EVIDENCE OBJECTED TO

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 73, 28 March 1922, Page 7

EVIDENCE OBJECTED TO

A CONVICTION QUESTIONED

JURY'S VERDICT UPHELD,

The Court of Appeal, his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, and j their Honours Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Hosking, Mr. Justice Stringer, and Mr. Justice Adanis, was engaged yesterday afternoon with the consideration of a case stated by his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking in regard to the conviction of Alfred Bell,'a marine engineer, who was indicted at the last sitting of the Criminal Court on a charge of having indecently assaulted a female pas-~ senger on the ferry steamer Maori. It was alleged that Bell, who was also a passenger from Lyttelton to Wellington, had entered the cabin occupied by the complainant and two other women and had committed the assault by placing his hand on the complainant as she lay in her berth. The defence raised during the first trial was that the alleged assault was merely the blundering act of a drunkfen man searching for his, berth, and at the second trial three points of defence were raised in addition to that that there was insufficiency of' proof of identity; that the complainant had not been assaulted at all, but had merely imagined that an assault had been committed; that i[ ah a»sa.ult had been committed the accused was not 'the person guilty; and that if arT assault had been committed by the accused it was but the blundering act of a drunken man. The first jury was unable to agree, but the second trial resulted in a conviction against Bell. ■ . . Counsel for the defense, Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, had raised objection to evidence'as to Bell's movements after the moment of the alleged assault, at about 11 p.m., to Ihe statement of another woman passenger who had complained that a man had entered her cabin at midnight, and to the statements ghmn by stewards who had entered accused's .cabin following the complaint made by the second woman. His Honour noted the objection, remanding the prisoner for sentence, and the question for the. Court was as to whether the evidence objected to had been rightly admitted, and, consequently, whether the jury's verdict should stand. The Solicitor-General, Mr. W. C. MacGregor, K.C., appeared for the Crown; and Mr. Mazengarb for Bell. .Particular objection, said Mr. Mazengarbj was taken to the evidence of the second woman, Mrs. S., who said that someone had been in her cabin, but was unable to identify accused in that respect. That evidence, said counsel, tended tb prejudice the case, though it v proved nothing. Mr. Justice Hosking said that it appeared tb him that' evidence of a combination of the facts that a man had been in the cabin occupied by Mrs. S;, 'and that when the bell was rung accused was seen running away, should certainly go before the jury. Mr.. Mazengarb cited an English ruling to the effect that a man may not be convicted of one crime by proving that he had been guilty .of another. The Chief Justice said that he did not think that it was necessary for the Solicitor-General to reply, for in his opinion Mr. Mazengarb had not shown reason why the conviction should be set aside. The evidence of Mrs. S., plus that of the stewards, was, he considered; rightly put before the jury, since it went to show that Bell's statements that he had not been out of his cabin, and that he was very dunk, were' untrue. The other members of the Bench concurred with that view, and the jury's verdict was Confirmed.