HUSBAND FOUND NOT GUILTY

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 197, 18 May 1944, Page 4

HUSBAND FOUND NOT GUILTY

Alleged Murder Of Wife ENQ OF AUCKLAND TRIAL (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCtKiDAtN'D, May 17. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury today in the case in which Thomas Philip Haworth, aged 32, was charged with the murder of his wife, Patricia Florence Haworth. Mr. Justice Callan discharged accused. Addressing the jury, Mr, Terry, for accused, said if it were not for the violation of accused’s home by a marauder (Corporal Bernard Dennison Osgood, United States Army) accused would not be standing on this charge. It was not denied that he was responsible for his wife’s death, but it was denied that he was guilty of murder. The Crown, which had alleged that murder was deliberately planned, would have to satisfy the jury that at the moment accused picked up the hammer he had the intention to kill his wife. Counsel said evidence had been given that accused was a trusted and conscientious workman witli a reputation as a quiet, reserved and sober man and a good husband and father. "Then came the American, Osgood, to cast an unhappy spell on the home,” said counsel. “He did not come to the home as one would expect an overseas serviceman on leave, simply to enjoy the amenities of home, but, as the evidence had shown, with other designs.” When his wife and Osgood told him ot their feelings for each other accused had been staggered, and had put forward every possible argument to get his wife to reconsider her decision, mentioning their child ami his wife’s parents, continued Mr. Terry. When he went home with the hammer that morning it was obviously the American he was seeking. All the pent-up emotions of the previous days caused by the denials and deceit broke forth at that moment.- Then his wife had practically spurned him and he “went mad.” It seemed conclusively shown that “the Yank” was on accused’s mind, and he had no intention of harming jjis wife. , , Mr. Meredith, in his address for the Crown, said that only if a killing was accidental could a person be acquitted. In this case a crime had been committed. The only justification for taking life was self-defence, and that was not suggested here. He asked the jury to consider accused’s conduct after attacking his wifei On finding her bleeding on the floor had he shown any remorse and tried to get assistance for her? She was still alive when the police arrived later. When telling the hotel licensee he had killed his wife accused had not spoken of her in high terms but, had said she was “rotten to the core.” On the evidence there could he no other verdict than murder or manslaughter. * Judge’s Summing Up.

Summing up, his Honour urged the jury not to be misled by any sympathy for any person either living or dead. The prosecution had to establish that accused’s striking with the hammer was a conscious and voluntary act. It would be dangerous to accept statements about loss of memory from persons who were in a situation where they had need to make such statements. Accused had said he "went mad.” His Honour said he would ask theai carefully to consider this question, “Do you believe it possible that when he struck his wife the first blow with the hammer he did not know at that moment that he was doing so?” They must ask themselves was that credible? It might be credible that after that point he did not know, and that there was a haze, possibly caused by shock effects when he saw the body on the floor. As to the series of events, provocation was in some circumstances a reason for reducing a murder charge to manslaughter.' The law put the responsibility for reducing any charge in the hands of the jury. “I think you will probabiy feel that this unfortunate man had suffered at the hands of Osgood and of his wife,” said his Honour. “It had not led to violence at the time.”

Probably accused had plenty of time for the tgxrible injury to burn into his system, and his wife was there to hand when he went home, There might be a good deal, he thought, in the circumstance that it was on Thursday, at 9.30 a.m. that he went home. His wife was due to go visiting, and>Osgood was then still coming and going about the home. They might think that accused’s evidence that he wanted to get rid of Osgood was a very credible story. Accused had put forward a good many reasons that might incline them to believe that he intended to use the hammer on Osgood. “The man’s story breathed sincerity when he said that every appeal to his wife failed,” said his Honour. His direction to the jury on the question of provocation was that they had to determine whether there was provocation such as would overcome the self-control of an ordinary person. “You must put an ordinary person in the circumstances this man was in and through the experiences he had in the days preceding the act,” he added. If in their judgment it was possible that an ordinary man would lose his self-eoiitrol then their proper verdict was one of manslaughter. The jury returned its verdict after an absence of two and three-quarter hours. When it was announced, and his Honour had Ordered that accused be discharged, he partially collapsed and was assisted from the court.