DENIAL UPHELD.

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

DENIAL UPHELD.

A DIFFICULT WITNESS.

CASE FOB RETRIAL.

JURYMAN OBJECTED TO,

William Jenkins (65), farmer, of Glenfield, near Birkenhead, appeared for retrial on charges of committing a serious offence upon a girl of 14. The case had occupied some hours in the other Court, and the jury had been unable to agree. Before Mr. Justice Stringer to-day a new jury was empanelled. Exercising the privilege which the law allows, accused challenged a number of the jurymen, and these stood down, others being sworn in. There is no compulsion upon a prisoner to state reasons for such objections. Mr. S. L. Paterson prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. J. J. Sullivan defended. At the Police Court, and again in Mr. Justice Herdman's Court, the girl concerned in the case repudiated certain statements which she was alleged to have made and signed to. These statements incriminated accused. Permission was given to the Crown counsel, to treat the girl as a hostile witness. To-day the girl persisted in her repudiation of the statements she is alleged to have made. Mr. Paterson: Do you remember making a statement to a detective officer? Witness: No. Did he ask you certain questions?— Yes. His Honor: Did you answer those questions truthfully? Witness: He put down what I didnt spy. Mr. Pr.'..; jon (showing witness three sheets of signed statements): Did you sign this, and this, and thisT—Yes, but it isn't true. Mr. Sullivan: Did you deny these statements at the Police Court WYes. You now say that Mr. Jenkins never, at any time, interfered with you?— Yes. And that statement is true?— Yes. Witness, reminded that she was on oath, eaid she had never, either before the Police Court proceedings or subsequently, been approached by Mr. Jenkins or Mrs. Jenkins with the request to withdraw what she was alleged to have said in the first instance. "All These Lies." His Honor questioned the girl with regard to statements she was said to have made to Dr. Craven. She said the statements were lies. Hie Honor: What mads you tell the doctor all these lies? Witness (in a low voice): I don't know. Were vou told bv anybody to tell them?— No.

Mr. Sullivan told the jury the defence was a complete denial that Jenkins had, at any time, either committed or attempted an offence on the girl. It was originally alleged that Mrs. Jenkins came into the shed and found accused misconducting himself with the girl. Mrs. Jenkins would be called as a witness, and she would say that only a few seconds elapsed between her husband leaving the house and being found in the shed, so there could not possibly have been time for such an offence to be committed. Evidence was given by accused, who said he had never made any suggestion of impropriety to the girl. He admitted the authenticity of a signature on a statement he had signed, but said Detective McWhirter told him to sign it. Accused had not his spectacles at the time, and he could not read what was written. "Never Trust a Policeman." Some amusement was caused when Jenkins said: "I was always given to understand never to trust a detective or a policeman." His Honor: When you signed this statement, you knew that there was a charge against you? Witness: No, I didn't. But you knew that the girl had made certain statements with regard to you. —Yes. Well, that amounts to the same thing. You were very suspicious of policemen, you say?— Yes. Then why did you sign this statement?— The detective induced me to do so. He made himself bo plausible. I see. He made himself so plausible that you forgot your suspicions of policemen? (Laughter.) Mrs. Jenkins said she had never found her husband misconducting himself with the child. He had made no threat to the child. A witness was called to testify to the integrity and honesty of the accused. His Honor Temarked, however, that those qualities had nothing to do with his morality. (Proceeding.)