THE MlOK NEYLON CASE.

Lake County Press, Issue 610, 21 June 1894, Page 3

THE MIOK NEYLON CASE.

From the Southland Times we learn particulars of the hearing of the charges against Michael Thomas Neylon at the Supreme Court, Invercargill, on Thursday last. The first charge against Neylou was of having on the I4th February committed rape on a girl named Emma Alice Dinan, his stepdaughter. The prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty” and was defended by Mr Solomon. The Grown Prosecutor (Mr T. M. Macdonald) f opened the case by briefly outlining the facts which he said he would call evidence to prove. He stated that the accused and his wife resided in Nith street, his wife’s mother also living with them. The girl upon whom it was alleged the offence had been committed was the accused’s stepdaughter. On the day in question the accused’s wife and her mother left the house together and in their abscence, it was alleged,

the accused committed the offence. It would be shown that the girl did not consent and that as soon as her mother returned she told what had occurred. A medical examination immediately followed, and the prisoner was shortly afterwards arrested.

The first witness called was the girl Emma Alice Dinen, upon whom the offence w*g alleged to have been committed. At first the girl appeared to be suffering from nervous excitement and could not be induced to answer the questions put to her by the Crown Prosecutor. His Honor then took her in hand, having placed her beside him on the Bench, but still she could not or would not reply to the necessary preliminary questions. She began to cry, and although His Honor endeavored first to persuade and then to compel the girl to give evidence she persisted in replying “ I don’t know,” and “ I don’t remember,” but more frequently did not answer at all. His Honor threatened her with punishment if she did not answer, but as a preliminary, submitted her to two medical men who were present for examination as to her condition. After a short interval, the doctors returned to Court, and s f ated to His Honor that she was nervous but not hysterical, and there seemed to be no reason why the girl should not give evidence. She was again put into the witness box, but again refused, or was unable, to give definite answers to the questions put. In reply to Mr Macdonald, she said she ; did not remembor the day upon which the offence was alleged to have been committed, and when asked if she did not remember her grandmother and mother going out and leaving her and and the accused alone in the house. She said they had often done that. His Honor asked a number of questions, particularly as to the truthfulness of her statements in the Magistrate’s Court (reserving Mr Soloman’s right to object to tho admissibility of whatever she might say in reply), but still she would not answer. Eventually His Honor adjourned the Court for an hour, and ordered that the girl should bekept in custody for that time, so that she might have an idea of the Court’s power to punish if she persisted in her apparent determination not to give evidence.

On resuming, the witness was placed in the witness-box, but on being asked if she remembered the 14th if February, or even the month, replied “ I don’t know.” His Honor said he would take upon himself the responsibility of asking the girl a direct question, and would note any objection Mr Solomon might make. He asked the witness : “ Did Neylon do anything to you some few months ago ? ” Witness : I don’t remember. Mr Macdonald : Ido not think I can proceed any further. His Honor ; Without this witness’ evidence I suppose you can do nothing, Mr Macdonald. Mr Macdonald ; No Your Honor. It is apparent that, to use a common expression, the witness has been “ got at.” His Honor: Obviously. Mr Solomon hoped the court would exonerate him from any complicity in such a thing, if such a thing had occurred. He had only arrived in Invercargill on the previous evening. His Honor said he did not blame Mr Solomon or cast any reflection upon him. The production of a newspaper report of a case in which the same tactics had been adopted was, however, suggestive. Mr Macdonald said it was probably from that report that the girl had taken her cue. Mr Solomon again disclaimed any knowledge of such a thing, and again His Honor said that no imputation had been cost upon the counsel for the defence.

His Honor, addressing the jury, said they would see how tho cage stood. The principal evidence would have been that of the girl herself, but she had been living with her grandmother and her mother (wife of the accused) and had therefore been subject to influences which would account for her conduct in the box. Had she been a grown person, she might have been dealt with in a severe manner, but although evidently an intelligent child, she was still a child. She had shown an intelligence and an obstinacy which had convinced him that it would be of no use to proceed further. Much of the evidence would be subject to the same influence, and a conviction seemed an impossibility. Ik was, of course, a matter for regret that the case could not bo gone into because of influence which had probably been brought to bear upon the child and which she doubtless could not be expected to resist. The case and the similar one which had been mentioned —and which was so singularly analogous—seemed to show that there should be some authority, when a case depended mainly upon the evidence of a young child, that the child should be relegated to the care and custody of persons who had no interest in the case and were not relatives of the individual to betiied. However, that was a matter for legislation and not for the court. The Grown Prosecutor had very properly deemed it useless to proceed with, the case and it would therefore be the duty of the jury to return a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The jury returned a verdict inglyTho bearing of a second charge against the accused of “carnally knowing” the same girl was adjourned till Monday 18tb, so th?t the Grown Prosecutor might in the in-

terval communicate with the AttorneyGenerel.

We take the following from Monday’s Southland Times' report of the second charge :—The adjourned case in which Michael Thomas Neylon was charged with having criminally assaulted a girl between 12 and 14 years was called, and the prisoner pat in the dock. The Registrar had, during the adjournment of the case, received the following telegram from the Solicitorgeneral, Wellington :—Regina v. Neylon. Pursuant to section 411 of the Criminal Oode Act, 1883, you are hereby directed to make an entry in the Grown book that the proceedings against the above accused upon an indictment for carnal knowledge of a girl between 12 and 14 years have been stayed by my direction.” The prisoner was accordingly discharged from custody.