THE KELBURN CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 9965, 8 May 1918, Page 7

THE KELBURN CASE

VESTEROAY’S EVIDENCE CHARGES AGAINST TWO OF ACCUSED DISMISSED, ' OTHER OASEIS PROCEEDED WITH. Tiio hearing of the Kelburn raid case was continued in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., was on the'Bench. Following aro the names of the accused and the charges against them:— Mary Griffin, keeping a house of illfame contrary to tho War Regulations. Marian Elliott, Alma Elliott, Eileen Pi ingle, nij rf Winifred Olsen, assisting in the keeping of the house of illfame.

Accused Griffin was represented hy ?• Jackson, tho two Elliotts nad * Ur M. Myers appearing for them, Hr U. I}. Morijpn, K. 0., appeared' for accused Pringle, and Mr H. P. O’Leary for Olsen.

Cattanach, who conducted the observations on No. 48 with Plainclothes Constable Trichlebank, couc 11-!I 1 -! . 18 ov ->Jcncc as to the behaviour 10 inmates of the house from April time of the arrest. ~, re was an uncertainty as to which focused witness had seen through tho windows of tho house. ]Mr Myers questioned witness as to which accused he bad seen.

Witness: “Let them take their hats oil and 1 I will very soon tell.” (To acCU 't*u * ‘Take your hate off.” The two accused Elliotts immediately 111(111 re cl to toko off their hate, out d'esisted when Mr Myers gave a contrary order'to “keep them on.” DIFFERENCES IN EVIDENCE.

Questioned by Inspector Marsack as 10 wnich accused it was misbehaved herself when witness and Tricklobank were looking through the verandah window, _ witness said' it was the accused with the short hair.

Mr Myers asked the Bench to make a note of the fact that this question had been asked the witness the previous day. Witness now corrected himself. _ It was significant that a night had intervened.

Mr Myers (to witness); “Who told you yon had made a mistake yesterday afternoon?”.

Witness: “What!” “lon heard 1 what was saidi: answer the question, sir.”—“l will. Constable Tricklehank said to me, ’Which one was it you saw, the one with the long hair or the short hair?’ I said', ‘The one with the short hair.’ We made a. mis T take, that -is all.” "So he wanted to know from you the one you meant?”—“No such thing; Tricklehank told 1 me I had made a mistake.” “I suppose he told you in pretty strong terms? Do you think there is a resemblance between the two Elliotts?” —“I think there is a strong resemblance.”

“If Tricklehank had not told you you had made a mistake the matter would have. been left.as. it stood 1 yesterday ?’u—“Possibly:”"' - . ■ Witness was severely questioned by Mr Myers as to the similarity between the notes taken hy him and Tricklebank, and was examined at length hy respective counsel.

KISSING ON THE'BALCONY. Saxgeacrt) Wade, who took part in the raid, said he first approached the house from r he rear. There ho saw accused Pringle on the balcony. She was wearing a dark skirt and a white hlouso, but no hat. An officer was with, her, and she put her arms round his neck and kissed him three times. He did not take much notice of it, and did not kiss her hack. Witness then went to the front door with Tncklebank, and entered the house. Olsen answered the door, and on seeing the police she ran down the passage, crying: “Mrs Griffin, Molly! MoBy! the police are here.” When witness read the warrant over to Griffin, she said: “My God, there’s no harm here. There’s mnslo and singing here, hut no harm.” Witness then took the names of those present. When he came to accused Pringle, the other girls said: “She has been here as long as us.” / Witness asked them who was the girl in the white blouse with the officer, and one said it was accused Pringle. Pringle admitted that she had been to the house several times before, also that she was with the man on the balcony. WHAT A SEARCH REVEALED. Witness searched the house at the time of the raid, and later again, and found a large number of letters, some in Olsen’s room and others in Griffin’s room. The letters wore signed by a largo number of men. Inspector Marsack : “The letters will speak for themselves. I don’t propose to road them. It will only satisfy the curiosity of people outside.” Continuing, witness said one bottle of whisky was found on the premises. In Mrs Griffin’s box were found certain medicines. Mr O’Leary; “Do you remember finding among Miss Olsen’s possessions a passport to Australia?”

