"THE GIRL IN THE TAXI."

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 134, 13 July 1914, Page 7

"THE GIRL IN THE TAXI."

CASE CONCLUDED.

BOTH ACCUSED COMMITTED.

ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL.

Again the Magistrate's Court was crowded this morning "when the "Taxi Case" came up for hearing, before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. No further evidence was taken, but both counsel, Mr Cassidy and'Mr Donnelly, addressed the Court at length.

Counsel contented themselves with discussing the charge against the two accused. This was as follow: —

Everyone who with intent to endanger or annoy any person administers or causes to be taken by such person any poison or other noxious thing is liable: (a). If the life of any person is endangered or grievous bodily harm is caused to any person thereby, to ten years' imprisonment with hard labour; (b) In other cases, .although no

injury is caused thereby, to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. Mr Cassidy appeared for Heade, Mr

Donnelly for Salt, and Sub-Inspector M'Kinnon for the police. "I have thought to submit to you, your Worship,"- said Mr Donnelly, "that there are.two propositions to be considered. There has been no offence proved against the man Salt under Section 203. Now there is a misconception ar to Seetion 203 that should be removed."

Mr Donnelly went on io say that the man was charged with administering a noxious thing, whisky, to a girl under the age of 15 years. There had been a great deal of interest in the case, and from the newspaper reports the public would think that it was an offence to give whisky to a girl of the age mentioned. ' "irkis was not the law. The section .hail nothing to do with sex or age. It was a monstrous absurdity to think that there had been any offence. A!girl of fifteen could be given whisky just as safely under the law as a girl of nineteen or a man of forty. There was some case up north, an undefined ease in, an undefined place where a prosecution had been brought successfully by the police against a person who had given beer to an infant under -five or six. years of age. However, that case was of an entirely different nature. KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DRINKING. Both girls knew something about ■whisky. The girl Williams had stated that she had a small ''nip of whisky." &he knew-how it was drunk and what tccall a drink of whisky. She knew it was not drunk by the cup-full or by the jug-full. ■■ She described the drink like afty old toper would in a bar-room. Everyone knew that a wine glassful was three tablespoonsful, and that a nip was la If a wine glass. It followed, therefore, that a nip was a tablespoonful and a half, and a small nip probably a tablespoonful. In the girl's evidence she said that she had two nips. This meant that she had two tablespoonsful in six hours, and so far as the evidence went tl is was correct. NO CRIME. If it was necessary to stop girls drinking whisky then they should put a section in the criminal code forbidding it and fixing a penalty. Unfortunately, it was not in the Act at present, and there was no offence. In the seetion under which the charge was laid there was nothing state'd about age at all, and in justice to the accused it should be made clear else when, they went to a jury, if they did, the jury might have the idea so firmly fixed in their 'minds that th.3y might think* that the offence lay in giving drink to a girl under the age stated. The girl herself in -Rolleston Avenue had completely exonerated Salt. She had said, "Jim Salt did nothing to me."

Mr Donnelly suggested that if the Magistrate were trying Salt by himself he felt sure that his Worship would not join himself with those people who had succumbed to hysteria with regard to this case and had demanded that something should be done to someone. THREE PROPOSITIONS. Mr Cassidy proposed to say a few words on the legal aspect. He submitted that section 2(KJ was called in the" side note "Administering poison." "Poison or any other noxious thing," said,Mr Bailey. In order to sustain the charge it must be shown (added counsel) that accused administered the thing, that it was a noxious thing, and that it was administered with intent to annoy. Not one of those three points applied to Hcade. Not a single person said Heade gave the girl any whisky, and there was not a scrap of evidence to show he did. Mr Cassidy submitted that whisky was not a noxious thing. A girl of thirteen could go into any hotel and buy a bottle of whisky, which she could take home or into the park and consume. It was absurd that .a man could be made subject to two years' imprisonment purely because he gave a girl of 15 two nips of whisky. The papers had been full of all sorts of suggestions, and he (Mr Cassidy) would say with Mr Donnelly that there was not the slightest suggestion that the offence, if any, had been a sexual one or an immoral one. ..••.. MAGISTRATE SUMS TIP.

~ Mr Bailey said that there was no evidence that Salt had given the girl the

whisky, but he was one of the party that accompanied her, and in whose company she was. He was the person with whom she was acquainted, whilst the man Heade had just been introduced to her on the day in question. This put Solt in a different position to the ordinary cab-driver hired off the stand. The girl had been given the whisky by ,someone, and although the section did not stipulate any particular age it was quite clear that it was dangerous to give a girl of this age, and of a particularly nervous temperament, any such thing as whisky. There could be no doubt, if the story of the girl Williams was to be believed, that she was intoxicated when at Kaiapoi, and there was evidence that she was given whisky later. It was a much more serious offence to give whisky to a child than an adult. Both accused would be committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in a surety of £IOO for each of the aecused.