THE UNWRITTEN LAW.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 39, 14 February 1913, Page 2

THE UNWRITTEN LAW.

’TWIXT MAN AND WIFE. A COUSIN’S PRIVILEGES. The chief incident in the Palmerston Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday was Mr Inncs’s cross-examina-tion of the principal witness in the Levin shooting case (says the (Times). The accused was a small, delicate man named John Horrocks Whellan, a cordial maker, whose appearance confirmed the testimony of witnesses that lie was a man of weak physique, subject ,to fainting fits. He was accused of having discharged at John Wilkinson (whom lie was alleged to have found in his wife’s bedroom) a revolver “loaded with . destructive material.” The usual alternative charge of ordinary assault was added.

Wilkinson, a sturdy little Petone bricklayer, who, to the soft impeachment that he was a boxing man, declared modestly that he “was not much out of the way” in that respect, was the chief witness for the Crown. Under the catechism of the Crown Prosecutor, Mr C. A. Loughnan, ho said he was Mrs Whellan’s cousin. He went up to Levin to attend the show, arriving by the evening train between 7 and 8 o’clock. Mrs Whellan met him at the station, and they “bussed” to her home together. She went to her bedroom to take off her hat and gloves, and he leaned against her bedroom door,, i which was open inwards. There was no light. Suddenly the front door opened, and the husband appeared looking not friendly. Wilkinson thereupon; retreated intq the bedroom, and the wife went to the husband, telling him to be quiet. He replied: “Be quiet. Strike a light.” Wilkinson thereupon through the window, made two ineffectual attempts to clear a high hedge (hastened by the sound of two revolver shots), at the third attempt succeeded, shoutin, as he fell prostrate on the other side, “You’ve shot me.” It subsequently proved that this belief that he was shot was imaginary. Mr Innes (coungel for the accused): Were you previously a farmer? Wilkinson: Yes, at Taranaki.

Mr Innes: Did Mrs Whellan come there to you?—Yes. She remained there three months.

Who else was in your house?—My father and mother and another man. The Chief Justice; Was this before the marriage? l ‘ Witness: No, afterwards. She had just been in service. Her husband was at Brooklyn, not living with her. Mr Innes: Did she leave her home to go into service on your advice? Witness: No. : , Yet she was in constant communication with you H—Occasionally; i Letters you would not have diked her husband itq see?—l’d ( not have minded. ' 1 vi n u Did you know,iher husband, objected to her staying at; the farm with you ? —I don’t suppose he would like it. You didn’t care?—No. It didn’t matter to you what unhappiness you brought into another man’s family 60 long as it suited you?—l don’t think I was the cause of any unhappiness. You know that on the first occasion her husband forgave her and took her back ?—I knew jjthpy liygjl again. Until you came .between them a second time. You know you caused all the unhappiness; it broke up their family?—l don’t know that it was all my fault. Do you take no blame at all?—l’d not say that. I suppose you put the blame upon the woman ?—I would not say that either.

On the second occasion you became friendly with her—an improper friendship?—l would not say it was. Did her husband object to your relationship with his wife?—Once at Petone.

When you had been out for a drive together?—We had - been out cycling. Were you in the habit of visiting their home at Petone?—Yes. Generally when the husband was away ?—Yes. You consider, I suppose, there was nothing improper in that?—Certainly. Why did you always go when the husband was away?—l think he would have objected. Do you know he went to Levin to escape you?—No. I went to Sydney before that. I returned six months ago. -Did you tell Mrs Whellan you were coming up to the Levin show?—Yes, by telegram. Did you let her husband know?—No. She had invited me up. I suppose it was three parts Mrs Whellan and one part show ?—I won’t say so. Did you ask her in the bus if her husband was at home?—No. She told me he was not. When you reached the house it was fairly dark?—Well, getting that way. Did you consider it proper to be leaning against the open bedroom door when Mrs Whellan was inside?—l saw nothing in There was lots of time to have struck a match, I suppose?—Well, I suppose there was. Ten minutes?—Not so long. You were in good company, I suppose, and time Hew '■rapidly.—(Laughter, in which witness’s reply was not audible). I understand the wife is here in Palmerston with you at the present time?—No, I don’t say so. When did‘you sec her last?—Last night. Did she stay at the same hotel as you P—No. At the same boardinghouse?—No. Where did you stay P—That’s my business. Do you knownvhere she was staying? —No." You decline to say where you stayed ?—Yes. Something about it that you are ashamed of?—No.

You know she has left her husband P —Yes.

At your instigation?—No. When did you come to Palmerston for this trial?—That’s my business. It’s our business too. Will you swear you have not seen her to-day?— I decline to say. You say when the husband found you at the house he didn’t seem very friendly?—l don’t know. You didn’t stay to see?—No, I got out of it. What was Mrs Whellan doing?— Taking off her hat. You were not assisting her?—Oh, no. You got out of the window afraid Mr Whellan would give you what any other husband would give, a good hiding?—Do you think so? I have no doubt about it. / Ihe jury will decide that. To further questions witness admitted that Whellan was a good shot, and could no doubt have put a bullet into him if ho had really wished. He admitted also that Whellan was a decent man without a bad past. He considered the firing of the shots was only a bit of bluff. The Chief Justice: That’s for the jury to say. The witness has only to state facts.

Evidence was given by a laborer named Astridge who accompanied Whellan to the house on the night of the surprise, and by Constable Bagley and John Charles Mills, an engineer. It was shown that accused bought the revolver “to go pig shooting,” and that he also bought some ball cartridges and some blank cartridges. There were two empty cartridges in the revolver after the affray, but it could not he shown whether they had been blank or ball cartridges. The Judge’s View.

Sir Robert Stout, in summing up, said that even if the jury considered that the man Wilkinson was a scoundrel that did not justify the accused in shooting at him. If the husband \yas wronged by this man’s improper relations with his wife, ho had- his remedy by sueing hiyi for c'images. The law of New Zealand did not allow a husband to take the Jaw into his own hands, and shoot at a man who had wronged him. If the law allowed that there would be an end of order and law in the community. In America lawlessness of the kind he had indicated did unhappily exist; The only question for the jury to consider was: Did the man fire the shots at the man Wilkinson? and was the gun loaded? if they believed that, then they must find him guilty. . The jury, after a brief retirement, found a verdict of “not guilty.” His Honor: Let the prisoner he discharged. The jury lias acquitted you. The jury has thought it proper for you to fire a gun at people, iWhellan was then released.