MEWHINNEY CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1083, 23 March 1911, Page 6

MEWHINNEY CASE.

QUITE A NEW PHASE. HUSBAND AND FRIEND CHARGED. THE FRIEND ACQUITTED. if I should send him to the Supremo Court.. I am satisfied that a jury would not convict hint on the evidence," said .Air. M. G. Kiddoil, S.M., yesterday afternoon in discharging Jeremiah Stevenson on a charge of breaking and entering, -the case was one in .which Oliver -Mewhinney and Jeremiah Stevenson were charged with breaking into the house of Nettie Lena Mewhinney at Seatonn on or about February 23 and stealing therefrom two drapes, fourteen photographs, several negatives, two plates, four pillow slips, two sheets, three towels, a bottle of lavender water, several letters, and a receipt book, of a total valuo of ,£4, tho property of Nettie Lena Mewhinney. Chief Detective Broberg prosecuted, and Mr. 1. M. Wilford appeared for both the accused.

Mrs. Mewhinney in the Box,

Tho witness called was Nettie Lena Mowlimnev, who for ?«in° m 116 , P™ l ' *0 " March 23, IJIO (date of the divorce) ' had been «I»rt lrom her husband, and since IJUJ, she had resided at ISeatouii. Utiring her residence there she had assumed the name of Mrs. Schuster (the name of a lady friend of hers). She had taken the name by arrangement with that triend. hhc had received 255. a week from -iHcw'hmney smce November, 1900. On l'ebruary 17 last she left her house at Seaioun locked, and everything was then in order. Mrs. Schuster, who had been staying with her, was there when the house was loeked. All doors and windows tvere locked, save one window, on the side ot the house, on which tho catch was Broken. Witness knew where a Jlrs. IJayes hved, her house being situated so t lat thai, particular window is in view. Un leaving the house witness and Mr* Schuster went to the llutt. and on Saturday nighty February 18, she left for Jlamp;.en, Otago to get her children from thecus.ody of Mrs. Nicholson, a sister oi 1 On March 2 witness returned to Wellington, and later met a friend (.Mrs. lied wood), who lives at Seatoun. In consequence of something which .Mrs. Jv«iwv..l tojd her, witness went to sco Inspector Ellison, and afterwards proceeded to her houso at Seatoun. She then found the curtain of the window on which the catch was broken was J.imined in the window. The curtain was noi m that position when she left the house, and the window must have been opened m tho meantime. : ni',l S fi a °4 r* 1 '; interrupted eWW lat ho Just |JCC " informi,l " ,an . Was -r o,n " from the Court, and speaking to witnesses for the pro-c----e.ition. lhis tended to nullify the order hearinV rir'ff remain beyond the tL 'V •i e P roce « tll nKS of the Court. « ' Magistrate subsequently ordered be kenf ?SS °fi -110I 10 P ,oscc »'t>on should be kept the witnesses' room. theTteh'' R nf M rS ' I M T h, ; statcd tne latch of tho back door was broken and everything in the house had been' lin 110(1 unside down. She proceeded to describe the condition of the. rooms hth! —rated the articles I

