Person Page - 2182

Extracted from "The Register", Adelaide, 22 July 1920
     Benjamin Johns (54), defended by Mr. J. J. Daly, denied having feloniously wounded Arthur Jarman with intent to do grievous bodily harm at Virginia on June 8.
     In opening the case the Crown Prosecutor said Jarman, who lived at Virginia, worked at Salisbury. He was in the habit of going home for the week-end, but on the evening of the day in question made a surprise visit to his house. Looking through a window he saw accused talking to Mrs. Jarman. He picked up a stick, told him to get out, and struck him several blows. A shot was fired, and Jarman received a wound in a leg. It was dark, and Jarman conld not see who fired the shot. Subsequently accused said he had not meant to hit, but only to frighten Jarman.
     Evidence was given by informant in support of the opening of counsel. Dr. Steele, surgeon at the Adelaide Hospital, gave evidence of having attended Jarman on June 12. The patient was suffering from the effects of a bullet wound in the knee. It was not a serious injury.
     Sophia May Jarman, wife of informant, recounted the meeting of the accused and her husband on June 8. She said she was talking to Johns when her husband arrived home, and, without any words or explanation, the latter made a blow with a stick at accused which hit her, as she had got between the two. Her husband then hit Johns and ordered him out of the place.
     Shortly afterwards, while her husband was still adopting a threatening attitude, she saw a flash and heard the noise of a revolver shot. She did not know who fired the revolver, but it was not her husband. The latter then said he had been shot in the leg, but he would not ailow her to look at or touch the wound. She had attended to minor wounds suffered by accused as the result of having been struck by her husband's stick. She had expected there would be trouble between the two men. In crossexaminination witness said her husband was inclined to jealousy and excitability. Accused was struck several times by her husband, who was in the heat of passion. On the evening in question the two children, aged 10 and seven, were in the house with her. She was frightened that her husband would attack her during the scene.
     M.C. Murphy said when he spoke to accused about the matter the latter said that Jarman attacked him with a stick and he fired a shot into the ground to frighten him. He added that he did not intend to hit him, and had not thought he had done so.
     Accused made a statement in which he said he was visiting Mrs Jarman when her husband arrived and attacked him with a stick, hitting him several times. Thinking Mrs. Jarman would be injured, he fired off his revolver with the idea of frightening Jarman, but not to do ihim an injury. He did not know until some time afterwards that Jarman had been wounded.
     After a short retirement the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.⁴