BRITISH & FOREIGN NEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 9 October 1925, Page 1

BRITISH & FOREIGN NEWS

[Reuter Telegrams.] THE MOSUL QUESTION. AIR FORCE OFFICERS RECALLED. LONDON, October S. The Cabinet heard Mr Aniery (Dominion Secretary’s) statement in regard to Mosul. The ‘'Daily Telegraph” says that -Ministers expressed their views thereon. No fresh deeison was reached. .Ministerial circles claim the Government has not yet pledged itselt to any new commitment. Mr Baldwin is expected to emphasise this at Brighton to-night. LONDON. October 7. The " Daily Mail ” says: The .Mesopotamian Air Force officers at present in England are being suddenly recalled All other leave has been cancelled, in dicating activity in the near future. WOMAN SHOOTS RIVAL. PARIS, October 7. Yet another case of a jury acquitting a. woman who had committed murder under provocation is reported. .Madame Ohapaut, whose arrest was cabled on February 91, the wile of a professional wrestler, was to-day charged with murdering .Madame Francois, who was her rival for her husband’s love, and wlm lived in a caravan given her liy the wrestler, Ohapaut. Madame Ohapant. brushing past her husband.; who i ried to stop Iter, smashed the: window of the caravan with the bull of a revolver, am! then tired six shots into the vehicle. Madame Francois who was inside, slated that her bushand had brought her rival to her home, and that, when she reproached him. he had purchased the caravan in order I hat he might vi-it .Madame Francois without inierruution.

In view of Ihe acquittal of Madame Raynal on Monday last, Parisian juries seem upon a woman's right to kill under the circumstances. CURIOUS DAAIAOES ACTION. LONDON. October 7. The " Daily Telegraph's” Paris correspondent states: The rerent marriage of Madame N lias led io a curious action for damages against an illustrated weekly publication on the ground that the paper had published a photograph of her posing without a vestige of clothing. i lie newspaper pleaded that the picture was only a hack view, and ii urged that, though the lady might recognise herself. the public never would recognise her in such a position. .Madame N's counsel retorted that the picture of a woman's hack was just as much her property as a face view but the Court expressed it- doubts, and deferred judgment, in order to decide whether a picture of a woman's back constitutes a porlarit. and whether the public could recognise the plaintiff under such circumstarn-es.