A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11872, 25 January 1902, Page 6

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

v THE ACCUSED DISCHARGED. A totog man named Robert Boxendell, of medium build, • who . was remanded • from Thursday, . was brought before Mr. Thomas Hutchison, S.M., at * the Police Court yesterday, to answer to a charge preferred against him that he did, in tho Auckland Domain, on Wednesday last, indecently expose his person to Olivo Chitty, May Chitty, and Ella Chitty. '

Sub-Inspector Mitchell conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Baume defended accused, who pleaded not guilty. Th first witness called was May Chitty, a schoolgirl of some 13 years of age. - She deposed that she, in company with several other little girls, entered the Auckland Domain shortly after one o'clock on Wednesday afternoon last, with the intention of having a game. Witness resided with her parents in a house which was in close, proximity to the gate on which they entered the Domain ground. Immediately witness and her friends, got inside the ground they commenced playing on an open space next to the railway. After. half-an-hour had elapsed witness and her friends were playing near a clump of shrubs, when they saw accused sitting in the bushes. Witness then went on to describe how accused committed the offence alleged. She was} quite positive that accused was the identical man. , The man repeated this offence for some minutes, and witness sent her little sister to inform her mother about the man. ; Subsequently witness' little brother came running into the Domain, and announced that her father was coming, and the man then decamped. When Constable Hutchinson arrived she related the whole affair to him and when that officer brought a man to her she recognised him as the person. Witness further stated that a man had behaved in a similar manner towards her in the exact spot in tho Domain on Sunday last, but she did not mention it to her parents. She believed that accused was also the man she saw on that day. Dora Wallace, aged 11 years, said that she was in company with the last witness in tho Domain on the Wednesday afternoon, when May Chitty pointed out accused to her in some bushes, and she saw accused committing the offence alleged. Accused continued to commit the offence for some time#.. Witness was positive _ that accused was the man she saw committing the offence. Similar evidence was also given by Ella Ohitty (11 years), May Re id (11 years), and Olive Chitty (eight years). The latter stated that when she saw accused committing the offence he had a- comic newspaper in his hand.

Rebecca Reid. wife of William Reid, residing at Parnell, gave ovidence to the effect that she saw from her house accused reading a paper near the spot mentioned by the other witnesses. Cross-examined by Mr. Baume: She saw accused come along the Domain road and then sit on a bank reading. It was about half-past two o'clock or a quarter to three o'clock when she saw accused. Witness hoard accused say to the constable when arrested that ho was not the man who committed the offence, and also heard him say to the officer, " Who ever did it, it was a dirty thing to do."

Constable Hutchison deposed that in consequence of a complaint made to him by Mr. Chitty, at about two o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon, he, along with another officer, both attired in plain clothes, went over to the Domain, and after a brief search found accused reading a comic newspaper. He told accused who he was and what ho wanted him for, and accused made some resistance, but subsequently he went down with witness to the little girls, who recognised him as the man they had seen committing the alleged offence. Mr. Baume said that the defence would be an alibi. Accused, he said, was a man of the highest respectability, and occupied a position as traveller to a largo firm in Auckland. Accused also held an honourable position in one of tho local lodges. Everybody whom accused was acquainted with considered him a most respectable and gentlemanly man, and when it-became known to them that ho had been arrested on such a serious charge it struck them like a thunderclap. On Sunday, continued Mr. Baume, accused was not in Auckland, and he would produce evidence to substantiate this particular. . At twenty minutes to two o'clock on Wednesday, the day on which the offence was alleged to have been committed, accused was in a shop in Karangahape Road, having lunch, which fact would bo shown by evident. After ho had lunched accused strolled down to the Domain with the intention of seeing some friends who wero togother to take part in a game of cricket.' His friends not arriving accused lingered about the grounds, and at about half-past two o'clock he spoke to Mr. Yates, the custodian of the grounds.' Subsequently accused. seeing that his friends had not arrived to play cricket, at a quarter to three, turned to the Park gates, strolled about,' and having in his pocket a comic newspaper, ho commenced reading it. After reading for a few minutes he thought that he would proceed back to the grounds to see if any of his mates had arrived, and while on the way back he was apprehended. Robert Yates gave evidence, and stated that he was conversing with accused between half-past two and a quarter ,to three. Other evidence as to accused's movements during the afternoon was also given by Mrs. Gary and W. Pierce. Accused (Baxendell), in his evidence, described bis movements on the afternoon <in question, corroborating Mr. Brume's opening statement. 'When the constable asked the girls if he was the man one said, "No, that's not the man; the man I saw had a gray suitand a black tie." A second girl said she did not think he was the man. and a third girl said he was tho man. He denied offering resistance. His Worship at; this juncture oalled May Reid, who said she did not toll tho constable she was not sure accused was the. man. In summing up His Worship said that the principal question at issue was whether tho several witnesses called to prove the alibi were speaking the truth or whether the witnesses for tho prosecution could be trusted in their evidence of identification. He could not reconcile the two times put forward by each side. Accused was arrested at' four. o'clock, and the latest time at. which ho could be said to have commit,tod the offence was ten minutes past two. Yet they had evidence that he was in Karangaliap© Road at two, and in tho Domain Cricket Ground at half-past two at the earliest. This was quite inconsistent with the evidence for tho prosecution. He thought lie ought to choose the alternative in favour of accused, and dismiss the information.