CHARGES AGAINST LEANING.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 108, 10 May 1927, Page 9

CHARGES AGAINST LEANING.

ACCUSED UNDER CROSSEXAMINATION.

DENIAL OF GUILT.

CASE CONTINUES TO-DAY.

The hearing was continued at the criminal sessions yesterday afternoon of the case in which Ernest Edward Leaning, bootmaker, of Queen treet, Auckland, was accused of an indecent assault on a young man. The court was crowded in the space allotted to the public.

After a long sitting, during the course of which prisoner was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr. V. R. Meredith (Crown Prosecutor) the case was adjourned until to-day, Mr. Justice Herdman instructing the jury to be very careful not to discuss the matter with any outsidf person.

Accused, who was represented by Mr. G. P. Finlay, admitted that the young man went into his premises on the two occasions alleged, but the visitor was drunk. He gave him a cup of strong tea on the second occasion, and lowered a light which the other said was hurting his eyes. The young man asked to be examined for hernia, and witness, as a maker of surgical trusses, did examine him.

Mr. Meredith: If, as you say, the youth was drunk, why did you keep him in your shop? You surely did not need to entertain a drunken man; why didn't you get rid of him straight away. Leaning: I didn't want him to make a scene.

Mr. Meredith: Wouldn't there be more likelihood of a "scene," as you call it, if you continued to keep the man inside instead of telling him to get away home to bed?—l wanted him to get better before he left.

With regard to certain statements which it was alleged he made to a detective, accused said he signed the statement, but was excited and did not realise what was in it.

Evidence of her having been on the premises at the time of the first alleged offence, was given by Ada Leaning, wife of the accused. When her husband joined her upstairs later he appeared to be quite natural, she said. As a result of something her husband said to her at breakfast the following morning,.she expected a young man in on the Friday for a surgical belt, and some gum boots. On the Friday evening there was no suggestion that the accused should not go out with witness, according to their usual practice. The complainant visited the shop at 8.45 o'clock, and it was\obvious that he had been drinking. He was also chewing in a "most disgusting manner." The accused suggested that complainant should go as it was after hours, but the young man asked if he could stay a while. Witness subsequently went upstairs, and left the accused dealing with the young man. Feminine Equipment. When a visitor to the house came upstairs, and asked for accused's coat, she was not aware that detectives were on the premises. In regard to the feminine equipment found in Leaning's coat pocket, witness pointed out that her hueband frequently carried puffs, shoe horns and scissors for her, especially when she went out for the day. She rarely carried a bag. When witness saw her husband at the police station on the Friday evening, he was deathly pale, the shock of the allegations having been bo terrible. Her husband said to her that he had been got to sign a statement, and he did not know what was in it. Mary Jane Frederick, sister of the previous witness gave corroborative evidence in respect to the happenings on the Thursday evening. Robert Callagham, of Ponsonby, said he he was in company with the complainant till about 6.30 o'clock on the Friday evening. During the day they visited the Queen's Head, Market and Carpenters' Arms Hotels, and the complainant became so talkative and argumentative that they were later refused drinks. "Mixed His Drinks." His trouble was that he had mixed his drinks, at the third switching over to double-headed whiskies. The following day witness met the complainant, and he said; "The man has been caught." Mr. Meredith: Did you know what he referred to when he said that ?—Yes. Had he mentioned it before?— Yes! He mentioned that something had happened to him of an indecent nature. Witness added that the complainant was drunk, when he and his nephew (who had also been in the party in the afternoon), left him. Mr. Meredith: How did you get home ? —In a tram car. And you were sober?— Absolutely sober. And your nephew?— Absolutely sober! I see it is always the other chap who is absolutely drunk.—Not always. In this case it was? —Yes. Witness explained that both he and his nephew were not drunk because they had been ill earlier in the day. (Laughter.)

Mr. Meredith: Do you always get rid of your load at the fifth?— No.

You were not in form that day!— The pace was too fast for me. (Laughter.)

Witness intimated that the complainant had done the bulk of the paying for the drinks.

Harold H. Preston gave evidence as to the complainant's condition on the Friday evening, while James A. Colquhoun, detailed the movements of Leaning, his wife and friends on the previous evening.

Rev. Cecil A. Watson, of St. Paul's, and Arthur E. Bagnall, explained the lighting arrangements in Leaning's shop, an inspection having been made last evening. They concurred in the view that anything in the nature of exposure would be readily visible.

Called by the prosecution, Senior Sergeant Edwards and Chief Detective Cummings said that the complainant was quite sober on the Friday evening, when the allaged assault occurred.

Mr. Finlay expressed a desire that the jury should inspect the accused's premises at the conclusion of counsel's addresses. He thereupon proceeded with his own address, which was not finished at the luncheon adjournment.