TE KAHA CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 11876, 22 February 1933, Page 2

TE KAHA CASE

INDECENT ASSAULT ON GIRl!

YOUTH FOUND GUILTY Following ..a retirement of half an hour, tlie jury brought in a verdict' of guilty on a charge of indecently assaulting a- Maori girl, aged 15, at Te.lvaba on January 2, brought against Kurei' Kingi, 18, in the Supreme Court before His Honor, Mr Justice Bkir yesterday. Tho jury recommended leniency on account of: prisoner’s youth, and; on a further charge of a’ssault with intent to commit rape, found accused not guilty. The prisoner, who had been committed for trial from Opotiki, pleaded not guilty to both charges. Mr. F. W. Nolan prosecuted and Mr. 7J. S. Wauchop appeared for accused. w

, The following jury was empanelled-: William J. M.aoGibbon (foreman), James McCoy, Arthur F. .Langrijdgo, Jack T. Skcet, Walter R. Seymour, Albert Hopps, Ernest B. IfoiTest; Robert B. Scott, George Lyiiskcy, William McDonald, junr., Alfred J. Cox and Bertram S. Lewis. ■ ’ -- •

Complaiiuuit, a Maori girl aged 15, stated that on tho date of the alleged offonco she returned to her brother's house froiii sports at To Kahn and changed into a pair of trousers to do the milking. Site went outside and just then accused arrived. Tie went inside and when she followed later he was lying on a bed. Another person there departed, leaving witness and accused alone in the house. She secured sticks for a fire and asked accused for matches, but ho did not reply. Then she felt in his pockets for matches, hut found none. Accusedthen got off tlie bod and closed t-iic door, afterwards, faking hold of her and putting he.r on the bed. Witness remonstrated, asking him to let her go, but he refused and pulled portion of her clothes off. she. in the meantime. -struggling and screaming. To

stop her calling out ,ho pushed her head under the blankets. Witness’s brother arrived on horseback and .she called mil to him. When lie looked through tlie window, accused lot her go, huh they were struggling right up to that time, ~ , 1 Cross-examined by Mr. Wauchop, witness stated that she had known accused all her life, but had never lived at tho same house with him. Accused was her uncle. When he caught hold of her first she did not worry, as they had wrestled together previously. The girl’s brother stated that, on his way back from the sports ground, Tie called at his brother’s house. Witness was riding a horse and as he approached the house he heard the girl crying. He culled out to her as he made through the gate and she replied “MBuit?” in a rather • muffled voice. Witness looked through the window of the-house and saw the girl and accused on the bed. When he called out they sat up and gave him the impression they had been struggling.

■ Continuing after the luncheon adjournment, witness stated that, when he first looked through the window, his sister was adjusting her clothing. When she came out she was crying and she told him that accused had her on the bed aud would not let her go. Witness spoke to accused about it and lie said that it was only in fun. Asked why she should be crying, accused repeated that it was “only through a bit of fun.”

To Mr. Wauchop, witness stated that he had not heard his sister screaming, and when he called out to her she replied simply “What?”, saying nothing about being interfered with. Previously tlioir aunt had warned his sister about her conduct with men.

A sister-in-law of complainant at. whose place the latter lived, stated that, after the sports on tlie day of the alleged offence, she sent accused to her home with two kits-of food. He asked her who would be there, and she replied that complainant would be, tlie only one, though probably she would be out milking. Witness returned home soon after aceused had reached there, and noticed the girl standing by the' gate crying. To witness’s .inquiry, the girl replied that accused had inter fered with her. Witness went inside and found accused still' on the beu. She asked what ho .had done to-the girl and lie replied lie had merely been holding her in fun. She asked accused to go out of the house, hut lie refused, saying that he had a right to treat complainant as lie had done. Accused further said that ho didn’t see wiiy he should go out of' the house when lie had not done anything wrong to the girl. Witness went out to the girl who explained what accused had done to her. Going inside again, witness to,ld accused to get out.. -'.Accused started to swear, so she caught him by the arm and pulled him away from the bed, then pushed him- outside when lie still refused to go. ' Cross-examined by Mr. Wauchop, witness said that accused repeatedly affirmed he had dime nothing wrong to the girl. Between the time witness spoke to the girl and when she went inside.' accused had 1 had ample lime to remove signs of any struggle, yet he had nob done so.

Constable Rawiri Puliiraka Hira, stationed at To Kaha, described the house whore 'it was alleged the offence occurred. On January 12, lie interviewed accused who made a signed statement in which ■ he claimed that ho had been lying on the bed for ten minutes before -the girl came inside. When she felt in h,i-$ pockets for matches, ran the statement, fie caught hold of her hands in fun, releasing her when her brother arrived. When .the girl', then v/ent outside, she was not crying. As far- as.witness c.0u.1.1 find out, the girl boro .a good'-.char-acter. This concluded tlie evidence for the Crown, aud Mr. Wnnehop .intimated that none would he .called for tho defence. 1 V Mr. Wauchop contended tliat there was entire lack; of corroboration (as the testimony''ofThe other witnesses -was

simply ato the girl’s statements; after the :happenings. Frightehed/of being punished; for playing to around with .boys! was it not a natural tiling • ivheiv caugkt on .the“.hod by.; her br.°-. tiier, that abb; should'ccuehct-a . stojy such. as slic told in court There Vote discrepancies in the girl’i evidence, such as her position- on the bed, and that cast doubt on her whole testimony. Summing up, His Honor pointed out that such cases as-this one generally depended solely on tlie facts. Ho defined the two charges at some length and -stressed that the had produced no evidence to show.he believed the girl was 16 years of age, thereby invoking the special defence open to minors charged with... such offences. Imputations had been made against tlie girl’s moral chaiaetcr, but It should be noticed that-the local constable who gave evidence knew nothing against her. 11 the jury believed the girl had invited accused to interfere with her, then this would .constitute a defence to tlie first charge, though not to the second. The jury retired at 4 p.m. and returned half an hour later with a verdict of not guilty oil the first count, hut guilty on. tlie second with a recommendation of leniency on account of the prisoner’s youth. .Tlie prisoner was remanded for sentence later in. the sittings.