ALLEGATIONS OF ASSAULT

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 25 May 1932, Page 10

ALLEGATIONS OF ASSAULT

HAWERA MAN ON TRIAL SERIOUS CHARGES PREFERRED | SUPREME COURT HEARING Charges alleging; attempted rape and assault with intent to commit rape and of indecent assault were preferred against George Roberts, of Hawera, in the New, Plymouth Supreme Court yesterday. Accused pleaded not guilty to all charges. In outlining the ease the Crown Prosecutor said the man was in business as a carrier, and he also did some work as a bailiff. The girl in the case was at the time about 19 years of age and first met the accused on April 3. She was related to a Mrs. Hannah and her family, who at that time were away from their home in Hawera. On that day the girl had been to the house of her relatives, knowing where she could get the key, and on leaving had some difficulty in 'locking one of the doors. The accused lived next door, and lie, seeing the difficulty, came over and offered to help her. He oiled the lock and attended to the fastening of the door. They then went to leave the place, and lie suggested she might like to see his conservatory, and they went into his place for that purpos?. They subsequently went into the house, the girl believing that Mrs. Roberts was at home, but found that she was not. Nothing happened on that occasion. On April 11 the accused went to the girl’s home and offered her some casual work to do at a shop which he was entering as a bailiff. They worked together during the day, and he made some suggestion of finishing the w<jrk at night, but as the girl had a previous engagement it was agreed to complete the work next day. On the following day the accused arrived at the girl’s home in one of his vehicles and took her, as she thought, to the shop, but she soon realised that he was taking her to his home. He informed her that his wife was still away, and that it would not do for them to be seen entering the place together, so she went in by a bacnt way and ho entered by the front way. She took off her coat and hat and prepared for the work. Some conversation took place, m the course of which the accused asked the girl how she would like to go for a trip to Australia with him. She treated it as a joke and said it would be a fine idea. He then produced a note for £IOO and she realised that he was not joking, and at onre said that she could not entertain the idea. He then suggested she .should have a cocktail, but she declined l ut lie went out and came back, with a couple of glasses of liquor and she took a drink from the one he gave her. His subsequent behaviour made her realise that he contemplated something improper, and he said he had arranged with her mother that she would not be home till 11 o’clock that night. She became upset and he suggested that he would go out till she composed herself, suggesting that she should go into the bedroom. She went in, but found he was following her, and she then noticed that he had no boots on. He then caught hold of the girl and a struggle occurred, in the course of which some of her clothing was torn off. The girl obtained possession of a pair of scissors and a hatpin and she thought she had injured him with this. The struggle continued for some time and then the accused, realising that he could not achieve bis object, desisted. The *>irl then went to the house of an aunt and informed her of what had taken place. The girl’s mother was sent for and she also was told of what bad taken place. That was at about 12.45 on the same day. The accused had produced a revolver when the girl bad rebuked him for bis conduct, and this had been found at Ins place when be was arrested, as was also the ±llOO note. This was at least some proof that there had been a note for that amount, and was in a sense some corroboration ol the girl’s story. The evidence of the principal witness was then proceeded with, and it followed the lines of the opening statement of counsel.

TRIP 1 TO AjUISTRiALIA. Tli© witness stated that accused had suggested lie was going to Australia to start book-making, and he asked if she would gq as his clerk. His Honour: Was there ever any suggestion that yon should go in any other capacity ? Witness: No: not that I understood. Continuing, the witness said that on April 12, at the accused’s house, he had said he. had told her mother that he had work for her to do till 11 o’clock that night. She asked him what the job was that she was going to and he said there was no job, hut he had “squared” her mother so that -she need not go home till 11 o’clock. He simply wanted to see her. The witness next detailed happenings leading to her going to the accused’s bedroom and a struggle that followed. During the struggle witness said she bit the accused on the. head and neck and also tried to hit him. He succeeded in getting some of her clothing ofl and then, while lie was attempting to remove some of his own clothing she »»r.j'iie away. She got a pair of scissors- and a hatpin from the mantelpiece and she tried to attack him with them, but lie pulled the scissors, out of her hand. She tried to stick the (hatpin mto him, but- her back was to h.im and she did not know if she had been successful. He then got the hatpin away from her and she took off a -shoe and tried to throw it through a window to attract attention. He had her arms held and she could not throw high enough to -bit the window. The struggle ended and she said she was going home, but the accused refused to give up the clothes he had tom off lid'. He then said he woul.d give, her back the clothes if .she would stay there with him and then go to Australia with him on the following Thursday.

