After slightly more than an hour's deliberation, a three-man, nine-woman Supreme Court jury yesterday acquitted a 38-year-old St. George's man accused of a serious sexual assault on his wife.

The majority decision came after a week of testimony from more than ten witnesses. According to the jury forewoman, ten members of the panel voted for acquittal after receiving instructions from Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux.

The charges stemmed from an incident said to have taken place at the couple's home in May, 1995 in the final days of their marriage -- days of argument, harsh words and accusations of adultery.

According to the complainant, who had planned to divorce her husband and move to her mother's house on the day in question, they had an argument and her husband became angry and verbally abusive before grabbing her and sexually assaulting her.

Taking the stand in his own defence, the accused said his wife at the time threatened to "get him'' for interfering in an extra-marital affair he says she was having at the time.

He went on to tell the Court how she seduced him and subsequently attacked him.

He claims his wife only accused him of serious sexual assault after they had sex -- which he says she initiated -- and fought. In taking the court through his story, the accused described himself as a "non-violent person''.

In his closing argument yesterday, defence attorney Juan Wolffe peppered his review of the testimony with the complainant's alleged promise to "get'' her husband. He said the woman had fabricated the allegation against him in revenge for his interference in her extra-marital affairs.

"She got what she wanted, didn't she?'' he said to the jury and went on to describe her as "evasive and rude'' on the witness stand.

"She promised to get him,'' Mr. Wolffe said as he pointed to his client in the dock, "and she got him.'' Crown Counsel Charlene Scott described Mr. Wolffe's analysis of the evidence as "highly unlikely''.

"It's a soap opera plot,'' she said of the defendant's version of events.

"How realistic is it to claim that a woman who has a bitter argument with her husband one day, will suddenly want to `come on' to him the next day? "How realistic is it to say a woman would then go through the pain of waiting two years to stand in court and tell a story like this, to discuss her sexual history with the accused in open court, just to have revenge?'' According to Ms Scott the jury had only to decide one thing; whether or not, on the 29th of May 1995, the accused did or did not force his wife to have sex without her consent.

"There was no consent here,'' she said.