ATTEMPTED MURDER.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18236, 21 November 1924, Page 14

ATTEMPTED MURDER.

JEFFERYS FOUND GUILTY. SENTENCE DEFERRED. To answer a charge of having attempted to murder his wife, John Edward Jefferys, a shingle cartage contractor, living with his wife and four young children at South'brook, appeared before his Honour.Mr Justice Adams at the Supreme . Court. yesterday. The charge alleged that on Sunday, July 27th, the accused pushed his wife over a cliff at Orahaki, in the Glentui Gorge, causing her to fall a distance of about SO feet, inflicting injuries including a broken arm, and thereby attempting murder.

Accused, who is 31 years of age, is a man of medium height, and inclined to be fair. He appeared to be suffering no undue nervous strain as a result of his trial, even when the jury returned their verdict of guilty. • The Crown Prosecutor, Mr A. T. Donnelly, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr W. J. Hunter for the accused. The Crown ordered six jurors to stand aside, and the defence challenged a similar number.

The Prosecution. Mr Donnelly, in his opening address, said the charge against Jefferys was a serious one, although the facts of the case were comparatively simple. The accused was considerably younger than his wife, and for. some time past the couple had not been living very amicably with each other, a fact which was demonstrated by the action of Jefferys, who had been having his meals away from home for some months past. Mr Donnelly then proceeded to outline the details of the case. He characterised the alleged action of the accused as desperate, cowardly, and wicked. Dr. I. M. Allan, of Bangiora, deposed that he had seen Mrs Jefferys after the incident, and he detailed the injuries from which she was suffering. These included a broken arm and abrasions and bruises on various parts of the body. •To Mr Hunter: The bruise on Mrs Jefferys's back was a large one, but the others were not. She told witness that she had received her injuries as a result of a fall of 80 feet. There was nothing endangering life in any of the injuries. Detective E. Eade produced a number of photographs of the country in the vicinity of the scene of the occurrence, and detailed the nature of the ground thereabouts. Wife's Evidence. Florence Jefferys deposed that she was married in March, 1916, and had four children. The youngest child was three years of age. • On Sundayy July 27tH, she had gone in a motor-car with her husband, two children, two Maoris, and brother-in-law to Glentui Gorge. The men had gone pig hunting, and had later returned and had some tea. The .men had gone away again, and witness, her husband, and little boy had gone along the top of the cliff. Each°was holding one of the little fellow's: hands. For a short space they could see the other members of the party, but sjon lost sight of them. Accused then released the little boy's hand from that of witness's, and pushed her over the cliff. When her husband came down she said: "Jack, "you did this!" . He

replied: "My God, if you say that, I shall get six months," Accused had washed the blood from her face and called the Maoris. They then too.c nrr home in the car and Jefferys had asked her if she would like a doctor Witness knew her arm was broken, but told the accused he need not get a doctor until next dav. This had been done, witness detailed the happenings leading up to the occurrence at the Gorge. She stated that she had never gone out pig hunting with her husband before, lie had told her on this .occasion that it she did not go out he would never ask her again. On July 27th witness had dressed her daughter and little boy to go out on the proposed picnic. Her husband had objected to the little girl's going at all, but witness insisted. At the picnic Jefferys had sent the little eirl awav with the two Maoris before he had gone along the cliff with the little boy and witness. The accused had been employed by his mother. The car in which the party had gone out belonged to his mother. Witness was to-get £2 a week from her mother-in-law, but she never got it. To Mr Hunter: Her husband had not suggested that they .should walk along the top of the cliff. No one suggested it. She did not remember her husband having a rifle when walking along the top of the cliff, and did not know if he had been there to watch for a pig coming up the cliff. She did remember, however, that the accused told the Maoris to take the dog with them. Witness and her husband had had quarrels during their married life, but on July 27th accused had been quite all right to both witness and the two children. She had not been looking for her daughter, Joyce, in the gully just before she had fallen. Witness would not have let Joyce go away from her if she had known that she was not going to rejoin her. Accused had said something when he pushed her over, but witness could not tell what it was. The child'shand had been taken from hers, and witness had jnst been going in front to get the boy's other hand, but it was right after that that she had gone over the cliff. She did not hear her husband call from the top of the cliff for the Maoris to come. Miss Davey came to look after witness when she was suffering from injuries after, the fall. She did not remember- the Maoris, on the way to the car, asking how the accident happened. If one of them asked her, and she replied that she did not know how it happened she had no recollection of giving such an answer. She had not mentioned the matter to Tom Jefferys, nor had she informed the police until they had come to her and requested the information. She had told a neighbour, a Mrs Kutherford, about the occurrence, and she told witness to tell the police. Witness and her family lived rent-free in a house, which was owned by her mother-in-law.' Her mother-in-law also supplied them sometimes with firewood, meat, milk, clothing, etc. Since her husband had been in prison witness had communicated with him, but the letters had shown there was no ill-feeling between the parties. Prom the time accused had started, as a contractor for his mother he had had his meals at her place. To Mr Donnelly: For about six years her husband had had his meals at his mother's place. He had had very few meals at home during the whole of that time.