ALLEGED 1 THREAT TO SHOOT. Ho next told her that she could tell her people and the police if she liked, bill, jf any of them came there to him lie would shoot them and he would shoot her also, and if he had enough moral courage ho would then shoot himself. Some of the articles produced were those she had been wearing at the time. The petticoat was not torn when she put it nm in the morning. Proceeding, the witness said she had seen a gam or revolver which accused had previously, and he told her he liad a gun lie got at the war. The revolver pivuduceid was like the one lie had shown her. Continuing, the witness said .she left the accused’s place without her torn clothes and went to her cousin’s place and got some clothes and then went to her aunt’s place and told what had

happened. Her mother was sent for and s.lie told her wiliat had happened. SUGGESTIONS BY DEFENCE Counsel for accused: ■ Did you not meet the accused before April 3? Witness: No. Did you not go to Mrs place by prearrangement with the accused ?—No. And if lie says you did will you deny it : ?—Yes. Several questions were asked as to alleged occasions of intimacy between accused and witness • and she emphatically denied them all. “What did Mr Roberts give you the ten shillings for on April 3?” —What ten shillings ? “The ten shillings he gave you?”— I have never taken a penny from a man in my life. “Is it not a fact that you have been on terms of intimacy with the accused for the past two years?”—lt is not. “And if people come here and swear yoii have been seen speaking to him on many occasions would you still deny it?”—Yes, I would. “Did you not arrange to go and spend the day with Mr Roberts on April II?”—No, I did not. “Didn’t you suggest staying at the shop that night and accused said that was no use as there was no privacy there?” —No, I did not.

Referring to the happenings of April 12 the witness saiu she had no objection to going to Roberts’ place to do work, but she would not have stayed there with him if she had not expected to be doing some work. Counsel: And why did you go to his bedroom ? Witness: Well he suggested I should. “And don’t you realise that was rhe last place to which you should have gone?”—No, not under the circumstances. “You were going to stay there till ll o’clock?”—if there had been work to do. ‘ ‘Do you think that was the proper thing to do?” —Yes, so long as I was working. If there had been no work what explanation could I have made to my mother ? “But you realise that you would be as safe or as much in jeopardy whether you were working or not?”—No. Continuing (the witness said that Roberts gave her no remuneration for her work at the shop.—She iiad been out of employment for some time and her parents paid for all her clothes and such expenses ats she had. Some further questions were asked as to the receipt by the witness of a sum of £IOO from a man prior to her going to Christchurch. Witness at first denied this and when the matter was pressed by counsel she appealed to His Honour as to whether she was obliged to answer the question. His Honour said it did not really touch the matter and when the Crown Prosecutor said he thought the matter was irrelevant, counsel for the accused said he would be content to leave the matter at that. THE GIRL’S COMPLAINT. Evidence was given by the girl’s aunt as bo the complaint "made by her when she came to witness’ place at about a quarter to one on April 12. She was very upset. The girl’s mother was the next witness and she spoke as to the arrangement made by accused for her daughter to work for him till 11 o’clock on | the night of April 12. He would not tell her what the work was, because he said it was more than his job was worth to tell—it was not because he i did not trust witness. He said he would pay the gill a guinea a day. He asked her not to tell the girl he had been round as it was a secret between him and witness. She spoke to the girl about Robert’s complaint that she had refused to work the night before. Referring to the girl’g clothing the witness said she had not seen the garments referred to since her daughter left home on the morning or April 12. The witnes also gave corroborative evidence as to the complaint made by her daughter of mteiTerenee by Roberts. When a suggestion was made that someone should go to Mr. Roberts to get the clothes the girl urged them not to go as Mr. Roberts had said he would shoot anyone who came there. When she got her daughter home she examined her, but found no marks of violence on her body. She complained that her wristis were sore where he had held her, but they were not bruised. Cross-examined, the witness said she did not go to the police that afternoon because she was too upset. She did not want to have anything to do with the police or the court. She knew that her neice was away N from home, hut she knew nothing about where the key of the place was kept. She had never been to her place while she was away.