"Is this an Act in a Comedy?" 100^ n s i h" i, !?;. S, l?, saifl «"t. in August. Street Tiirl Vim ? , ai , 54 Molesworth i. tfc 1- receipt book referred (o Tho bool- a ' Re I' 1 * f hen in her possession, had oftSri duce J l was t!lat tafch she in 1 ihini,l lcl '. h ? ll> « on February 17, oil March " a!> o' S %1 E lv ,' !cn slle returned " I -uaicli .. On March 4 witness tnnir out a search warrant to search Mewhinne.\ h room, and the book was then dis covered among his effects. The two nil" hm witness identified as ners. \\ hen residing m Pinitea fifr-nt-fri I C pil& 1 '" at , S,! ° had sin ?,1 Vhi«r ,s awl 01W I,kin SfSBSSS $ueh«aEfct.s o-.licp. ltlless had known Stevenson for J"™! .™ 11 nwl knew that he and Me vinnney very friendly. Mr. Gilford, handing witness a parcr ■ and pencil, asked her to write: "Mr, ■ Mewhmney .....rod seasoning ....N \villiams, and then put in tho paper. • , l . answer to Mr. Wilford, witness stnttl.Vl'fH ,V0 ."1<1 »ot deny (hat this'was the fifth occasion on which she had had She added' M CoSrt. . nacitu that she had von one but when pressed on the point, remarked that ~ot ' s *e" lo it. ■ arKccl thit r 'this if 1 a ' n - Boi " B P«t to you that tins is an act. in a comedy formuivf ' V J 'v rie f n , ml M «- Schuster. pV ifr °' ai ' from if ' Jtr - Gilford. 1 rcceedmg in answer to questions wit. bu' S s a hl miUe n ""I S ' le ,ras 011 the stage, but she could not remember how lnanv names slie had gone under in the last seven years. She had taken these names in order to avoid Mewhinnev. She had taken the name of Mrs. Holtss and Mrs. Harper, but not the name of Miss Mpwlunncy or Miss Williams. She admitted that the signature "N. "Williams " on the document produced, was hers, buithat was not Miss Williams. , Mi'. ''ford: What is it, then?N hatevor you like. "Mis'"™'' 0135 VCr ' V Well, 1 likc il "Had Not Painted Her Eye." Continuing, witness said that she would declare on oath that she had not arlanged this "scene" before she lett for Hunedm in lebruarv. She would also swear that, on February 15, she had not placed a certain envelope (produced) on Mewhinney s bed. (Tho envelope produced contained the words: "Mrs, Mewhinney," "rod," and "seasoning.") She had not previously painted her eye black, and told Dr. I'indlay that Mewhinney had blackened it.

Mr. Wilford: Have you not blackened your eyes and your eyebrows to-davr— No.

Well then will you rub your handkerchief oil them? —"No, certainly not." Proceeding, witness stated that it was not a lie that she had found the latch ot the door broken at Seatoun. There were no entries in the receipt book sinco Juno 1009, because the book was away from her. The book was not' found covered with dust; it' was in a box in the garret at Alowhimiey's house. Sro took one plain pillowslip from his house before the divorce. -Mewhinney got that back when he had her boxes searched at j he railway station. The pillowslip found on Mewhinney's bed, and now produced, was the one which had been in her house at Seatoun. She knew them by tho linen and the sewing. She would not swear to the photographs. She would not swear that the bottles s were hers.

Mr. ilford: Now the green drapes that you say were in your house when you went away, where are they? Witness: That's what I want to know. You haven't found them iu Mewiiinney's house?—" No."

Is it not a fact that, instead of going to get your children at Hampden, von stayed at the Imperial Privato Hotel in Princess Street, Duncdin (arriving there on February 25) with a man called Mr. Lamb?—"No, it is not a fact. I stayed at that hotel, but by myself." Who did you sit down to the table with at dinner on February 2Gr—"With several people." Who were you with?—"l was alone." To further cross-examination witness replied that she paid for herself at the hotel. She had stayed there as "Mrs. Gilmore." Her brother was not there with her. Rovertimr to the house at Seatoun, witness said that she could see Mrs. Dayes's house from her own. If anyone wished to break into her house at Seatoun, they could bo seen going through tho unfastened window, but could not bp seen at the back door. "Now, Mrs. Mewhinney, doesn't this Show—" On a copy of the original'search warrant being shown to witness, she could only account for tho fact that the receint book y.as act mentioned, becauig.

she was very worried. She was then shown the summons, in which (ho rcceipt book had been inserted after the other writing had been linished, but she denied that it was an afterthought after being found.

Mr._ Wilford: Now, Mrs. Mewhinney, doesn't this show the game you've been playing all along? Witness did not reply. In answer to a question by Mr. Wilford, on. behalf of accused .Stevenson, witness denied that she had borrowed sums of money from Stevenson, or that she had broken his nose when he asked for the return of the monev.

Re-examined by tho Chief Detective, V'i'ness denied that she was in Mewhinney's house or in the backyard of the house in February last. She had no't been there since 1909.

