PROSECUTION FAILS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21579, 25 August 1933, Page 14

PROSECUTION FAILS

REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WIFE CLAIMS PRIVILEGE CHARGE AGAINST HUSBAND The right of a wife to decline to give evidence in criminal proceedings against her husband was exercised in the Police Court yesterday, when a young man, whose name was ordered to be sui>presscd, was charged with unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 16 years. "At the outset I wish to say that accused has now married the girl with her parents' consent, and there is every indication that the marriage will be a happy one," said Mr. Rudd, who appeared for the young man. When called to give evidence by De-tective-Sergeant O'Sullivan, the girl responded to her maiden name. Mr. Rudd: That is not her name. She was married the day before yesterday and is not willing to give evidence against her husband. Here is the marriage certificate. "Very well," said the magistrate, Mr. W. R. McKean, who directed the girl to retire from the witness' box. Kvidenee was given by the girl's mother that her daughter was born in February, 1918, and for some time was employed by accused. Witness gave her consent to the marriage of her daughter and accused last Tuesday. Detective Knight said that on August 17 he interviewed accused, who made a voluntary written statement concerning the alleged offence. Accused was not then under arrest, and refused to sign his statement until he had consulted a solicitor. The statement was still unsigned. It was submitted by Mr. Rudd that there was not sufficient evidence for a jury to find accused guilty, and the case should be dismissed summarily. The Magistrate: Apart from the evidence of the statement made by accused and the evidence of the last witness, I would say a conviction would be impossible. After an adjournment the magistrate said he had given full consideration to the case, and had decided to take upon himself the responsibility of not sending accused for trial. Having regard to the persons immediately concerned ho did not think any harm could result from his decision. It was doubtful whether any punishment would be inflicted on accused even if he were convicted by a jury, and committing him for trial would only harm the parties most concerned. "There is nothing at all that makes it desirable in the public interest this matter should be taken further, ,r said Mr. McKean, in discharging accused.