Jury Finds Man Guilty Of Assault On Girl Of 11

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27427, 13 August 1954, Page 14

Jury Finds Man Guilty Of Assault On Girl Of 11

David George Palmer, aged 25, ai labourer, was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge that on May 1, at Cdutts Island, he assaulted a girl aged 11. Mr Justice Adams remanded Palmer in custody for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) appeared -for the Crown, and Mr H. S- Thomas for Palmer, who pleaded not guilty. The offence was alleged to have occurred on the Coutts Island road about 4 p.m. on May 1, said Mr Brown, outlining the Crown case to the jury. The girl was cycling home and passed the accused. A little further on, the chain came off her bicycle. She stopped to fix it and, while she was doing so, the accused cycled past her. The girl cycled on round a bend and just by a gate leading into a paddock she saw the accused standing at the side of the road, said Mr Brown. He rushed across to her, caught the handlebars of her bicycle, threw her to the ground, sat on her, and threatened to punch her if she did not answer his questions about who she was. He let her go, threw her bicycle into a ditch, caught hold of her again, dragged her to the paddock gate, and tried to push her over it. Just then a car came along and the accused apparently took fright, for«he jumped over the gate and disappeared behind the hedge. The car stopped and the girl was taken home, arriving there in a dishevelled and tearful condition. That was the girl’s story, said Mr Brown. A man working near the Coutts Island road that afternoon saw the accused and recognised him. This man would say that the accused positively was in this road at that time and appeared to behave in a manner. consistent with his having done something not quite, right, said Mr Brown. The police interviewed the accused and he strenuously denied the assault and also denied being on the Coutts Island road that afternoon, said Mr Brown. Mr Brown said that the police held an identification parade on May 12 and the girl immediately picked out the accused as the man who had assaulted her. Evidence on those lines was given by the girl; by the girl’s mother; by James McMillan, a farm hand, of Coutts Island; Constable G. Lithgow; Sergeant R. F. Leith; Constable E. G. Smith; and Constable W. McD. Ramage. That concluded the case for the Crown. No evidence was called by the defence. Counsel for Defence Mr Thomas, addressing the jury, said he would suggest that the story told by the girl was quite incredible. She was very young and it would be most unsafe to convict the accused if there was no corroboration of her story. If the girl had to stop and replace the chain on her bicycle she must have got oil on her hands. But there was not one word in the evidence to say she had any oil on her hands. One witness had said that there was a cle&r view half a mile up and down the road from the spot where the alleged assault occurred. Could the jury believe that a* man would take the risk of assaulting the girl and setting on her on such a road where a car could suddenly come round a corner? The evidence was that the girl and the accused knew each other. Yet the girl had said that the accused threatened to punch her if she did not tell him who she was. It was a ridiculous story. “What I suggest happened that afternoon is this,” said Mr Thomas. “The girl had been told not to be late in getting home that day. She was late and was worried, about what her

mother would say. On her way home she fell off her bicycle and was picked up by a motorist who took her home. She knew the accused and had seen him at the milk bar. To get sympathy for herself and avoid blame, she told this fantastic story.” His Honour summed up and the jury retired at 1.15 p.m., returning at 3.20 p.m. with their verdict of guilty.

CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCE JURY FINDS ACCUSED GUILTY ’ Brian William Bulman, aged 27, a presser, was found guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday by a jury on a charge that he obtained £8 16s in money from Violet Frances Lepper on October 30, 1953, by falsely representing that a cheque for £9 10s was a good and'valid one. Mr Justice Adams remanded Bulman in custody for sentence. Mr P. T. Mahon appeared for the Crown, and Mr B. McClelland for Bulman, who pleaded not guilty. The case against Bulman was that he gave Mrs Lepper a cheque he had drawn, that he represented to her that it was a valid one, and that he knew it would not be honoured by the bank, said Mr Mahon, stating the Crown case to the jury. For two or three months before October, 1953, the accused and a man named Adlam had been partners in a dry cleaning business and they had a .business bank account. Both of them signed an authority to operate the account and any cheques on the account had to be signed by both partners. Bulman lived in Sumner and dealt at Mrs Lepper’s shop there, said Mr Mahon. In October Bulman owed Mrs Lepper 14s. On October 30 he called at her shop and paid her the debt by giving her a cheque for £9 10s and he received £8 16s in change. This cheque .was drawn on the partnership’s business account and was signed by Bulman alone. Mrs Lepper banked the cheque and it was returned to her with a note saying that another signature was required. Mrs Lepper tried to get the money from the solicitors for the firm and eventually went to the police, said Mr Mahon. They interviewed the accused on March 25. He admitted that he signed the cheque, was aware that I another signature was required and 1 knew the cheque would be returned by the bank. He&made a statment saying his only r,eason for cashing the cheque was that he was short of money for domestic purposes. Evidence for the Crown was given by Mrs Violet Frances Lepper, a shop proprietor; Cyril James Adlam, a carpenter; Ronald Leighton Jarman, a bank accountant; and Detective J. S. Ashby. Counsel for Defence For the charge of false pretence to be sustained it had to be proved that when the accused tendered the cheque he knew it would not be honoured, said Mr McClelland to the jury. The evidence showed that Bulman had good reason to believe that his signature alone on a cheque was sufficient. The bank officer had said that, before October 30, the bank had held two cheques, signed by Bulman. until his partner also signed them. Knowing this had been done, Bulman expected the same course to be followed with the cheque he gave Mrs Lepper. There was, therefore, no false pretence. The jury retired at 4.15 p.m. and returned at 5.10 p.m. with their verdict of guilty.