VERDICT OF GUILTY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 16 March 1939, Page 8

VERDICT OF GUILTY

INDECENT OFFENCE CHARGE TWELVE MONTHS’ REFORMATIVE DETENTION The hearing was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before His Honour, Mr Justice Reed, of the case in which Wilfred Oliver Hart, aged 22 years, was charged with indecently assaulting a male at Nelson in December last. Mr C. R. Fell appeared for the Crown, and Mr W. V. Rout for accused. Accused in the witness box made a denial that the statement which he had made to the detective admitting the offence, was true. A. S. Thomas gave evidence that he had asked accused if he had made the statement, and he said yes. but it was rot a true statement. He said that he was intimidated and the detective had told him he would lock him up if he did rot make the statement. Accused’s brother. Hector Hart, also gave evidence on similar lines. His Honour in summing up said that the case was an important one from the aspects that the protection of young children from the moral degradation that often followed this type of crime, was involved: and the actions of the detective sergeant had been attacked in his securing a statement from accused. No doubt the evidence of small boys needed to be examined very carefully; some could be relied upon and others were doubtful. There no suggestion that the small boy concerned in this case had been mixed up with other allegations of this sort at all, and there did not appear to be any possible reason to suggest that this boy should lie about the matter on w'hich accused was charged. He would have had to lie both regarding the occasion and the individual who committed the offence. It would of course be unsafe to rely entirely on the bqy’s unsupported evidence: but there was the statement of the accused to the police, and the case really turned on how far they could depend on that statement. The accused did not allege that the police had put down anything he did not say and that cleared the matter up to a certain extent. The only objection he made that the statement was really an invention on his part raised by threats by the police. It was a

serious statement to make against the police of such third degree methods. The jury should look at it in this way: That it having been admitted that the statement was made, the onus rested on the accused to satisfy them that he was when he made that statement deliberately stating what was untrue. And they must realise that the accused h - ving admitted making the statement, the onus was upon him to show that it was false and made under moi-al pressure by the police. In that statement. concluded His Honour, there was a complete admission of indecent assault on the boy. The jury retired at 5.20 p.m. and at 530 p.m. returned with a verdict of guilty. Accused was remanded to this morn- ; ing for sentence When the accused appeared this morning. Mr W. V. Rout said that he wished to stress that although the case was dealing with a man in years, yet in mentality and responsibility he was a boy. The jury had also pointed that out in expressing the opinion that the young man was “simple.” It was clear that up to the present time he had never had the benefit of adult companionship and if he were sent to a State Forestry camp where there was nothing but adults it would be best for him. The judge said that the offence was very serious from the point of view that when young children of this age were interfered with they very often were corrupted and followed the same course. It was perfectly manifest that prisoner was not quite normal, and that was taken into consideration in imposing sentence. An order was made that accused be detained for reformative purposes for 12 months. i THEFT OF MONEY In the Supreme Court to-day before His Honour Mr Justice Reed Else •lean Veronica Woodward appeared for sentence on a charge of theft to which she had pleaded guilty. Mr J. H. Ralfe, for prisoner, asked for the leniency of the Court in this matter. Accused was a married woman and had had a particularly difficult time over a period of years. She was most anxious to make restitution. She was partially supporting three children at the orphanage out of her earnings. His Honour said that there had been strong temptation before prisoner to which she had succumber. and he would take that into consideration. An order was made that she come up for sentence if called upon in two! years; apd that she refund the money j f £65) by instalments; and pay the' costs of the prosecution, £3 3s. DIVORCE Roderick John Marchbanks (Mr H. G. Brodie) v. Myrtle Melia Marchbanks and Geoffrey Harman; petition for divorce (alleged adultery). A decree nisi was granted to be moved absolute after three months. Patricia Glendall Howard (Mr J. H. Ralfe) v. Murray Francis Howard: petition for divorce (separation). A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute after three months. Thomas Turnbull (Mr J. R. Kerr) v. Margaret Turnbull (Mr H. G. Brodie); petition for divorce (separation). A decree nisi was granted to be moved absolute after three months. William Henry Adamson (Mr G. Samuel) v. Mary Irene Jane Adamson. A decree absolute was granted, petitioner to have custody of the children. Norma Margaret Forrest (Mr W. V. Rout) v. Robert Forrest. A decree absolute was granted, petitioner to have custody of the children. IN BANCO Lucy Spiers, appellant (Mr W. V. R. Fletcher) v. Bertrand Flederick Spiers (Mr H. G. Brodie): An appeal against an order varying a maintenance order. The appeal was allowed, with costs £5 5s and disbursements. BANKRUPTCY Clarence Stanley Munro (Mr J. H. Ralfe)—An order for discharge was made.