TRIAL OF MUNN

Hokitika Guardian, 1 April 1930, Page 5

TRIAL OF MUNN

HEARING OPENS. ,'Bj Telegraph—Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND. March 31. Dorothy Ida Muim aged 19, said in evidence that she was at present residing with her mother who was divorced from accused. Witness until three years ago lived with her father at North cote. Answering a question by counsel, witness replied that accused was very cruel to Mrs Munn »in many ways, she had seen accused strike ins wife on two occasions. Once his blow was hard ami severe, with his clenched hand and it made her fall. On another occasion, accused went to the fireplace where deceased was stirring jam. He took the jam stick from her and struck her shoulder with it.

What was her attitude towards accused asked Mr Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, when she was always doing all she possibly could for him .

.Witness said she left home because accused was so cruel to her. Accused told her she would have to come home every week end she had off, or he would put the police on to her. She afterwards refused to go home. She advertised for her own mother, and went to live with her. Mr Meredith.—Who got your wages? Witness.—T kept them myself, but he wanted to take them. Mavis Leonie Munn, (another daughter of accused with her mother), said Am left her fathe’s home about two months after her sister Dorothy left. Up to the time I left ,she added, my father never treated decesased with any respect and always spoke to her roughly. I have never seen him strike her, but 1 have seen him chasing lier into the bedroom. She then barricaded the door, when he kept pushing on it. Accused’s behaviour to her stepmother had not altered up to the time when witness left home. Oliver Arthur Herbert Munn, 21, said he had seen his father strike and push his step-mother many times. She was always meek and mild, trying to keep peace for the children’s sake. Accused, ran the house. Witness was living at home until a .year. ago. Robert Rowan Bell (solicitor) deposed receiving a letter, from Mrs Munn on 24th December' last instructing him to make a will leaving everything to Munn it was signed on January loth with Munn as the sole legatee.

AUCKLAND, March 31. Giving evidence in the Munn murder case, Evelyn Frances' McGrath, Advertising Clerk, employed at the “Auckland Star,” said that on October 10, 1929, a matrimonial - advertisement was handed to her over the counter by a man. The words “View Matrimony” were not inserted, and witness informed the man that these would have to he added. He agreed and witness wrote in the two words. Witness could not remember the man. She asked the man to sign his name on the back. The name which he signed was “Munn,” “Northcote.” Toe original advertisement form was here produced. Three copies of ihe “Auckland Star” for October 10th, 11th, and 12th. containing the advertisement, were also produced. The witness iudentifted the application by her initials. The advertisement in the Matrimonial Columns was as follows:—“Gent 40, lonely wishes to meet companionable woman without means preferable, view matrimony. Write “II.6218,” “Star.” .' Georgina Stuck, widow, said that she answered the advertisement, and. as a result she received a letter signed “Arthur Thomas” making an appointment for her to meet him. Witness kept the appointment, and Arthur Thomas Munn, the accused met her. The accused drove witness nut to Onehunga in his car, where they stopped and talked. He told be that he wanted a friend. Afterwards, the accused wrote to witness asking her to meet him on the next Wednesday. She did so, and Munn drove her out to Onehunga again. Witness asked the accused if he was married. He said that he was. She told him that she had the feeling that he was married, and also that his name was not “Arthur Thomas,” The accused said his name' was “Arthur Thomas Munn.” Then witness, referring to the. accused’s position in being a married man, had said: “This cannot go on!” The accused replied that- his wife had lost her interest in the home. Ho said that he on.lv wanted a friend!” Later, witness told tlr accused that she did nor wish their friendship to continue. The accused asked her if »lie would continue being a IV*- !>.(! to him. She said that she would. Munn afterwards came to s"v her. in Auckland, each Monday morning. ami on Saturday after

Witness stated that subsequently she went to Christchurch, and she returned on February 7th. meeting the accused at the Y.W.C.A. She later obtained a position at the Maori College at Northcote. The accused visited her there. He arrived at seven o’clock one night. He put ’’is hand on her shoulder, and breaking down, sa«d: “My wife has gone!’’ Witness said: “Don’t tel 1 me that!” He said: “It’s true!” Witness asked: “What are you going to do?” Munn said: “I think T will keep the house on. Will you consider coming and keeping house for me. as T don’t want to part wit; 1 ) the girls.” She agreed to go, and keep bouse, adding; “Did your wife die suddenly?” Munn venlied: “Yes!” Accused came to the college in his car on the evening of the February 13th, and took her to his bouse at Northcote. Witness continued that in conver-

