MURDER CHARGE.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 February 1925, Page 3

MURDER CHARGE.

THE SI.MPKIN CASE. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. AUCKLAND, February 12. The trial of Janies Sinipkin, charged with the murder of his wife, Emma Sinipkin, at Remuera on October 5, which began before .Mr Justice Herdman at the Supreme Court yesterday, was continued to-day. Air Meredith appeared for the Crown, and Air Finlav for accused.

) In outlining the defence, Air Finlay said he wanted to assure the Court and jury that no matter what the defence might he at bottom there was most profound sympathy for the unfortunate wife. Neither prisoner nor he (counsel i would deny that the woman was hilled by prisoner with his own razor. The Crown’s ease was that the couple had led a continually unhappy life, and that it finally culminated in the premeditated and deliberately planned murder of the wife by the husband, but it was significant that the young woman, despite what the Crown said, had for nine years remained true to her husband. Except for spasmodic occasions the pair must have been happy and contented. That did not agree with the Crown’s case. Then, again, there was tlu; letter written by the prisoner to his wife, -and found alongside their bodies. It was not a threatening letter, hut one with a pathetic appeal to the wife to come hack and be happy with him. That letter was unopened, and it was hand- ; ed to the wife by the prisoner for her to take home and consider. That did not look like premeditated murder. The theory of the Crown was that Sinipkin had taken a razor and met his wife, and then carried out a pro-determined murder, hut Simpkin was a peculiar man. Evidence would he give nto show that lie always carried a rcr.or with him. also tooth and nail brushes. Friends would say that Simpkin had at diflorent times shaved at their homes with his own razor, which he carried with him. Then again, for nine years Sinipkin had been challenged with badly treating his wife, hut never once did he give any explanation of his acts. Why? An explanation had to he found. It could not he disputed that lie loved his wife. He was passionately fond of her. Instances would he given to indicate that the prisoner was siifiering from a mental complaint, sudden loss ol consciousness. If the jury found that Simpkin suffered with disease, and counsel said the evidence would show he did. and the jury found that during such occasions ol those spasmodic attacks he committed the crime, then the verdict would have to he that the act was committed at a time when lie was insane. Accused then went into the witness box. In answer to Air Finlay he said: I am fifty-five years of age, and have been married twice. Of the first nun - ringe there were four children, three girls and a hoy. In lOlli I married inv late wife, and then lived at various places, doing various work, including farming and bushlelling. J’or the last throe years I have been living at Tanranga and 'lhanies, and we came to Auckland in order that 1 could go under an operation. Aly wife went to stay at her mother’s place, ami , I went into the hospital. I was in hospital about twenty days. Never dor- , ing our married lile had Airs Simp- , kin been hard pushed lor money. On , cue occasion she went to work. hut | only a day and a hall.

Continuing in answer to questions from Mr Finlay, prisoner said that he and his wife always got along well together. He then dealt with his admission to and discharge from hospital also his wife’s decision not to live with him again. On the Thursday prior to the tragedy he called on Airs Boss and asked her to try and persuade her daughter to return to him.. The same night he called again at (lie house ol All's Boss and s.iu his wife. If wen* (here because he understood on.’ of the children was sick. AY lien he told her that was Ins reason she replied : “Lies and deception.” She then took off her rings and placed them on the table. He told her that she would want her wedding ring, because it was a protection for her and the children. During that interview she told him the children were not his On the Saturday he again saw his wile at the house, and pleaded with her to return with him to Thames. She agreed to go. but Air Boss, who was present, said to his daughter, “If you eo hack to him f will never assist yon again.” However, she promised to go to Thames with him, and he left the house, saying “Good-bye” to 1.. s wife and Boss. He had made an appointment to meet his wife on Sunday afternoon, but he was not to go nea. the house. He went ouUto keep the appointment, met his wile, and they walked along to the shelter shed | “AVe were sitting down in the she tci shed when 1 noticed she had a mg with her. T asked what the bag aas for and she said. “I am not going back with you.’ I asked, AYhat! Am. promised vou would go hack with me She then said she had given the Promise iust because she had wanted to net rid of me. I then asked hei "h> she would not keep her promise, and also if there was any otliei ‘ said. Yes, Bert Collins,’ and added she had been carrying on with him That was the man I had worked lor at Thames. I said, ‘What! Is,it that prostitution, and you expect someone else to keep the children ? She the, said. -Thov are not your children, said ‘AY lint!’ and she laughed. 1 don’t know what happened then To Air Finlav he said he had < ried a razor about for many Lengthy evidence was given to that accused was a man ol *'tian D | ease was then adjourned.

om;»s. A number of doctors gave ov.-levc that the accused suffered troni l- • Called by the Crown. Doctor Beattie (Superintendent ol the Aucklam. - ,1 Hospital) said be hud exam i d • o.sed and was of the opinion t ‘ , „ite sane, and was about • '■? was iini* e sue ■ i (,oite •ivertp'o i" intelligent c, .mcl • , iupabb- of knowing the natuu ■■ duality ot bis acts.