UPLAND-ROAD CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 15, 17 July 1918, Page 7

UPLAND-ROAD CASE

JUDGMENT OF THE.COURT

His Honour Mr. Justice Hoskiug gave judgment this morning in the appeal of Tilary Griffin against her conviction by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., of keeping a house of ill-fame at 48, Upland-road, Kelburn.

In giving judgment, his Honour said that by the regulations under which the charge was laid "house of ill-fame" meant any premises used for the purposes of prostitution, whether by one ■woman or more than one. Prostitution was defined by Murray's Oxford Dictionary as the practice of promiscuous unchastity for hire. To establish prostitution there must be notl only a practice of promiscuous or indiscriminate unchastity, but it must be shown to have been for hire or gain. The Court had before it materials on the subject of the appellant's means going to the question of "whether an inference of hire or gain ought to be drawn that were not submitted to the Magistrate. The charge was one of the most serious that could be made against a woman, and, apart from any rule of law, one would naturally look for evidence of a convincing character in support of it. The point to which counsel stated the appeal was specially directed was that, assuming the evidence as to the conduct of the appellant and the other woman to establish that promiscuous or indiscriminate unohastity was practiced in the house, there was no direct evidence that it was for lure that the acts of unchastity were committed. There being no direct evidence for the point, the prosecution contended, as it must, that upon the whole of the circumstances proved, the inference of hire was inevitable on a reasonable consideration of those circumstances, and it was the circumstances which were found to be proved as facts by direct evidence, and not matters which were not established, upon which one must proceed.

His Honour then dealt with, the case of Miss Elliott. She was,: he said, dismissed from the charge against her before the Magistrate on the ground that "such acts of immorality as she has committed cannot reasonably be held to amount to ... assisting in the keeping or management of the house, and that she was neither the keeper nor manager thereof." In justice to her, notwithstanding the assumption of the circumstances which the Court was invited to adopt, ho desired to state that in his judgment a conclusion that she was guilty of sexual intercourse would be wholly unjustified by the evidence. His Honour reviewed that evidence at some length, and concluded by saying: "In my judgment, upon the evidence rightly viewed, the case against Miss Elliott wholly broke down on the merits, and not merely technically, as the Magistrate would seem to imply." * EVIDENCE .REVIEWED. His Honour proceeded to review in detail and to criticise the evidence which had been given before him, a«id which had been put in. Ho remarked that with regard to the incidents in April there was no identification of the men seen in the house or coming or going, except in one case. One was left in the dark as to how often the same men came and went. That was very important from the point of view of, promiscuity. Referring to the evenings held at the house, His Honour said the neighbours described those occasions as noisy. With soldiers for the time free from camp and in good spirits, such gatherings might readily bo believed to be so. No ti'ouble seemed to have been taken by closing windows to prevent annoyance to neighbours. Bold liberties of speech appeared to have been taken on occasion. A further matter for consideration was the apparent absence of secrecy with which the doings of the house took place. As to the means of the appellant and Miss Olsen, his Honour said that the position upon the evidence (which he analysed in his judgment)' was that each of the women had a regular, income sufficient to live comfortably on without seeking more by means of prostitution, and that there was no evidence from which a conclusion could be drawn that they had money or effects required at Upiand-road beyond what that income might allow. lxhe house was only partially furnished, a,nd the furnishing was evidently simple. There was no evidence of motor hire or other expensive pleasures. There was no evidence of extravagant suppers. The married man who, with his wife, used to visit the house, described the supper as frugal. The police did not contradict that by any evidence of a lavish table. The liquor, the appellant said, was brought by the various soldiers who visited there, to be drunk for the most part by themselves. The police themselves said that the women were abstemious, and the evidence of the appellant, corroborated by others, was that she neither drinks nor smokes cigarettes: nor did the police give any evidence (that was of importance) that they saw any money pass for liquor.; nor, which was also of importance, did they report any allusidn to money for any purpose, or to any conversation on a mercenary topic. There was no evidence of undress or light attire, or of* other than ordinary costume. INFERENCES. "Now," said his Honour, "having regard to the. absence of any proved necessity to 'earn a living by practising unchastity for hire, having regard also to the absence of many indicia usually present in evidence to establish that conclusion on a charge of thi6 nature; having regard further to the evidence as to what took place in the house, and to the observations which I have made upon the evidence, I have to ask myself whether the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that unchastity ■ was committed for hire—that ie, whether such an inference can he drawn beyond reasonable doubt. I have to decide this according to my own reason, not; as a matter of law, but as a matter of fact, and, in my judgment, the circumstances, taken altogether, are reasonably susceptible of other inference than that unchastity, if it was promiscuous, was practised for hire in the house in quesi tion—in other words, i&it they are not capable of supporting an inference to the contrary beyond reasonable doubt. It follows, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed, and the appellant discharged from custody. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey. for the Crown, said that as his Honour had found that the house was not a house of ill-fame he •did not propose to go on with the case of Winifred Olsen.

His Honour 6aid that her appeal would also be allowed, and she would be discharged from custody.