SERIOUS CHARGES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20492, 28 February 1941, Page 9

SERIOUS CHARGES

SUPREME COURT TRIAL GIRL’S AGE IN POINT OFFER OF MARRIAGE Three charges- of. unlawful knowledge were brought against Walter James Thompson, aged 20, when he appeared for trial in the Supreme Court . to-day before Mr. Justice Johnston apd jury. . The charges related to dates in March, July and September last year. Mr. L. T. Burnard appeared for the accused. The jury comprised Frapcis H. G. Galvin, foreman, Vivian Lowe, Walter W. Owen,, Alfred O’Donnell, John W. Clark, Robert J. Morrison, Norman H. Garland, James Wright, Patrick J. Sweeney, Douglas M. Hammond, Robert Forsyth and Latimer R. Owen. The Crown prosecutor, Mr. F; W. Nolan, said that there was no dispute regarding the commission of acts complained of and the only point at issue was whether the accused knew the girl to be under 16 years of age. The accused had admitted paternity of the child, which .was born in December. The accused had wished to marry the girl, but was told by the parents that the girl was too young and that they must wait before they became engaged. The girl, a Maori, gave evidence that she was 1C years old on November 5 last and she desex-ibed her relations with the accused. The grandfather of the previous witness stated that he had told the accused before he .bought a ring that the girl was. too young for marriage. Both the girl and the accused had stayed in the house at nights, but the witness did not know that anything was taking place. Evidence of Parents The mother of the girl stated that she told the accused that the girl was only 14J years at the time the accused asked for the parents’ permission to marry the girl. In reply to Mr. Burnard, the witness that she wrote to the accused, who was absent from the district, that she was tired of waiting for him to send money for the baby’s clothes and would give him seven days to make payment, otherwise the matter would be placed in the hands of a solicitor.

Mr. Burnard: A fortnight afterwards the matter was in the hands of police?—Yes. And it would not have been if the accused had paid up?—Oh, yes, it would.

The girl’s father stated that the accused had admitted paternity.

To Mr. Buraard, the witness said he had not threatened the accused with a view to securing money from him. Constable G. Waple stated that the accused made a statement that when he first met the girl she told him she was 17 years of age. George Albert Thompson, father of the accused, giving evidence for the defence, said that the girl’s father told the witness that the girl was 17 years okl. Mrs. Helen . Maudq Thompson, mother of the accused, also stated that she believed the girl to be 17 years of age. , Addressing the jury, Jytr, Burnard submitted that there \yas some element of doubt regarding the girl’s age, and there were reasons why the, accused should believe that the girl was over 16 years. - (Proceeding)