[murder of wife – domestic violence – murder, questionable malice aforethought]

R. v. Turner

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Montagu J., 21 April 1842

Source: The Hobart Town Courier and Van Diemen’s Land Gazette, 29 April 1842[1]

Before His Honor Mr. Justice Montagu and a Civil Jury

            Thomas Turner appeared, charged with the wilful murder of his wife, Hannah Turner, at Glenorchy, on the 24th March last.

The first witness Jonathan Beal, stated that he resided about fifteen or twenty yards from the prisoner’s house; about six o’clock on the evening in question he saw the prisoner go into his house and soon after, hearing a disturbance, he listened and heard Turner tell his wife to get up; about five minutes after he saw the prisoner outside of his hut, with his wife lying on the ground; witness called to him asking whether he “was going to murder the woman?” Without making any reply, the prisoner seized his wife by the hair and dragged her back into the house, though not before kicking her twice or thrice in the region of the stomach; on seeing this, Beal was about to interfere, when his wife prevented him, about four minutes afterwards the prisoner walked up the road towards New Norfolk; witness then went into Turners and found the deceased lying on the floor, the son, about eleven years of age sitting near her in the act of nursing the baby; on being spoken to, the woman said, “Oh! my poor arm; it is broken.:” After giving information to District Constable Wilkinson, Beal took his horse and rode into town for Mr. Rowe; the prisoner seemed to walk very steadily, and the woman did not show any signs of intoxication.

            Elizabeth Beal, wife of the preceding witness, deposed that she saw the deceased between the hours of four and five in the afternoon of the 24th March, her (witness’s) husband being absent; Mrs. Turner was washing and appeared in very good health; after conversing with her for about a quarter of an hours he returned home, and whilst standing at her own door, between five and six o’clock, she saw the prisoner alight from Mr. Oakley’s dray and enter the house; soon after his wife uttered several screams, which caused witness to enter the hut; on reaching the bedroom she found Turner kicking and striking the woman most unmercifully; he kept raising her by the hair of her head and as soon knocking her down again; when witness endeavoured to intercede by holding his arm, Turner threatened that if she did not “leave him alone,” he would serve her in the same way, and let her know that he was in his own house; Mrs. Beal then left the hut and proceeded to Mr. Oakley’s; her husband returned about half an hour after, during the whole of which time the prisoner continued to beat his wife with a stick, and the latter to scream; Turner appeared to have been drinking, but not so as to make him insensible of what he was doing; amongst other replies to questions put by His Honor, this witness stated that Turner and the deceased had returned from Port Phillip about a month before, and that she had never seen the latter intoxicated.

            Thomas Turner, son of the deceased, stated that he last saw his mother alive before his father beat her; when he went into the hut his father was striking her about the head and feet with a stick until it broke; he (the prisoner) then took an iron hoop with which he continued to strike her, saying that if that broke he would get something that would not; he struck her severely over the head and back, and threw over her some water almost in a state of ebullition, contained in an iron boiler on the fire, after which he upset a tub of soap-suds over her; the deceased did not live above an hour after; when the boy first left the hut his mother was lying on the bed; on his return to the house, his father, whom he observed to be in a state of inebriation, said that the deceased was tipsy, but she was not.

            Mrs. Hallard. - Lived next door to the house of the deceased; the District Constable and two other constables requested her to go to Mrs. Turner’s; she did so, and found her lying on the floor; witness, in endeavouring to raise her, found that one of her arms was broken, a little above the wrist; the deceased was then living.

            Edward Oakley was next examined and said, that the prisoner had married his (Oakley’s) cousin, and lived about half a mile from his house; on the day in question they came to Hobart; Town, and on their return back stopped at the “Horse and Jockey,” where the prisoner had something to drink; whether or not he was tipsy witness could not say; he appeared to walk very steadily; they had also drank in Hobart Town.

            Mr. Wilkinson, District Constable, deposed, that he saw the deceased at about 8 o’clock on the day in question; she was lying on her back, and did not speak to him; her little boy produced a broken stick and an iron hoop, with which he said that his father had beaten his mother; [stick produced, of the thickness of a substantial broom-handle, and appearing like those used by washer-women to stir their clothes - the iron hoop was also shown, bent three times, so as to present a treble sharp edge;] witness saw some soap-suds on the floor near the spot where Mrs. Turner was lying, and which, from her clothes being wet, seemed to have been thrown over her; Wilkinson arrested the prisoner at Mr. Oakley’s at about 8 o’clock; he appeared perfectly sober; on his road to the watch-house, he asked to see his wife; on entering the house she was insensible; the prisoner appeared somewhat agitated, but not distressed; when told that she was in a dying state, he replied that he knew nothing about it; he remonstrated against the handcuffs being put on him, saying that he was a free man.

            Mr. Rowe entered into minute details of the injuries inflicted on the deceased; he described the entire body as one continuous mass of confusions, and mentioned a cut on the back part of the head; the left ear was cut through and the left fore-arm broken; in his opinion the deceased had died from injuries inflicted on the brain, as also from a general shock to the nervous system, caused by the bodily injuries she had received.

            Dr. Brock had been present at the autopsy, and corroborated the statement of the preceding medical gentleman.

            Mr. Macdowell, as counsel for the prisoner, raised an objection to the information, on the grounds that the cause of death had not been correctly laid down. His Honor, however, ruled otherwise; and the learned counsel proceeded to address the jury. He contended that his client could not be convicted of the capital offence upon the evidence which had been brought forward. To substantiate the charge of murder, there must be a certainty of malice aforethought. No murder could be perpetrated without some motive; and, as the instigation to the act which had brought the prisoner before the Court was enveloped in undecipherable mystery - which, indeed, had been admitted by the Attorney-General himself, - it was to be concluded that it was not his intention to cause death. The learned counsel, after speaking at some length, left the case in the hands of the jury, without calling any witnesses.

            His Honor, in summing up the case to the jury, preceded his review of the evidence by a minute explanation of the legal classification of the technical causes of death contained in the information; and by setting the jury right on the incorrect explanation given by Mr. Macdowell of what by law is constituted “malice aforethought”.

            The jury, having been absent only about five minutes; returned a verdict of Guilty.

            His Honor, after representing the heinous nature of his offence, and asserting as his belief, that the only motive could have been to rid himself of a wife of which he was tried, proceeded to pass the sentence of death on the prisoner, who, though somewhat moved during certain parts of the trial, heard his doom with but little apparent emotion.

Notes