A SERIOUS CHARGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3807, 19 June 1928, Page 3

A SERIOUS CHARGE.

THREATENED TO KILL HIS WIFE. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. At the Palmerston North Police Court yesterday, before Messrs W. F. Durward and G. Ashworth, J’s.P., Norman Ernest Stanley, aged 33, steward, was charged by the police that on November 2nd, and December sth, 1927, he did send a letter to James Petrie Innes, solicitor, of Palmerston North, containing a threat to kill lva May Stanley. Detective Sergt. Quirke conducted the prosecution.

Accused who pleaded not guilty, was unrepresented by counsel. In evidence, J. P. Innes stated that he had acted for Mrs. Stanley, wife of accused, in drawing up a deed of separation from her husband, N. E. Stanley, on February 25th, 1027. Witness knew both parties and had been consulted by Mrs. Stanley in connection with other matters between her and her husband. The accused knew that witness was his wife’s solicitor and on December sth last witness received a letter from accused, dated New York, Ist November, 1927. The letter was signed N. E. Stanley and in it was A THREAT TO SHOOT

his wife and exterminate her family. In it accused also stated that it was his intention to visit New Zealand for the purpose of shooting his wife and wiping out the whole family. Witness handed the letter over to the police. In answer to accused, witness said that he did not remember his wife promising to hand anything over to him. The payment of the costs of the DEED OF SEPARATION was quite a side issue, although witness was of the opinion that he had asked accused to pay same, but lie had refused. THE WIFE’S EVIDENCE, lva May Stanley, in evidence, stated that she was a married woman residing in Foxton. Witness married accused in St. Andrew’s Church, Palmerston North, on the Ist October, 1924, but only LIVED WITH ACCUSED ONE DAY when lie left, lie said, to go to his farm at Kaipara. A little over a week later accused borrowed £5 from witness before lie left, and about a week later he asked for £2OO. Witness identified the letters and handwriting produced as accused’s. In one letter a threat was made to "get the whole lot of you” and in another “TO HARRY YOU TO THE GRAVE.”

Another letter received only a fortnight ago contained objectionable language and also a certain article. Altogether witness had received a great number of letters from accused, most of them objectionable or threatening. The general tone of the letters from the time witness married accused was threatening. Witness had asked the Postmaster at Foxton if she need take delivery of the letters as she did not wish to do so. The letters were received from various parts of the world. To witness’s knowledge accused had

CORRESPONDED WITH OTHER PEOPLE

in a similar strain. As a result of the letters witness was afraid of accused and afraid he would carry out his threats. The deed of separation had been drawn up by her solicitor, Mr. Innes, and witness had paid for the documents. Later the accused returned the £5 lie borrowed but witness did not remember receiving a cheque from him. Accused threatened witness that if she did not “make it lie would do certain things. Accused asked witness to pay his fare and her own to Australia. On one occasion accused sent witness a cheque but stopped payment on it. Accused promised to provide for witness once they got Lo Australia, but she was to pay her own fare over, and give up her position as a teacher. Accused offered witness one half of the whole proceeds of the crop on his farm in Australia it she would go home with him, and witness asked for proof that liq really possessed property in Australia, but never received anything that she considered proof. On being re-examined witness said that before she was married accused told her that he had A FARM AT KAIPARA.

ITc afterwards told her that that was not true. She had never received any money from any cheque accused had sent her as he stopped payment on them. The cheques were not for maintenance but in lopayment of money that he had borrowed. T To accused: The excuse accused offered when he wanted to borrow the £2UU was that lie wanted it to buy implements to go share farming with his bather. Witness admitted receiving letters from Mr. Oakley and Messrs Borthwick and Butler offering her half the crop on accused’s Australian farm, which she had since ascertained were valueless. AM OBJECTIONABLE ADDRESS, David James Latthnore deposed that he was a postal supervisor, stationed at Palmerston North, and produced a letter and envelope, the latter indecently addressed to the school, Poxton. The post mark indicated that the letter was posted in New York on the 2nd November, 1927. For Departmental reasons, the letter being objectionably addressed, the letter was opened by the Department. Written in the

letter wore threats to kill the addressee. There were quite a number of objectionably addressed letters received through the post, but these also were not delivered to the addressee on her instructions. ACCUSED ADMITS WRITING LETTERS.

Herbert Henry Russell, detective, stationed at Palmerston North, gave evidence that, on the 14th of this month witness saw accused at the Palmerston North police station. He was then in custody, having been arrested by the Lyttelton (police. Witness showed accused the letters (produced), and told him that he understood he (accused), had admitted to the Lyttelton police that he had written the letters. Accused admitted that was correct in the presence of witness and (Senior Detective Quirke, and said he had written several other letters. Accused then made a statement which he signed. There was no doubt that all the letters produced were written by accused. In a statement to the police accused admitted writing the letters and said that they had been written while he was in a foolish and despondent mood brought on by DEEP AFFECTION FOR HIS WIFE who had continually repelled all attempts to make things up between them. The THREATS WERE NOT . SERIOUSLY MEANT and lie would never put them into effect. He had returned to New Zealand with the express purpose of apologising to those whom he had offended, and to see if there was a chance of him and his wife coming together to make a new start. His earnest desire was to prove that he was other than the man his letters suggested. Accused had nothing to say other than that he pleaded not guilty and that he had never been before the court before in his life. The accused was committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being refused.