WOMAN ACQUITTED OF MURDER

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 85, Issue 32, 7 February 1941, Page 6

WOMAN ACQUITTED OF MURDER

WELLINGTON TRIAL APPLAUSE FROM CROWD IN COURT DEFENCE THAT ACCUSED WAS PROVOKED L Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON. Feb. 6. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury in the case of Jean Laurentine, aged 31, whose trial on a charge of murdering her husband, Francis Norman Laurentine, waterside workqr, aged 36, in Wellington on November S last, concluded in the Supreme Court this afternoon. A burst of applause from the public gallery, when the foreman of the jury announced the verdict, was promptly suppressed by Court officials. The defence was that Mrs. Laurentine was provoked by her husband, who twice knocked her down, that she picked up the knife in self defence, and that the death of her husband was an accident brought about by her act of self protection. The jury was in retirement for 65 minutes. Mr. Justice Johnston presided. Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, with Mr. N. T. Gillespie, appeared for accused. The Crown was represented by Mr. C. H. Weston. K.C. Accused was very distressed in the witness box. She denied any intention to murder, or 'ven hurt, her husband, asserting that her only intention had been to protect herself. Accused said that up to the' time her husband went to sea again he had been very good to her. He used to drink then, but not nearly so much as he did after their child had died. Money Hidden. Describing what happened on the day of the tragedy, accused said there had been an argument coming back from the trotting meeting. Laurentine liked his own way and became very nasty because he wanted to accept an invitation to a party, and she thought he had had enough to drink for one day. When they arrived home she started to prepare tea. Laurentine was out in the passage playing w’th the neighbour’s child and making a row, and she told him to come in and not to make a nuisance of himself. He came in, closed the door, and wanted to know' if there was any beer. She had been holding the money and had allowed f2 for the day, hiding the rest. He started to swear and call her names, and was using foul language he did not normally use. He shouted and yelled and carried on. and she answered back.

“I’m telling the truth now. and if you don’t believe me I can’t make you,” said accused. “I swear on this Bible. We were getting tea. . I can’t tell your exactly what he said, but he was saying words, and I turned round, like this.’ I didn’t expect it. He said, Tm sick and tired,’ and just struck me and sent me flying. I hit my back on the windowsill and saw' stars. I felt awful and half dazed. “I Was Terrified.” ”1 was getting up and took hold of something. It might have been a frying pan. or anything, only I had the knife for preparing the tea. I didn't realise. I was terrified. I was frightened and I didn't meant to hurt Laurie. “You know I only tried to protect myself, and ward him off. If God strikes me dead on this Bible I didn’t murder my husband. My idea was to get away from him. 1 was frightened. He was fighting in a man’s way—he was standing over me right to the end. He was as surprised as I was when he was hurt. He was ov»r me ready to loose at. me, and the -,?x; ’ l;.-,cw '.as when he went back t.nd said: ‘Jean, you silly You have cut me.’ Then he sat on the table. I said, ‘Laurie,’ and he said, ‘Run for a doctor and ambulance’.”

Accused then described her efforts to help her husband, and, to Dr. Mazengarb, said that W'hen her husband was standing over her he looked very savage. He was fed up with her, and he had said: “I’m sick and tired of your moaning and greening." “Tried To Protect Herself.” Accused added: “I was only trying to protect myself, and only trying to ward him off." Dr. Mazengarb: Had you ever seen Laurentine as angry and fierce as that before? Accused: No. Accused denied that she told a detective that she had stabbed her husband, and had meant it. She did not mean to stab him.» Her husband was as surprised as she was when he was hurt. Cross-examined by Mr. '.Veston, accused said her husband had been annoyed because she would not let him get a supply of beer in the morning. He struck her with his fist. It was not a push. It was just unlucky that she had been preparing tea, and the knife was there. Mr. Weston; Are you a quick tempered person? Accused: Of course I’m not. 1 can stand a great deal to some people. 1 think I have more patience than the average. Doctor’s Evidence. Doctor S. D. Rhind, who examined accused, said he found a large bruise on the left side of her head. He thought the fact that all the wounds in Laurentine were horizontal to the surface of the body was signilicant. If the knife had been held in a stabbing position the cut would have been at an angle. The wounds were consilient with the accused having pushed out with the knife to ward her husband off. Addressing the jury, Dr. Mazengarb said the defence was provocation by the husband anti self protection by accused, and Ihe accident occurring as a result oi that seif protection. Had accused stayed on the floor after the second blow she might have been kicked and injured, and if she had not attempted to ward of fhis blows, the husband- might have been in dock in

answer to some charge of violence. The whole attitude of accused after the tragedy was consistent with her having been the unintentional cause of the accident. Nothing could have been further from her mind than to injure the man she loved, the man she wanted to support her, and the man she was trying to reform. His Honour’s Address. His Honour traversed the main points of 'the evidence and pointed out that if the jury accepted accused’s story that she used the knife to protect herself, they would have to decide to what degree accused's life, or safety, was in peril. What might not be reasonable conduct in the case of a man might, in the jury's opinion, be reasonable in the case of a woman. The jury might readily think that the woman, having been attacked by the man, would be more likely to exhioit signs of fear, and not know what was going to happen. That was a point the jury would have to take into consideration, and also whether the wife, under such circumstances, might be provoked to more insane anger than would a man. His Honour's summing up occupied an hour and 10 minutes.