"Neighbour's Statement. Constance Butherford, a married woman, residing at Southbrook, and a neighbour of the Jefferys, said that on July 28th she.had seen Mrs Jefferys and saw that she had been injured. Mrs Jefferys had a very poor home and witness had often' helped her by giving both her and her -children boots. To Mr Hunter: The home was very poorly furnished, but the children were fairly well clothed. There had been no trouble between witness and Jefferys over, a calf. His mother had not paid for the animal, however. Henry Teuki, of Tuahiwi, said lie was a member of the pig-shooting party on July 27th. After lunch witness, the other Maori, aldng with Tom Jefferys, and the little girl had gone down the gully, in search of pigs. Accused and his wife had gone along the ridge'at the top of the gully. Witness had last seen them near the place where Mrs Jefferys had fallen down. "Witness heard Jefferys calling out, and returned. Jefferys told him his wife had fallen over the cliff because the bank had given, way. Mrs Jefferys said she did not know how it had occurred. ,To Mr Hunter: Witness had first seen Jefferys after the occurrence, about 15 yards from where ,his wife was lying in the gully. Both accused and witness had rifles—the only ones with the party —but witness had not noticed how Jefferys was carrying his gun as he walked along the top of the cliff. No reason was given for Jefferys taking his rifle along the top of the ridge, and witness had not heard any suggestion by Mrs Jefferys that her husband.had pushed her over. Corroborative Evidence. Charles William Timothy, of Tuahiwi, gave evidence corroborating that of the previous witness. On the way home in the car Mrs Jefferys said she did not want to go home, and the accused said: "You've taken a liking for the plaae all.of a sudden." Some time after the occurrence witness visited the spot where Mrs Jefferys fell, and saw no sign of tho bank having crumbled away. To Mr Hunter: He heard Jefferys asking his wife if she wanted a doctor, but she .replied that' it did not matter. Detective J. Bickerdike said that on August 14th he interviewed the accused about the matter. When asked how his wife had fallen over the cliff, the accused stated the whole trouble had arisen through domestic disagreements caused through marrying a woman older than himself. The accused had then given a written statement, in which .he admitted, he - had given his wife a push and she had fallen over the cliff. Later witness had inspected the site of the occurrence, and the only portion of the cliff face which indicated any disturbance was a bare spot somewhere about 70ft from the top. ' - Tho Crown Prosecutor did not address the jury.

The Defence. Mr Hunter said he would. not call any evidence for the defence. In his address to the jury, he stated that the question for them to answer was whether there had heen a crime committed at all. The newspapers had given the present case a good deal of attention, but" he asked the jury to consider the ease only on the facts which they had heard in Court, and not let their minds be biased, by outside influences. The wife, he contended, had Bhown some hostility to her mother-in-law, although she had shown no ill-feeling towards her husband. There had been no evidence to show that the wife had complained of any cruelty from her husband or lack of support from him. The Crown submitted evidence which it hoped would lead the- jury to believn that there was ill-feeling existing between accused and his wife. No rational being committed a crime such as that which | the accused was alleged to have committed, without some motive. The Crown had.failed to produce such motive and had submitted matters which would only appear to accused's prejudice.. Speaking of the occurrence on the cliff, Mr Hunter contended that the accused had not suggested that his wife should walk along'the top of the cliff with him. After she had fallen he had'given, .her every, attention, and,

ill fact, all his actions were not only .consistent with innocence, but were inconsistent with guilt. The case for the Crown rested* on the written statement of the accused, and also the allegations of his wife. The contention that accused had' said he would get "six months" if his wife said her husband had been responsible for the episode was unsupported. She had told the Maoris and Dr. Allan she did not know how the episode had occurred. Her story was totally different now. The day after the episode Mrs Jefferys had seen Mrs Kutherford, and the latter had noticed that the other woman was injured. She ■ said: "Mr Jefferys did that." The wife said that such was the case. Counsel contended, therefore, that, ■considering Mrs Jefferys.'s condition.at that time, the idea had come from Mrs Rutherford that accused was guilty. With regard to the statement which the accused made to the police, counsel proceeded to read an extract from one of the Gazette Law Keports respecting interrogation by the police of persons about .to be accused.

An-Objection Raised. Mr Donnelly raised the objection that the case'quoted was not applicable in the present instance. In the case of Rex v. Kerr —the ease quoted—the accused person had put on the "grid-iron." Mr Hunter: I just wanted to read some general observations. His Honour: You are making, an attack on the police. You know that the case quoted is not applicable in the present instance. You can take any number of isolated instances—; — Mr Hunter: Your Honour, do you object to my reading these general observations? His Honour: .1 do object to you putting anything improper to the jury. In conclusion, Mr Hunter stressed the seriousness of the charge and urged the jury to give it the most serious and careful consideration. There was nothing in the accused's statement which said he had attempted to murder his wife.

His Honour's humming Up. His Honour, in summing up, outlined the facts of the case and drew the jury's attention to the fact that, at the point where the. woman fell, a good view of the surrounding country could be obtained. The accused might have known this, as well as the fact that it would be some time before the Maoris in the gully below, who had disappeared from view, ' would come within the range of vision again. The question of the guilt of the'accused was for the jury to decide, however. He wished them to consider whether a man who' would push a woman; who was pregnant, over a cliff with a vertical fall, of 60ft and a further practically unbroken fall of 20ft, could be said to have stopped short at the grave intention of putting an end to her life. It could hardly be said that tho intention was to maim or injure her, or to produce results short of the unhappy woman's death. His Honour considered that the jury would find it very difficult to escape from that conclusion. They would have to disbelieve accused's written statement before they could believe ho did not push his wife over the cliff. If he did push her over, unless they could see way out, he could riot assist them with any suggestion short of intent to murder. The jury retired at 3.56 p.m. and returned at 5.28 p.m. with a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was remanded until this morning' for sentence. ' '