhampton, where slio nnd her husband belong, appeared in court in a rather weak state.

. In opening the caso for tho prosecution, Mr Llewellyn Jones said Whal'ey used strychnine in his work. One lot ho buried, but the other he left in his pocket, and when ho went to look for it it had disappeared. On June S he had to bo out all night, and his wife gave him some sandwiches and cake. Ho ate the cake, and then found that the sandwiches were very bitter. Be gave a portion to a retriover dog. which almost immediately died, and .Whalley said he came to tho conclusion that the doer had been poisoned. His wife denied having 'done anything to tho food, although subsequently, in the presence of two neighbours, she went to an outhouse and, having removed some stones, produced a dark gre°n bottle containing "some wdiito stuff." as it was described. This bottle Whalley smashed into pieces, after which lie mado a complaint to tho police at Mo'd.

Whallev, telling hi® story, said he married his wife, who was thirty-four years of ago, about three years neo. Two mouths ago ho borrowed a bottle of strvchnine .rom the head keener for the destruction of vermin, and he left it in his coat pocket. About a fortnight before the occurrence lie niiss-d the bo'ttle. and asked his wife about it. She said she knew nothing about it. Repeating his evidence about the sandwich, lie said Hiat after the dog died he went into the house, and. putting his hand; on his wife's shoulders," said : " What did you put that stuff in my supper last night for?" In reply, she said • " I have not got it, and I have not seen it."

Cross-examined, Whalley said he was not. a teetotaller, and he admitted having indulged too freely in drink lately. That was because of his wife's position. Ho was advised to have his wife arrested. He did not do it for the purpose of having her punished, and he did not want to punish her. Questioned about his marriage, Whalley could not say whether he was married at church or where it was. '> He thought it was at Wolverhampton, but he did not know. (Laughter-) Why ? Was your condition such as you don't remember your marriage?—l don't know where it was. After tlie marriage did you take your wife to see your mother?— We lived at my mother's for a short period. I put it to you that you have never beeu married to this woman?—l don't know; I was given to understand I was. lam telling the truth. Who gave you to understand that you became a married man ? Sho told'me. When did she tell you? —The ne):t day. (Laughter.) Addressing the Court for the defence, Mr Marsden said no jury in England or Wales would convict upon such evidc-nco as the husband had furnished He asked the Magistrates to look upon him as a discredited liar, who, upon his own confession, had lived a life of duplicity and lies, by posing as a married man who was not married, who deceived his ov.-n mother in that respect, and had half-starved the woman, a highly-respectable Wolverhampton district nurse before the man met her and betrayed her so that she was forced to go to him to hide her shame. He also suggested that the same wicked, odious man had himself put in the. food the poison which killed the dog, just as he had subsequently got rid of all traces of his wrongdoing, so that not a trace of anything had the police found to support his story, except the wild, random statements made by this poor woman in her pain and agony. The chairman dismissed the charge, remarking: ." The Bench have considered the evidence very carefully, and w-o aro going to dismiss the ease. The Bench consider the evidence of John Whalley very unsatisfactory, and that thero was any amouut of lies in his evidence." A burst of franric cheering followed the chairman's announcement.