UNUSUAL CASE

Northern Advocate, 18 October 1935, Page 3

UNUSUAL CASE

COMPENSATION CLAIM TRIAL OF INNOCENT MAN. PETITION TO HOUSE. [From, Our Parliamentary Special.] | WELLINGTON, This Day. |i The Public Petitions Committee of I the House of Representatives had no |! recommendation to make regarding H the petition of H. T. Scott, Hamilton, I who sought redress in connection with I his trial. I Sir Alexander Young, in outlining II the case, said that from the point of 11 view of the petitioner and his family 11 it was regrettable that the finding of ! the committee was not favourable. The case was of unusual interest. About 12 months ago petitioner was selling art union tickets in Hamilton, and, strange to say, certain business i houses at which he called were burgled j during the afternoon of his visit, and j goods taken from one house were sold Ito second-hand dealers in the town. J Scott was arrested, and, although he I protested his innocence, the evidence ! appeared to be against him. He ap- ! peared in the Lower Court, and was ' j then tried in the Supreme Court. ! j Mr F. W. Schramm (Auckland—'Labour); “Did he set up an alibi in | the Lower Court?” j Sir Alexander: “I understand he ! did.” j Another Man Confesses. ! Continuing, the member for Hamilton said that while the trial was in progress petitioner’s mother, who was : naturally disturbed and upset—for she j was a woman of high character, and | recognised as a useful and capable ! social service worker —noticed in an 'Auckland newspaper that there was j another case, which, in many respects, J seemed identical with that of her son. 'She immediately got into touch / with i the lawyers representing her son, and, jas the result of approaches made to I the Auckland man, he owned up to | being the culprit, and to committing 1 the thefts in Hamilton that day. This I man was brought to Hamilton, and, (after hearing his evidence, the jury : immediately found petitioner not , guilty. ' Sir Alexander Young said that the principle on which the committee acted was that because a person was found not guilty in a court of law that was no reason why he should claim compensation. Generally speaking, that principle was sound, because it would be a serious matter if persons gravely suspected of crime _ were not arrested and tried. The law- , iyer who presented the petition for petitioner submitted that this was not a case of a man who had been found 'not guilty, but of a man who had i proved his innocence. ( j Further Consideration. ' “I want to say,” Sir Alexander continued, “that the Scott family have 1 felt this trouble very much. The character of the Scott family is very : good, and both the father and mother are of excellent reputation It is unfortunate that they have been unable to ; get a favourable recommendation. The claim for compensation is based not 1 on the fact that Scott was found not ’> j guilty, but on the fact that he was ] 'proved innocent, and petitioner feels i that it is unfair that a perfectly inno- 1 cent person should have, to go tq i the extent of having to stand his | trial.” ' ■ ■ ■ ( I Mr H. Atmore (Independent, Neljson) moved that the report be re- ! ferred to the committee for further I consideration and this was seconded Iby Mr W. E. Barnard (Labour, Naj pier). j Mr F. Lye (Government, Waikato), chairman of the committee, said he was convinced on the evidence that the committee had come to a proper , decision, but he had no objection to ! the report being referred back. This ; course was agreed to.