CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED WIFE MURDER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 59, 3 December 1920, Page 8

CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED WIFE MURDER

1 THE NEW BRIGHTON CASE MALAQUIN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL By Ttlouranh—Prcsa Aieoctatlon. Christchurch, December 2. , Hearing was continued to-day, beforo Mr, S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., of the chargo against Frederick Malaquin of having at New Brighton, on November 7. at-' tempted to murder his wife, Irene Ruth Malaquin, by shooting at her with a revolver. Mr. A., Donnelly prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. J. Gre«6on represented . accused. _ ' ' Detective Qunrtermain paid he saw Malaquin at the hospital; Accused snid he knew nothing about tho matter; that Mrs. Malnquin must have shot herself in her sleep; that she had walked in her sleep since girlhood. On the way to Brighton accused said he had no for thinking that his wife would attempt to commit suicide. Witness repeatedly asked accused if he had nhot his wifo accidentally, and accused alwayn denied having done ?o. Later, at t" e policemstation, Malaquin mado a statement.*' In the statement accused advanced tho theory that his wife shot herself in her sleep. In a second statement he said he got th« revolver believing a burglar was on tho promises. P<' found no one, and returned to bed. In putting the revolver under the pillow_ it accidentally exploded, tho bullet striking his wifo. ' He,.did not immediately go for a doctor, as his wife clung to him and begged not to bo left alono. tectlve Quartcrmain detaile'd further c: versatioria with accused, including n Teference to alleged relations with another woman. Exception Taken to Police Methods. Counsel for accused subjected witness to a very lengthy orosa-examinatimi. and took strong exception to what ho regarded ns a third degreo examination by the police. ' Mr. Gresson (to Detective QunrtermainV. Malaquin had beer, at the tender mercies of yourself for four hours? Witness: During the best part of that time I wns awnv making inquiries. Mr. Grerson: The point is that he was fr.ur hours under cross-examination by the police. Did you say his conduct in not going for tho polico was reprehensible? Witness: Yes. Mr. Gresson: During these four hours of "third degree" Mr. Donnelly and the witness both demurred at the use of the expression. Mr. Gresson (to witness): You know that it has been laid down by the courts that no police officer is allowed to crossexamine an accused person for hours as to hi? motives?

Witness: TTo was not a prisoner. The Magistrate remarked Hint- It had been laid down by Mr. Justice AYilllams thnt where a suspected person micht '•» able to Rive an exnlanation that would remove suspicion from him. he should be Riven an opportunity to explain himself to a police officer. Mr. Gresson: But not to be crossexamined for four hours. . Mr. Donnelly remarked thnt there was a distinction between a man under arrest, n man about to be arrested, and a man of whom the police had-a perfect riji't to mate inquiries. It was agreed that tho police had no right to question a "risoner under arrest. The Magistrate: Thpy are entitled to make inquiries. Mr. Gresson: But not to keep a man under cross-examination for four hours. Counsel proceeded to quote the followin? pnssage from a iudgnient of Mr. Justice Edwards in flex v. Barker (Court of' Anneal), 191H: "That any police officer should 'bo allowed to cross-examine prisoners and to brinß into Court alleeed admissions extorted in the course of a lons cross-examination is so repugnant to British ideas of the administration of justice thnt. ram confident, if the police do not act upon the wnrnins Riven in this case, more drastic stens will be taken to keep them within tho strict line of their duty." ' "I agree that the police ."nve a right to go" to any man for information," | counsel went on to say, "but they have no risht of cross-examination. Even Your Worship would have no right to, cross-examine a suspected person. I say it is absolutely repugnant to British ( ideas of justice." Mr. Donnelly objected that Mr. Gresson was confusing the different classes of persons whom he had already menI tinned. The remarks nuoted referred to I arrested persons, arid did not apply to the present case. Mr. Gresson (to witness): Did you tell Malaquin' that his. wife had sn'tl thnt thev .had quarrelled before going to bed? Witness: No. The .witness said he considerert Malaquin's\fxplanntimi that his wife must have shot herself while asleep so unsntI isfnetory that he determined to nrobo the matter to the bottom. Mr. Gresson: ft is,your methods that I object to. This first statement was, extracted after four' hours of crossexamination? Witness: No. Well, four hours' association with th« police.- Wasn't it made-'n the'hospital while his wife wnVon the operating table P—"No, it was made on nur return to the station." Didn't it occur to you that the man was in a stnto of anxiety?—"lf you mean j anxiety about his wife, certainly not." Committed for Trial. Mr. Gresson said that if the Magistrate thought there was a case to answer ho irould reserve his defence, but he had indicated' his readiness to call Ma!nqiiu». The Magistrate said that ; accused admitted that the revolver was in _ his hand when it. exploded, and ho had jiven Inconsistent explanations as' to how the injury to his wife occurred. Ho had also admitted immoral relations with other women. Supposing Mrs. Malaquin had died as a result 'of the shot, that would have involved a charge of murder, for the presumption would have been murder. If Malaquin admitted that the revolver exploded in his hand, it was thrown on him to set up a defence. That being so, the Mngistrntindded. he did not feel inclined to dismiss the case. He remembered a case in which Mr. Justice Donniston had held that where one person was found to be in possession of another's property as if it were his own he should bo eaited op to make an explanation in a court. Without commenting on tho strensth or the evidence ho would say (hat Malaquin should be called on to make this explanation. Mr. Gresson thereupon reserved his defence, nnd accused was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court.

In applying; for bail, Jfr. Grosson si id that bail had been granted in the first instance, but there were two facts [bar differentiated the case from others. Bai* had been granted and the parties had been together for a fortnight, and there was no risk of a recurrence of the incident'. The wife was pregnant and imprisonment of the husband would not only affect the wife's health but the loss or wages would inflict, financial hard-, ship.

Mr. Donnelly sail', that, the case for granting nail was stronger than it had been when it wjs originally granted. Under Hie circumstances the Crown must leave ftle matter to tlio Court.

The Magistrate said lie dirt not attach much importance to the wife's statement about her husband's innocence, for she was asleep at the time of the occurrence. ITowever, they hnd been living togcthoi-' since, and under all the circumstance without creating a precedent ho would renew bail, accused in .1200 and two sureties r-f ;£IOO each'. Pail was frrthcomin£,

in the dental surgical treatment of children; (3) that the Government! should be asked to provide adequate salaries and nsc.prta.in if the mquiral 'number of qualified practitioners could not be obtained."