Farmer Charged with Murdering His Wife

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 889, 5 February 1930, Page 11

Farmer Charged with Murdering His Wife

SEADOWN TRAGEDY OPENING OF TRIAL Press Association TIMARU, Today. At the Supreme Court Jack Oldfied, against whom a true bill was returned by the Grand Jury yesterday, was arraigned on a charge that at Seadown on January 13 he murdered his wife, Christine Oldfield, nee Sutherland, by striking her on the head with an axe. Mr. Justice Adams was on the bench. Mr. W. D. Campbell, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution while Mi - . F. G. Rolleston appeared for the defence. Accused pleaded not guilty to the indictment. The proceedings aroused much interest and the court was crowded. The 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 composed of some of the best land in South Canterbury. It 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 Christchurch. 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. Scannell repeated the evidence given in the lower court, saying that he arrived at the scene at 7.30 on the morning of the tragedy, where he saw the body of Mrs. Oldfield in bed with a gaping wound in her skull, apparently inflicted by an instrument such as the axe produced. Eldred Charles Oldfield, brother of accused, related in detail the evidence given in the Magistrate’s Court, saying that his brother came to witness’s farm about 6.30 a.m. asking for the loan of some cartridges as he wanted to shoot rabbits. Accused obtained the cartridges from the house and then made to leave for home. Before he had gone far he called out, “Good-bye, Eldred.”

Witness saw accused with the gun, evidently endeavouring to reach the trigger, with the intention of shooting himself. Witness closed with accused and obtained possession of the gun and then got help had accused secured. f “I HAVE KILLED CHRISSY.”

Accused said: “You may as well let me finish it as I have killed Chrissy.” The gun was loaded but did not go off because accused did not know how to operate the safety catch. Witness gave an account of his visit to accused’s house and the finding of the dead woman. When witness reached the house, Mrs. Oldfield was still breathing. Witness then informed the police of the occurrence. Accused had served in the Great War, where he had suffered certain injuries. He was the recipient of a war pension. Witness lived about half-a-mil'e from accused’s house. After returning from the front accused continued to work on his father’s farm but about four years ago he acquired two properties of his own. He was married on December 19, in Christchurch, and returned to Seadown on December 28. Before his marriage, witness saw accused frequently as they were co-managers of the Oldfield Estate. After the marriage he saw him daily. As far as witness was aware accused was happily married. He was an industrious man, but was always talking about money troubles. He seemed afraid that he could not make his farm pay now that he was married. Witness had offered to lend liim money, and he had obtained £BOO from the estate. FINANCE DISCUSSED

On the Saturday night before the tragedy witness and accused had discussed the latter’s financial position. He was solvent.

Arthur Duncan, a labourer employed by Eldred Oldfield, stated that he had seen accused between 7 and 7.30 a.m. on January 13, when he was struggling with his brother. Witness assisted Eldred Oldfield to overcome accused, who said “I’ve killed my wife,” and then added. “I’ve killed Chrissy.” Witness asked accused if he and his 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. He appeared more distressed after his marriage and was glum and irritable. He was cheerful before his marriage. Accused told witness that married life was all right, but it meant additional worry. (Proceeding.!