V/hat Happened at Seatoun. Conslable Price, of Kilbirnic, ftavp evidence as to being called to Mrs. Mewmnney'.s house at Seatoun en March 2 and described the condition of affairs obtaining there when lie arrived at 6 p.m. Jane Schuster, married woman, Lower Hutt, gave evidence relative to the condition of the house when Mrs. Mewhinney left on February 17. Florance Redwood, irfarried woman, roi Li n *\ was acquainted with both Mewhinney and Mrs. Mewhinney. Tho latter used-to sray with witness, and, at the present time, she slept at witness's Jionso when she was in Seatoun. , The pillow-slips produced were ' similar to mm e which Mrs. Mewhinney had made. Ibe receipt book produced was similar to two books which Mrs. Mowhinney had had, but witness would not swear that it was one of (Ik*sc books. Cross-examined by Sir. Wilford,, witness stated that she did not know that .Mewhinney was at present security for her husband. 'Witness had never gone to Mewhinney s house and taken away groceries which Movvhinney had paid for. .Mien Daves, married woman, residinc .with her husband at Seatoun, remembered that, towards the end of February last (she thought it was a Thursday), or about the middle of February, a man, whom she had not seen Wore, called at her house. Witness was unable to identity accused Stevenson as that man. Horace F. 11. Willnrd, plumber, residing at Seatoun, said that ho knew one of the accused, Peterson. Mr. Wilford: Eo knows Mr. Peterson! v\ itness pointed out the accused (Stevenson) as the man whom lie referred to. He had seen him at Seatoun in February, but could not fix the date. Witness was catching a horse, and accused (Stevenson) offered to help. When tho horse had been caught accused asked witness's mother if the white wharo (Mrs. Mewhin"r S } 10 'lie time thev were about 300 or 100 yards from the wharo Accused wished to know if there would be any objec ion to looking through- the windows, and witness's mother replied Witn t n ° thiU3 t0 rio with the wW E J-V m isod towards the uhare, and three or four minutes ater he saw accused on the verandah looking through a window, and later saw him standing at the gate. On Wednc*. day witness had seen Stevenson in tho Miamrock Hotel, and later in Hawkestone Snxot. Ho was sure that accused was the man whom he had seen at Seatoun on the day referred to. . j Louisa Willard, mother of the previous witness, gave evidence, mainly corroborative of her son s story. Detective Kemp gave evidenco.as to the search at Mewlunney's houso on March 4. and detailed a conversation which ho and Detective Hammond had had with Stevenson on March S.

DctocHve Hammond also pave evidence, Hon ° Cs '' e for tho P r ° scc »- Stevcnson Acquitted. J r '/, iu openinq; the defence, iftencd to tho p.ist trouble between tli" Mpwhinneys, remarking that though Mrs. . lew hmney had several times previously brought her husband before this Court, and, though all the charges had been abortive, M-cwhinney had never retaliated. Ho suggested that tho charge existed in the imagination of Mrs. Mewhinney only, and that the breaking qf the door lock was nil act of her own, just the same ns the blacking of her eye. Counsel considered that it was a rascally thing that his clients should he placed on their trial on such a serious charge when the evidence was so weak. Jlc was proceeding to review the evidence against Stevenson, when the magistrate interrunted, and intimated that ho considered that there was no charge for Stevenson to answer. Stevenson was accordingly discharged. . Mr. Wilford then addressed the Court on behalf of Mcwhinney, and, during his remarks, explained that Stevenson had been at Seatoun in February. Ho had gone there in consequence of a telegram which Mewhinney had received from" liis sister, Mrs. Nicholson, stating that M'-s. Mcwhinney had bocn there, but had disappeared. Mewhinney had then gone to his friend Stcviwcn. and had asked him to ascertain if Mrs. Mewhinney had really left Seatoun. That exolained the evidence given by Mr. and Mis. Willard. On being formally charged, Mewhinney intimated that he wished to give evidence, and the hearing was adjourned until 1(U0 this morning. Bail was; allowed in accused's own recognisance of .£SO.