SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6699, 6 October 1882, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. :' Thursday, Ootobeb 5. (Before hia Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) ... CONSPIRACY. The trial of James Jonathan Adams and Genevieve Elizabeth Adams for conspiracy was continued, Mr E. Shaw and Mr Gully appearing for the prosecution, and Mr Ollivier for the defendants. . • Annie.Mprriaon,'aged 13, residing with her parents in Tiuakori-road, ; deposed that after Xiongbu’rst’s conviction she'heard a conversation between one of the Bradnock's and Genevieve Adams, who said it was not Longhurst who assaulted her, but, that Humphries had made her say so. . To Mr Ollivier.: She did not remember.saying before the magistrate that she heard Genevieve say, it was not Longhurst who did it but Humphries. Since then no one had been speaking to her about the evid-noe she was to give in the case. She told Kate Longhurst about,tlie- conversation she had, heard.; .She ynis staying .at Mrs Humphries’ house at Makara then. ~She .had not seen the Bradnocks since., When she beard the conversation between Genevieve Adams and one of the Biadnocksj she did not? know what Genevieve Adams meant, and did not know what Longhurst was in gaol for, ' , : .. ■ Mrs, Julia Allen, wife of Richard Allen, remembered George LonghurstV trial : in 1 1880. She attended Mrs Adams for fourteen! days during, her , confinement, but could otly sleep in the house, two days, it wasso dirty. She had not been paid yet, though . she,, had frequently gone for her,money. , One Friday she went there, when Adams told her what bad happened to his. daughter on, the previous Sunday. ( He said he, did not [give Longhurst into custody until the Wednesday, so that ha might have, ,a conversation with Loqgbnrst’s mother., fie eaicj if jhe. had a satisfactory settlement w(th Mrs Longhurst he .would not carry the case Before the public he: would get a case up, find, get a couple of hundred pounds. He said he could; not pay yyitness till he.,got a, settlement with Longhurst’s , mother., .He .said he knew, she had plenty of , money, and, be; would, get, some out of her. . He said he would get at the least, one or . two hundred ponnds out.of her, besides the house ha lived in. : She did not see Adams again until Longhurst .was; convicted,. when she asked him for her money. He said he bad no money or work, bat that he expected to get money from-, Longhurst’s mother, as he could get his daughter Genevieve to alter her evidence at any time. She told him he could not get any money out of the ease, because Longhurst had been punished. To Mr Ollivier : At the time of her first conversation with Adams, Dr., Oillon and Dr. Diver were in, the house for the purpose of examining the child, When she knew Longhurst had been committed for trial she held her peace, because she did not want to be connected with such a case. From what Adams had said, she thought Longhurst was being improperly imprisoned. She told several persona that Adams had tried to extort money. She did not come forward at the trial, or when she saw that Longhurst had been convicted. She did not like her name mixed with such a case. She knew petitions were presented to the Minister of Justice, praying for the release of Longhurst, but she did not sign them, or communicate with the Minister of Justice. To a Juror : She did not think that at (he trial of Longhurst she should have volunteered her evidence in the interests of justice. Dr. Collins deposed that, on the IDth of February, 1830 (Thursday), Adams and his wife’hi ought a child to his surgery to be examined. They said she’ had been tampered with, ‘ : and he examined her. The ap pearauces the child presented could be accounted for by dirt or disease. If the child’s evidence as to her treatment by the man" Longhurst on the Sunday previous' to her examination were correct, vitiiess would have expected to find bruises and laceration, but he did not do so. To Mr Ollivier : He had written to the Minister of Justice with reference to this matter. The opinion he then gave as to

the cause, of disease in\ the, .child must have been founded on the previous history of the case. When he wrote to the Minister, he stated that he could not fix the date when the child was brought to him. He had not then thought of looking at his day book. He had not done so when he gave evidence in the Police Court.. ' The child was brought to him after his morning’s work. He told Adams he did not care about the case. He saw that Longhnrat was found guilty, and setenced to ten years’ penal servitude and two whippings. The appearances he noticed on his first examination were not inconsistent with actual contact. He did not come forward to give evidence at the Supreme Court, and did not write to the Madder of Justice until he was requested to do so.

To Mr Shaw : The appearance of tho girl when he saw her was not consistent with the evidence she gave. Dr. Henry gave evidence to the effect that it was impossible to distinguish positively from the symptoms displayed by the girl whether they were the result of disease communicated in the manner indicated, or the result of ailments to which female children were peculiarly liable. At 1 p.m. the Court adjourned till 2 o’clock. Dr. Diver said he remembered being called upon on Saturday, the 21st February, 1880, to examine George Longhurat and Genevieve Adams. He was called in by the police. He described in detail the result of his examinations. On the girl there was laceration, which would have been equally visible during the previous six days. The man was found to be suffering from a certain disease. Marks of violence, and believing the statements of the man, had something to do with the diagnosis he formed. H« was attending the child up to the Supreme Court trial and afterwards. He would have expected a simple case of vaginitis to have succumbed much sooner.

