SEADOWN MURDER

Hokitika Guardian, 5 February 1930, Page 5

SEADOWN MURDER

TRUE BILL RETURNED

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

TIMARU, Feb. 5

At the Supreme Court, Jack Oldfield, against whom a true bill was returned by the Grand Jury yesterday, was arrainged on a charge..that, he did. at Sea down, on Jan. 13th. murder his wife, Christine Oldfield, nee . Sutherland, by striking her on the head with

an axe. .Air Justice Adams was on the bench. Mr W. I). Campbell, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, whilst Mr F. J. Rolleston appeared for the defence, accused pleading not guilty to wie indictment. The proceedings aroused much interest and the Court was crowded. A most remarkable feature of the case was the absence of any motive for such a shocking crime. Accused is a member of a highly respected Seadown family, and his farm is comprised of some of the best land hr

South Canterbury. Jt was stated in evidence by a witness that accused was short of ready money, but otherwise his financial position should not have given him any cause for worry. Before her marriage deceased was a masseuse and practised her profession in Timaru and Christen urch. Mr Campbell said that the case was-a distressing one, but the facts were simple. The jury would have no difficulty in arriving at a decision. Dr Scanned repeated his evidence

given in the Lower Court, saying that he arrived at the scene at 7.30 o’clock on tne morning of the tragedy, when lie saw the body of the deceased in

oed with a gaping wound in the skull, apparently inflicted by such an instrument as an axe (produced). .Eldred Charles Oldfield, brother of accused, related in detail his evidence given' in the Magistrates Court, saying that his brother came to witness’s farm about 6.30 ask-

ing for the loan of cartridges as he wanted to shoot rabbits. The accused obtained cartridges from the house and then made to leave for his home and before he had gone far ,accused called out, “Good-bve Eldred.” Witness saw accused with the gun evidently endeavouring to reach the trigger with the intention to shoot himself. Witness ’’closed with accused and obtained ’(possession of the gun and then obtained assistance and had accused secured. Accused said: “You may as well let me finish it- as 1. have killed Chrissie.” The gun was loaded and did not go off, because accused did not know how to operate the safety catch. Witness gave an, account of a visit to accused’s house and the finding of the dead woman. Wiien wit-

ness reached the house Mrs Oldfield was still breathing. Witness informed the police of the occurrence. Accused hud seyved in the Great War where he had received certain injur-

ies. Accused was the recipient of a war pension. Witness lived about half a mile from accused’s residence. After returning from the front accused continued to work on his fath er’s farm, but about four years age

he acquired two properties of hi» own. Accused was married on December 19th in Christchurch. He returned to Seadown on December 23.

Prior to his marriage witness saw accused frequently, as they were comanagers of the Oldfield Estate. After his marriage witness Isaw him daily. As far as witness was aware

accused was happily married. Accused was industrious. ' Accused was always talking about money troubles He seemed afraid that he could not make the farm pay now that he was married. Witness had offered to lend monec to the accused. Accused had obtained £BOO from the estate cn the Saturday night before tiie tragedy. Wi ness and accused had discussed the latter’s financial position. He was solvent.

Arthur Duncan, labourer employed by Eldred Oldfield, stated that he had seen accused between 7 and 7.30 a.m. on Jan. 13th. when he was struggling widh his brother. .Witness assisted Eklred Oldfield to overcome the accused. Accused said,. “I’ve killed my wife.” and then added-, “I’ve killed Chrissie.” '

Witness asked accused if he and hit wife had quarrelled, but the reply was in the negative. In answer to questions, . witness agreed that accused was a very hard worker. He was probably overtaxing his strength. Accused appeared more distressed after his marriage. He was glum and irritable. Accused was cheerful before bis marriage. Accused told nrtness that married life was all right, but it meant additional worry.