sation, the accused said: “Ther^^fl been an inquest. The doctor will give a certificate. -She took-her oiHH life. The. night before she died asked me to promise ‘nutj.to send to the hospital. She seepied ed.” Witness remained at the aHNI cused’s house until he was * When she had been there a'few the accused said: “Do ; you enough of me to marry pie?” Wi ness replied : “J would like you wait, as you might mept else that you may like better me.” Munn “Will marry me after tlil.|jiiquest for ■sake of the <‘hildi.'ei|(4’ Witness plied that she woujftfilke to wait, her previous Dnarriage had not beeiHfi successful. The accused asked wit-H| •less for her wedding-ring, and gave it to . him. He said) that would keep it until he, bought her himself. Witness isajijfcl that she only a friend to Mu mi.ft Mrs Lvdia Gill. that she had a Hat under the house occupied by the.,Mihi'nsl On ary 4th, a little girl asked her to up to Mrs Munn. The accused was away, he having gone 'for a doctor, The deceased was reclining ;in a chair. She was gripping the: pides of the chair. She was twist-iiig and drawing hep legs up. Her eyes were half closed.!’ The# . asked H witness if .she knew what Was; the

matter, and whether witness had seen anyone - like that before;. Wit- H ness said that she had not. v/The de- H ceased asked.; witness.not to leave her. H When Munn returned, witness asked JB him if he-knew what was the' jnntter. He said that lie did. not, but pat' he H had summoned a doctor. H and the accused then cnrriedisfhe de* H ceased to bed. Witness said ||at the I deceased was of a bright dis|isition, H but was highly strung. Shejolised H her children, and her husband,)“|oo. The case was adjourned until to* I morrow. ,-j| H AUCKLAND 1 , April 1. At the further hearing of till wife murder charge against Arthur Thomas I Munn, 43V at the Police CoUt- to- fl day, Mrs Mark Brown gaye-evldence fl that she used to visit Airs . Munn and often saw : accused and his to- H gather... Munn ,was not kind,ito her. .1 Witness had lunch with deceased ,t-he' fl day before the latter was taken ill. fl Airs Munn was then in gooclj health fl and spirits. The first tliatj Kvitness fl heard .of .her ..illness- was on -February 5. when Muim told her bis w|fe was fl very ill in bed. Witness add,ed: ‘‘l fl told accused it was through fem be- fl ing-: unkind to her, and keeping her I up when she should be in bed.” I

'Witness said she would go #nd see Mrs Munn, whereupon accused;; said: “I don’t want any damn, womali down -there,” Alunn said he would look after his wife himself. When witness called at the house, Alunn bis wife thought she had I kidney trouble, but ahStt reaflly had’ 'bjlood prlssure. Airs Muim was in bed, was ve*iy nervous, was i twitching; all over!; and drawing her legs up. -She said she had lost the use of her legs, j|Munn said: “I think she had a stroke'yesterday njorning when. 1 was preparing breakfast,” , ~ 'll, Mrs Mrown continuing, saitl she stayed with Airs Alunn -that evening while Munn attended a meeting. Deceased .was very ill and still twitching, -Witness did not see hemagain qntil February 7, when she steemed much Worse. : Hier eves were! half closed as if she did not see prbfierly. Deceased told witness she haejj; been given some epsom salts by hey) husband that morning;. . She said* they were. the nastiest,, bitterest saljt| she had ever tastej. Deceased wasi of a very kind disposition, but a|ways seemed, .despondent; and afraiclj of sametiling.:' Nine months ago| | said witness, she saw three red weals on Airs Mirim’3 necik. ,Sihe once ||eard deceased-ask her husband for -|some new • linoleum for' the floor. Munn replied: “You can damn well j scrub the boards when that’s worn out.” Airs •Lydiard said she first knjejw of Mrs Miinri’s illness when Alum} I asked her :to stay with his wife, jiyliile he went to town, saying, she had a stroke.- On the morniug that Mrs Alunn ijdjed, witness when going to his house? met Alunn going in his car to get; a doctor. He said the doctor had called before and injected morphia and added: “She is sleeping, but I don’t like the look of her.” Munn asked witness to stand in the doorwav while he\went for the doctor but she went right*into the bedroom and Airs Munn aval ’apparently dead. After ' detailed evidence on handwriting: jwas given by Joseph JameMurray i(P. and T. Department accountant) who said in his opinion the matrimonial advertisement and documents signed-Arthur Thomas and Air tluir Alunn were all signed by-A th f same person, -the Court adjourped foi