Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SERIOUS CHARGES

MAN AND WOMAN INDICTED ALLEGED PERFORMANCE OF ' UNLAWFUL OPERATION. “ NOT GUILTY "—AND WHY. The serious charges brought against Edward Reynolds and (Mrs) Annio Petersen by the Crown were heard at the Supreme' Court on Saturday, his Honor the Chief Justice presiding. A verdict of not guilty was returned on the ground that tho evidence of the principal witness was not corroborated. Tho accused were jointly charged with using an instrument for an unlawful purpose on a girl seventeen years old between tho 14th and 25th of March. The male accused was also charged with unlawfully supplying an instrument, knowing it to have been intended for an unlawful purpose. Both pleaded not guilty. Mr A. L. Herdman represented Petersen aid Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for Reynolds. Both counsel applied to have the cases tried separately, on the ground that ■ otherwise their cases would bo prejudiced. The application was opposed by the Crown Prosecutor, Mr T. Neave, and his Honor retired for a short time to consult with Mr Justice Chapman upon the point. Upon returning to the court his Honor announced that ho would not grant the application, but, if it were aesired, he would reserve the point for the Court of Appeal should it be necessary. Both counsel said that they wonld avail themselves of this. The hearing was then proceeded with, his Honor ordering the court to be cleared and forbidding publication of the evidence. • ■ AN IMPORTANT 'POINT. When the witnesses for the Crown had all been called, Mr Herdman said that the case as it had been shaded did not disclose any evidence which corroborated the story told by the girl, who, he submitted, was •an accomplice to the act. There was no corroboration at all as to tho actual perpetration of the deed! ' ■ . Mr Wilford urged that it had long been adopted as a, general rule of prao-. tico that 'the testimony of an accomplice ought to receive, confirmation, and that unless it be corroborated in some material part by unimpeachable evidence the judge ought to advise the jury to acqiiit the prisoner. The point was combated by the Crown Prosecutor, but upheld by tht Chief Justice, who directed the jur;, that it was their ’ duty to bring in a verdict of not guilty. He assumed the girl’s story to be true, but, notwithstanding that, the law was such that in this- class of crime, where the girl herself was a participant and did the thing voluntarily, there must bo some corroboration of her story. He did not think it would be safe for the jury to bring in any other verdict than one of not guilty. The girl might have a civil remedy. Her parents might bt able to* sue for seduction and might call Mrs Petersen, who would bo bound to give evidence. His Honor added that he was very sorry, considering tht circumstances, but he must carry .out the law. ‘ NOT GUILTY. In accordance with the direction the jury found a verdict of not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor intimated that ho would move for a new trial.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19110522.2.6

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7446, 22 May 1911, Page 1

Word Count
516

SERIOUS CHARGES New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7446, 22 May 1911, Page 1

SERIOUS CHARGES New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7446, 22 May 1911, Page 1