Dr. Rawson gave evidence as to how the appearance presented by the child before Longhurst’s, arrest might.be accounted for. Dr. G. G. Gillou,. Resident Surgeon at the Wellington Hospital, deposed that he examined the child Adams on the 19th February, 1880. From her appearance he formed opinions which were confirmed by the history of the case. He made another examination afterwards in company with Dr. Diver.

Sergeant Anderson deposed : On the 19th of February he saw Dr, Gillon, who said ho thought it his duty to bring under his notice something that had happened at the Hospital with reference to a girl he had been asked to examine. The detectives took charge of the case, and on the 20th of February Longhurst was arrested.

George Longhurst deposed that he was a convict undergoing penal servitude ac Mount Cook, Oa the sth of April, 1880, he was sentenced to ten years* penal servitude and two floggings of twenty-live lashes each with a cal. He had been flogged. He was a son of Mrs Humphries. : Hia father left him a share in a house in Sydney-atreet, and a share iu his life insurance, : Hejknew the defendants in the dock. When they came here ihey resided at .Makara, and then in a house iu Sydney-street, of which witness was pact owner. That would fc© in February or. March, 1879. H,o remembered being arrested. The defendants had then been in his house about twelve months, Adams had paid no rentji After being away from Wellington for some -time he stayed with’ them two or three days, and then went to Makara with his mother,. This was about Christmas, 1880. On about the 23rd of January he told Adams he wanted the house, and that he had better eee about getting a bouse for himself. He came of age on 25th of April, 1880, and wanted to commence business. Adams said he would get a house as soon as he could. Adams was then doing no work at all. Early in February he cams from Makara to stay at Adams'. Adams said be had seen a piece of ground at Newtown, the, rent of which was £3O a year, and that he would like to pay the first year’s rent in advance if witness would lend him the money. Witness said he would see about it, but did not lend Adams the money. He stayed with Adams until February 19th. Adams did not seem the same after this—he was not so friendly as before, and scarcely spoke. He remembered Sunday, the 15th of February, 1880. He bad tea at Adams’, and went down to town directly after. He went straight down the cutting, left by the front door, Adams, hia wife, and children, were in or about the bouse when he left* He went straight down Sydney-street and Bowen-streefc to IjambtOn quay, and then down the Queen’s Wharf. He walked about town until nine o’clock, and then went back. Mrs Lewis was in the house then. She said she had heard witness was in town, and had come to see him. He remained at Adams* udtil the Thursday morning.: Adams and his wife wcre ; there the whole time, and the girl G inevieve, • except at meal times. On the Thursday morning the girl Genevieve and her mother were in the room when he came down to breakfast. After breakfast—an hour and a half after—Mrs Adams, 'after being in her bedroom with her husband, came out with the girl, and, addressing witness, said, “ There is something between you, I want to know] what it is,’’ He said he did not know. In consequence' of what was said—though he did net take much notice of it then—he left and went down town. He then thought over it, and went to his brother and told him. On the Friday he went to the Adams’. He saw Mr Adam«, and there was a gentleman there. He went up stairs to change his clothes and get same rnoneyhe had left there —over £33. His intention was to go to the police station, as he heard there was a warrant out for him. When he came down stairs Detective Browne was theie and arrested him. He submitted ; to an examination by Dr Diver at the time. He bad been ill for nearly ten months. To Mr O livier ; He was informed while he was at Karori that there was a warrant out for him. . . ; 1

Mrs Mary Lewis, wife of Edmund Lewis, cooper, of Wellington, said she remembered Longhurab’a trial in 1880. She was called to give evidence as to her movements on the day of the alleged offence, Sunday, the 15th of February. She went to the house in Syjdueystnet with her two children at ! 6.30 in the evening, as she wished to send a message to Mr- Humphries. Mrs Adams and her three children, including the female defendant,! were at home. She stayed there all the evening until a little before 10. Longhurst came in just before she left. It was a fine evening.

To Mr Ollivier: She had known, the Long burs! h for a quarter of a century. She knew'a Mrs Csnaar slightly. She lived in a house behind Adams’ cottage. She was’in there .shortly after Longhurst was convicted.: Mrs Hum: phriea was present.; She did not remember what she said; to Mrs "Uemar; about, ’ the weather on the night she Was at; Adams’, if it had been a wet night; she would not have' been out. ’■• - " ■ \ . Mrs Usmar deposed that she lived in Sydneystreet in 1881. The defendant Adams lived in the next house. Onthe Sunday evening before Longhurst was arrested she Was in herown house. l If'anyone had screamed out in Adams’ shed she would have heard it. She could not say whether : it rained' from 6.30 to 9! that night. . -I To Mr Ollivier ; She was present at Ajdams’ house after Longhurst’s arrest, when Mrs Allan was 'there,' She spoke a few words tp him. She ■ did not hear Adams say anything like what the witness Allen, deposed to. On that' night she did no; think they were ever out uf. her hearing. : . j r .. RnderickTJsmar, aged 16,- gave evidence to the effect that on the 15th of February,; 1880, he was in a shed behind the house before tea, swinging. He could not recollect what he had stated in his former depositions. If (there' had been a noise in Adams’ shed he would have heardit. - -

’ This was the case for the prosecution, i The Court then adjourned'until 10 o’clock next morning.' . ! i