NOT WANT TO GO TO POLICE The girl’s father next gave evidence, in which he stated that when he received the complaint on arriving home in the evening he rang the accused up and asked him what he was going to do about it. He denied having assaulted the girl. When asked what he was going to do about it ho said there was nothing to do about, and suggested that witness could see the police about it if he wished. Witness did not- want to do that and asked if there wasn’t some other way out of the trouble. lie then suggested that witness should consult a doctor, but he said there was no need for that. He had his tea before ringing Roberts up. Counsel for accused: Didn’t you want him to apologise and pay up? Witness: Yes, for the damage to the clothing. I thought lie might pay for that, and if ho had apologised I would have been satisfied, as I did not want to go to the police. “I put it to you that you said to Roberts: ‘£loo will settle it.’ ” —No; that is a lie. ’

“You are a carpenter, aren’t you?’ ” —Yes. ‘ ‘ And work has been a bit scarce, hasn’t it?”—Yes. x , Detective Kearney stated that he laid an information and obtained a warrant for the arrest of the accused on April 18, and arrested him the same day. He said nothing when the warrant was read. At the request of accused the detective went with him to his house, where he obtained the revolver (produced), "which was fully loaded at the time. He searched the house, but was not able to find the clothing which was supposed to have been taken from the girl. At the police station witness noticed a scratch on the accused’s head, but the accused said he had received that' some days previously when carting paper. There was also a scratch on his neck. Both marks looked to be new or recent. Accused explained that the mark on his neck was received when carrying a case of fruit into his shop. A £IOO note was found on the accused when he was searched.

To counsel for accused: He saw no teeth marks on the accused, but only what he thought were scratches on the head and neck. He made a fair search of accused’s house, but he scarcely expected to find the garments referred to at that time. Chas. J. Haddon, employed by the “•Haw-era Star” said he had assisted the accused in the month of April to unload some paper at the office. He had no recollection of him knocking himself or scratching himself on that occasion.

Cross-examined, the witness said it was possible for him to have injured himself without witness knowing it. He had known the accused for some time and he remembered an occasion about 12 months ago on which he had seen him and the girl in question together one evening when it was almost dark. He had no doubt tnat it was the girl. To the Drown Prosecutor:, It would be about 6 p.m. when he saw them together and a year ago from now it would be dark at the time. He had not been asked about this matter before coining into the box. His Honour: Do you know that the girl says she had not met the accused until April 3? Witness: No, I was not aware of that.

Then, did this come as a complete surprise to you?—Well, not altogether. The witness then explained that he had seen in the report of the lower court proceedings that the girl had said she had not met Roberts till April last and that reminded him of the occasion to which he referred. He called out to Roberts and as he did not respond he had another look to see if he had not been mistaken.

GIRL ’iS STORY DENIED. Counsel for the accused then opened the case for the defence, and said the jury would now hear for the first time what was to be said in the accused’s favour. He would say that he had been on intimate terms with this girl for the past two years. It would also bo said that on the occasion in question she invited herself down to the neighbour’s place and the arrangement had been made about the fumbling with the lock and Roberts was to be on the look-out for her, and after fixing the lock he was to invite her to see his conservatory. He took her into his home where intimacy took place on two occasions. Her story of what took place at the shop was practically correct. 'She then arranged to go to his house the next day and stay till 11 o ’clock, and a story was made up to tell her mother. When at the house the girl talked of her family affairs and got into a rage and demanded £SO off: Roberts, who ordered her out of the house. In the conversation with the girl’s father it would be said that he had demanded £SO, but Roberts had maintained there had been nothing wrong and he refused to pay. After that the accused heard nothing of the matter till he was seen and arrested 'by Detective Kearney. His evidence would be a denial of the girl’s story, and it would be for the jury to say which evidence was to be believed. There was also the fact that a Crown witness has given the lie to the girl’s statement that she had not met accused till- April (Proceeding.)