YOUTH OK TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 19549, 6 May 1927, Page 2

YOUTH OK TRIAL

SERIOUS CHARGES EVIDENCE FOR PROSECUTION In the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon the charge of carnal knowledge Mid alternatively of indecent assault of a girl 15 years of age against the youth James Robert Stanley Sutherland was continued. His Honor Mr Justice Reed and a jury heard the case. Mr F. B. Adams was the prosecutor, and Mr C. J. L. White represented accused. Dr William Evans, police surgeon, cave evidence that tne girl had been brought to his surgery by a lady from the Caversham Industrial Home. His evidence of examination was that interference had occurred.

, The girl, who is now an inmate of the Industrial Home, said she had known accused for eight or nine months. In September ho had commenced visiting her horns and taking her out. She detailed the arrangements with Sutnerland to return to tho house after he had supposedly left between 9 and 9.30 p.m., and subsequent happenings. Sutherland knew that she attended school last year end her ago. which she had told him shortly after tho companionship commenced. He gave her presents on her fifteenth birthday, Cross-examined by Mr White, witness said she was not very happy at homo. Her mother was always kind to her. Sutherland had asked her, iu her mother’s presence, to keep company with him, and her mother had approved. After the night of December 15 she continued to keep company with the accused, with her mother’s knowledge and approval. The clock had been placed in her loom on only one occasion previously by her mother. She bad denied that interference had occurred when questioned by her mother on the morning of the discovery. She had later repeated the denial to Miss O’Shea, who, like her mother, was not quite satisfied. Miss O’Shea questioned her, and she admitted that Sutherland had committed the offences.

The mother produced a certificate showing the girl’s age as 15 cn December (i. Accused visited the house frequently after September. On the night of December 15 accused had left the house at 9.30. Her daughter’s custom was not to lock the door, hut on the following morning it was locked. She had gone round to the window, and bad jeceived a great shock on pulling up the blind to find tho two asleep. Roth her daughter and Sutherland admitted that they had been in the bedroom all night. After witness had pointed out the seriousness of tho offence Sutherland promised he would not see tho girl again. Sutherland had had tea at the house on the girl’s birthday, and ho knew her correct age. Accused told witness he was leaving Dunedin on January 5. Ho had seen the girl again without witness’s consent. _ She had nearly always put the clock in tho bedroom, but never through the window.

To Mr White: She had never given her consent to the boy and girl “ walking out,” but she approved of the boy visiting the homo. She had no objection to boys and girls being friendly if they could look after themselves. Her daughter was a child, and consequently might have imagined that consent had been given. Mr White: It was not a very proper thing to allow a schoolgirl to keep company.

His Honor: Ido not agree with that. I think that if you can got ordinary decent hoys and girls together it is the best thing in the world for them. Agnes Eliza O’Shea, Child Welfare officer and in charge of the Girls’ Home at Caversham, said she had called at tho house, at the mother’s request, on February 21. Accused was also there. Witness had asked the boy to cease following the girl, who, since the acquaintance, had not obeyed her mother, Sutherland had said he had done no harm, and witness had demanded if ha did not consider spending the night with the girl was harm. Sutherland replied: “What of it?” and later mentioned the girl’s ago as fifteen years. She warned him to keep away _ from the house, as he was making himself liable to prosecution, to which Sutherland replied “Persecute me! Persecute mel” Accused promised not to see the girl again. To Mr White: The girl had first denied but had later admitted the offences taking place, after witness had told her that unless she obeyed her mother she would be taken to the home. Witness’s sole object at first in interviewing the accused was to warn him away. Later, she found that Sutherland was still going with tho girl, who was then removed to the home.

Mr White; Do you know it is considered very wrong in principle for a police officer to cross-examine? His Honor: Who said so? Mr Adams; A police officer is perfectly entitled to cross-examine. His Honor: Are you suggesting that this lady is not speaking the truth? Mr White: I suggest she is very biased.

His Honor repeated his question. Mr White; In certain respects. I think it was very improper for this woman . “I do not think so,” interjected His Honor. “it only shows that she was keen on saving this girl.” Mr White: Getting this information did not help in saving this girl. His Honor: Yes, it did. By conversation it was impressed upon him to leave her alone. Witness; I think I am entitled to know where Mr White thinks I have stepped aside from the truth, Mr White: Did you give the police information ? __ Witness: Yes. Did you threaten accused?—No. He states you said “ You will get three years for that.” Is that true? Absolutely false. I do not know what the sentence is for this crime. Detective Farquharson said he had arrested the accused on warrant on March 2. Defendant made no reply when the warrant was read over. This concluded the Crown’s case, and the court adjourned till 10 a.m. today.