UNUSUAL CASE

Evening Star, Issue 22618, 9 April 1937, Page 1

UNUSUAL CASE

MOTHER PARTY TO OFFENCE BROW-BEATEN BY DAUGHTER SUPREME COURT SENTENCES An unusual case came before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court this morning, ■ when Myrtle Grundy, 42 years of age, appeared for sentence on a charge of abetting the commission of a crime of carnally knowing, a .girl under the age of 16, the latter being the daughter of the prisoner. Mr J. P. Ward, who appeared for the prisoner, said the papers before the court gave a very unfavourable impression of the woman, the probation officer recommending a term of imprisonment. While counsel admitted that it was a bad type of case, one that fortunately did not often come before the court, he had discovered some facts which put a different complexion on the matter. The, woman was of very low mentality, and one could well understand the probation officer’s difficulty in eliciting the facts. At a very early ago she left school after having passed only the second standard. She then assisted her foster mother in the upbringing of a number of State children, and . for five years after that was employed at the Nurses’ Home at Wellington. She'was of a low intelligence and had difficulty in understanding the meaning of words. She appeared to have led a good life, and was married to a man on post-war duty at Trentham camp. Later her husband died at Riverton, and left her with two young girls. The girl, in the case was aged 15, but looked as if she were about 18. The girl appeared to have entirely dominated the mother in the control of the home at Riverton. It seemed almost inexplicable that a mother should have allowed a young man into the home to sleep with a daughter aged 15 years of age. The young man at one time lived next door to .the accused, and was (keeping company with the girl. He came to the house late one night and said he had a disagreement with his father. The mother offered to make a bed for him, and when she saw the girl near him told her to go away. Then came the time when he moved in with the girl, unknown at first to the mother; The woman was brow-beaten by the girl, who would not see a doctor when it was suggested to her. The foolish woman accepted the girl’s statement that there were not enough blankets i.n the hougse to provide a separate bed for the young man and' that everything waa.,all. right. .J»dging...by„.the mentality of the woman it seemed reasonable to assume that she accepted the statements of the girl. Thus she became an unwilling party to the young man coming to the house from time to time. The man. intended to marry the girl when she became 16 years of age. Counsel respectfully suggested that the woman, in view of her low intelligence and mentality, should not be sent to prison. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said the case was one presenting some very peculiar features. While the police were j ustifiedi in taking action, there appeared to be considerable doubt whether the woman should have pleaded guilty to the charge. She had voluntarily pleaded guilty to an offence properly laid against her, .hut upon the facts as in the depositions it appeared that there were grave doubts whether any criminal offence was (really committed, by her. At any rate, it was certain, that upon the facts no jury would! convict. The worst that could be said was that she provided the hospitality .of her home to the young man. It might be said that what occurred was the result of her weakness of mind l and not of criminal intent. While the probation officer was a reliable man, it seemed that it would be going too far to act upon his suggestion that the prisoner should) be imprisoned. Even assuming that the woman did commit a crime, the circumstances were scarcely such as to warrant punishment of that sort. The result was that he found himself supporting the arguments of counsel for the prisoner. His Honour said that the conduct of the prisoner, if she were quite normal; in allowing such a state of things to continue to exist would call for very strong censure. The. probation officer reported that her mentality was not strong, and that probably accounted for the toleration of what in any other person would not be tolerated. She had pleaded guilty, but he could not disregard the fact that the evidence in bis view did not support the charge, which involved actual instigation or incitement of the offence. The position had been put with perfect fairness by the Crown, and he adopted the opinion expressed by the Crown solicitor that had the facts gone before a jury there would have been acquittal. His Honour then ordered the release of the prisoner, to come up for sentence any time if called upon within two years.