WHO SHOT HER?

Taranaki Daily News, 3 December 1920, Page 5

WHO SHOT HER?

THE CHRISTCHURCH CASE. CONFLICTING STATEMENTS. PARTIES LIVING TOGETHER. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchureh, Last Night. The hearing of the charge against Frederick Malaquin, ;charged with the attempted murder of his wife, was resumed to-day. Mr 3. Meredith, a neighbor, gave evidence that accused came to her place the morning after the shooting.. She • then learned of the shooting and accompanied accused to his house and saw Mrs. Malaquin. Nothing was said as to how the shooting happened. The Malaquins were on the best of terms and lived happily together. Detective Quartermain said he saw Malaquin at the hospital, and accused said lie knew about the matter and that Mrs. Malaquin must have shot herself in her sleep. She had walked in her sleep since her girlhood. On the way to Brighton accused said he had no reason for thinking his wife would commit suicide. The detective repeatedly asked accused if he had shot his wife accidentally, and accused always denied it. Later at the police station Malaquin made a statement. In his statement accused advanced a theory that Mrs. Malaquin shot herself in her sleep, but in a second statement he said he got the revolver believing a burglar was on the premises, but he found no one and returned to bed, and in putting tho revolver under a pillow it accidentally exploded; the bullet striking liis wife. He did not go immediately for a doctor as his wife clung to him and begged not to be left alone. Continuing "his evidence, Detective Quartermain detailed further conversations with accused, including a reference to alleged relations with other women.

-THE THIRD DEGREE." Mr. Gresson, for accused, subjected witness to a lengthy cross-examination, and took strong exception to what lie regarded as a third degree examination by the police. . The Magistrate said Mr. Justice Edwards laid it down that where a. person was suspected of a crime, but where the police recognised he might be able to give a satisfactory explanation of circumstances which appeared to tell against him, and they had not made up their minds to arrest him, it was proper to give that, person an opportunity of making an explanation. Female witnesses gave evidence that accused posed to them as a single man. Mr. Gresson (for the accused) said that if the Magistrate thought there was a case to answer he would reserve his defence, but ho had indicated his rcadiiiess to call Malaquin. Mr. McCarthy, S.M., said accused admitted that the revolver was in his hand when it exp'eded, and he had given inconsistent explanations as to how the injury to his wife occurred. He had also admitted immoral rehfirns with other women. Supposing Mrs. Malaquin had died as a result "of the vluit. that would hive urolved a clu-ge of 'nurder. If Malamiin admitted that the revolver exploded in his hand it was thrown on him to set up a defence. That being so, tli? Magistrate added, he did not feel inclined to dismiss the case. He remembered a :a*e m which the late Mr. Justice Denniston had held that where one person was found to be in possession of another's property, as if it were his own, he should be called on to make an explanation in a Court. Without commenting on the strength of the evidence he would say that Malaquin should be called on 'to make this explanation.

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Mr. Gresson thereupon reserved his defence, and accused was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. In applying for;bail, Mr. Oresson said bail had been granted in th« first instance. Bail had been granted and the parties had been together for a fortnight and there was no risk of a recurrence of the act. The imprisonment of the husband would not only affect the wife's health, but the loss of wages would inflict financial hardship.

Mr. Donnelly (for the Crown) said the case for granting bail was stronger than it had been when it was originally granted. Under the circumstances the Crown must leave the matter to the Court.

The Magistrate said he did not attach much importance to the wife's statement about her husband's innocence. However, they had been living together since, and under all the circumstances, without creating a precedent, he would renew bail, the accused in £2OO and two sureties of £IOO each. The bail was forthcoming.