TRAGEDY OF DOMESTIC STRIFE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 807, 30 October 1929, Page 1

TRAGEDY OF DOMESTIC STRIFE

Brauman on Trial for Wife-Murder

DAUGHTER’S EVIDENCE OF THREATS

Accused a Listless Figure

DUNEDIN, Today. POIGNANT evidence of domestic animosity which ended in tragedy was given in the Supreme Court today, when the trial of William Henry Brauman. for the murder of his wife, Annabel Dorothy Deans Brauman, was continued. Brauman. broken in health, stood a listless figure in the dock as his daughter told of threats which had been made against her mother’s life.

The tragedy was enacted at the St. Clair esplanade on the evening of August 7, and Brauman came up for trial yesterday afternoon. Mr. Justice Kennedy was on the Bench. Mr. F. B. Adams, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, and accused was defended by Mr. C. J. White and Mr. F. M. Lloyd. The trial is expected to last nearly three days, as 30 witnesses are to be called. Brauman answered not guilty in a steady voice when the charge was read. The Crown Prosecutor said the crime was a brutal and savage one. Brauman shot his wife with a revolver placed against her ear, and he then attempted to commit suicide, but the jury need not consider that, because there might be a separate charge. It was open on the indictment to find a verdict of manslaughter, but the facts would offer no proper grounds for such an action. Mr. Adams declared there was no provocation upon which accused might have acted on a sudden impulse. The evidence would show that accused harboured the scheme in his mind for some time. It was true that accused alleged his wife was acting improperly with another man at the moment, but the facts were that she had bei#i out in a motor with two men and her daughter. They had just alighted, near St. Clair baths, when the deed was done, and nothing had occurred to which exception could be taken. The Crown Prosecutor, in his submission to the jury, emphasised that the case was not a trial of the domestic relations between Brauman and his wife. “It will not be disputed,” he said, “that accused killed his wife. The question for you is whether that act of killing is to be dealt with as murder or as manslaughter, or whether you will acquit him on the ground of insanity. Those are the three possible courses, and only those. The case for the Crown is that the circumstances do not leave you free to find a verdict of manslaughter and that the facts do not justify a Verdict of insanity. It becomes my duty to urge this upon you even at this stage of the case. Evidence was then called, and when the Court adjourned for the day His Honour ordered that the jury should remain locked up overnight. TODAY’S EVIDENCE Evidence was adduced in the Supreme Court this morning to show that a series of threats had been made by Brauman toward his wife. Brauman kept his eyes on the Crown Prosecutor while a member of his family gave evidence. He did not appear to take much interest, and his health obviously has suffered since he first appeared in the Police Court a month before the tragedy when his wife proceeded against him on private complaints. An interesting witness to be called later will be the man who is known as Thomson, and who was the driver of the car in which Mrs. Brauman went for a short drive a few minutes before her death. One witness yester-

day stated that she now knew that Thomson was not the man’s correct name. THREATS IN STREET Phillis Maud Brauman, aged 17, related instances of molestation in the street, one occasion being when accused told her grandmother, who was with them, that he was going to cut her throat. Cross-examined, witness said that when her father told her mother that she had called him a criminal and he was going to prove one, she imagined that he meant he would “do for her.” To Crown Prosecutor: Brauman had said his wife would he under the sod by Christmas as “a Christmas box for grandma.” James Jelley said that Mrs. Brauman and her daughter Olive called him by the name Thomson. He did not know where they got the name from. He had arranged with them to go to a musical evening on August 7 and he took McMillan with them for a motor drive. On returning to St. Clair witness did not leave the car. He saw no improper conduct or any embracing. Cross-examined, witness said he told the police he was supposed to be Thomson and had previously given Mrs. Brauman and her daughter a ride in his car to the theatre. He did not know then Mrs. Brauman was married and was only told so later. It must be true if the girl said he was introduced under the name of Thomson. Jack McMillan, aged IS, who accompanied the others for a motor drive, said there was no hugging or kissing between witness and either of the two women. When accused said: “You are having a good time,” deceased said it was no affair of his. Accused did not say, "For God’s sake, don't bring disgrace on my daughter.” Brauman held a revolver to his wife’s head and fired. He pulled the revolver from his overcoat pocket with a quick action. Witness stepped toward accused, who warned him to keep back, at the same time pointing the revolver toward him. When accused fell wounded witness picked up the revolver. Witness was to have attended a musical evening that night at Mrs. Brauman’s employers. Jelley did not appear to go under the name of Thomson. Witness was calling him Jelley. Ashburn Holland, living where Mrs. Brauman was employed as a house- ! keeper, said he had never seen any impropriety on her part. He had no 1 idea a party was to be held at the house on the night of i the tragedy. “SHE RUINED MY LIFE” William Black. an ambulance driver, said accused said. “She ruined my life, she ruined my girl.” Later he said, “I did it. Why don’t you take me away?” Detective Kirton said that on the way to the hospital accused said: “Oh my God! What a mother she has been! Ruining my lovely girls of 15 and 16!”