Supreme Court At Greymouth: Trial Of Taylorville Man

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 February 1949, Page 2

Supreme Court At Greymouth: Trial Of Taylorville Man

The first sitting of the Supreme Court at Greymouth for 1949 opened this morning, before his Honor Mr justice Northcroft. It is unlikely to be a prolonged session, as there is only one criminal case and it is possible that two of the three civil damages actions originally set down will not come on for hearing. “There is only one matter 1 'for attention by you today,” said his Honor in the charge to the grand jury. “It is a series of charges of indecent assault on females.” His Honor added that three children, aged nine, seven and five years, all of one family, were involved in the charges. New Evidence Called

Since the depositions were taken, added his Honor, there had been evidence from another child regarding similar conduct alleged to have been practised by the accused on another occasion. The three children, jn fact, said that the same thing had happened before. The accused, when interviewed by the police, denied the allegations and said that the children were frequently about his home and were a nuisance to him. ® The value of the evidence of the children, and of their mother, would be subject to challenge, continued his Honor, but he suggested that was a matter which might well be left to the common jury. If the grand jurors took the story of the children as they told it, there seemed to be a prima facie case against the accused. “On the facts as I have, put them to you I do not think you will have any difficulty in finding a true bill,” said his Honor. “If, of course, you think the children are so untruthful that the common jury may very well 'disbelieve them, then you will find no bill, but if you think it is proper that the accused should be put upon his trial, without any decision as to whether he is guilty or not guilty, then you will find a true bill.”

True Bill Returned

After a retirement of 18 minutes, the grand jury returned a true bill against John Cherrie, aged 62, a widower and a mine-enginedriver of Taylorville, on three charges of indecent assault on females. The charges related- to alleged incidents at Taylorville on January 26 last. Cherrie, who was represented by Mr E. B. E. Taylor, of Christchurch, pleaded not guilty to each of the three charges. The prosecution was conducted by Mr F. A. Kitchingham, Crown prosecutor at Greymouth.

Before the common jury was empannelled, Mr Taylor intimated to his Honor that there was a matter in connection with the case which he desired to discuss in chambers, relating to the admissibility of certain evidence. His Honor: This is a proper trial and public hearing and it is not desirable that a matter should be taken in chambers unless there is a very good reason. Your purpose can be served by having the jury retire. “I think not,” replied his Honor when Mr Kitchingham suggested that, in view of the tender years of the children, the court might be cleared. An application by Mr Taylor for the witnesses to be excluded from the Court was granted.

The following common jury was empanelled.—Messrs J. P. McGeady, C. A. Douglas, J. R: Cherry, J. M. Jefferies, J James, A. J. Wilson, E. S. Brown, R. G N Adam, G. H. Dalziel, W. D. Jones, E.'r. Gifford, E. Airey. Mr Wilson was chosen as foreman. Four prospective jurors were challenged by Mr Taylor and two were ordered to stand down by Mr Kitchingham.

Admissability Issue On Mr Kitchingham’s suggestion, his Honor agreed that the question of the admissability of evidence should be resolved before the opening address and his Honor directed that the jury should temporarily retire. Mr Taylor said that when the depositions were taken in the lower court, evidence was given only by the mother, the three children involved and two policemen. Last Friday he (Mr Taylor! received from Mr Kitchingham notice that it was intended to call a further witness, a young girl, apparently to try to establish “system” as far as the accused’s actions were concerned. Quoting legal authorities, Mr Taylor submitted that the suggestion that the evidence was going to establish “system” could not be sustained in the present case—that it could be most prejudicial to the prisoner and was not admissable.

Mr Kitchingham quoted authorities in support of his contention that the new evidence was admissable, stating that it was put forward on two grounds, to prove “system” and, more strongly, to rebut the defence of innocent association. Evidence Admitted

His Honor said it seemed to him that, although the precis of the proposed new evidence was bare of detail, there was sufficient similarity with the other evidence to justify its admissibility, both because of the manner in which the incident allegedly happened and because the accused had said that the children frequently visited his place and were a nuisance. It did tend to rebut the defence. His Honor said that there was one other matter which might be discussed before the case proceeded—the extent to which the mother of the children could testify. The evidence of the mother in such cases was available if she did not extort information by questioning or, in other words, if there was a reasonable degree of spontaneous disclosure. However, he would like to hear Mr Kitchingham on the matter. Mr Kitchingham submitted that the matter was covered by a legal authority which he quoted.

Questioning Of Children His Honor said it appeared that the mother had further interrogated the two older children after the youngest child had told her certain things and it seemed to be getting very close to the point where the court should exclude the mother’s evidence. However, the matter might be got over if Mr Kitchingham, questioned the mother to a certain .point and then he. (his Honor) could interpose if necessary. Aftei" Mr Kitchingham had briefly reviewed the Crown case, the hearing of evidence was commenced. The first witness was the mother of the three girls involved, but his Honor ruled as fnadmissabie what she was allegedly told by the two older children, as it was obtained by questioning of the children.

The eldest child involved, aged nine years, was giving her evidence as to alleged happenings in the accused’s home when the court adjourned for lunch. '