AVitness: “No, I don’t remember.” Inspector Marsack: “Yes, she had one.”

Mr O’Leary; “As a matter of fact, she was to go to Australia in a few days.”

Inspector Marsack: “At any rate she cannot go now.” Questioned by Mr Jackson, witness said there was a find lot of'empty glasses on the sideboard at the time of the raid.

Mr Jackson: “You made a thorough search.” Witness; “Yes.”

“You even ripped up Mrs Griffin’s mattress.”—“l did nothing of tho sort; I ripped nothing.” “Where did you find the letters P”— “In Mrs Griffin’s room and Miss Olsen’s room.” Inspector Marsack said this concluded his case. Ho did not propose to call further evidence.

A PLEA FOR ACCUSED PRINGLE. Mr Morison submitted that there was not the slightest evidence that could convict Pringle. All that could bo said was that she went to a musical evening and enjoyed it as such. There were various standards of musical evenings, all of which were perfectly innocent. There were those parties where people sat around tho wall and those where there were varying degrees of enjoyment. There was a good deal of laughter, and no harm during the evenings under notice. When young people got together there was generally a certain amount of harmless familiarity. One soldier was there with his wife and it was hardly’ likely that they thought there was any harm. Tho same opinion must have been hold by Mrs Head and Miss Pascoo. Even Constable Tricklebank admitted that Miss Pringle was a respectable girl. What was the use of further having this girl put through the hell of trouble incidental to court proceedings? Unless tho rule that tho innocent must suffer for the guilty was enforced. Miss Pringle must ho discharged. This innocent girl had suffered enough already. The administration of justice was often attended with tho greatest pain and suffering, and why tho sufferings of Miss Pringle further? She might very well have been let go with tho others on the night of the raid. It was what the eye expected that the eye saw, and Miss Pringle had no thought but that what was going on that evening was harmless frolic. His Worship might assume that the house in Upland road was a trap for the respectably—that the occupants wished to surround themselves with respectable people to cover their wrong-doing. OTHER PLEAS FOR THE DEFENCE.

Mr Myers said he wished to adopt every word said by Mr Morison in regard to Alma Elliott. There was really less against Alma . Elliott than there was against Miss Pringle. If it v. ei’o a. Supreme Court case it would be the duty of His Honour to withdraw the case. In regard to Marian Elliott, there was practically no evidence against her. There was a conflict of evidence by the police, and, unfortunately during the night the police witnesses had had a “confab,” and riehted the matter.. He could not see how a constable could bo bold enough to dlscWd a PerS ° Q in *° immorality must be FOR GAIN. Mr O’Leary submitted that the case son tb?t + f US?ed ’ tof lho simple reason .that the immorality, if a nv took tesHon St h b ° There n ias o no ’ by the police that the aor" r Jlofc earn their living in t respectable iupmaer. ** Tw, Jackson agreed with this' point that not tae . slightest suggestion ■’ ho™ w„^ 3£ ;,' VaS harried ; on for gain.' vent Ja t3le to pro. ent people having immoral relations gai£ S as !t w as not for i r Ton « tt were taken for granted that money had passed between the women and tho men there was no ovftad ll ga r!V r bank-books had been prducod to show that anv profit had boon made. The proseem tM^n m + St fail ‘ ■ Great pain 3 bad been taken to prove immorality. TWO INFORMATIONS'DISMISSED.' lhl a , t}lG magistrate said that the only act alleged against Miss hissing and the tllat sbe had been at the house tour or tree times previously. There was no evidence that she had taken part m or witnessed any immorality, ihe against her must bo dismissed. In regard to Alma Elliott there was no evidence on which the court could convict. The information must be dismissed. There was, however a. case for tho other three -to answer, 3 LMPOE.TA.NT MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Mr Myers then called Dr Sband to give evidence.

Dr Shand said that on May 3rd he had examined Marian Elliott. Ho had found no evidence that she was a prostitute as alleged. Her condition was that, of a virgin. In. regard to accused Griffin, he had attended her during January and February for gastritis. This was certainly not a condition in which a woman could have intercourse.

Inspector Marsack: "Will you swear that Marian Elliott never had 1 intercourse?”

Witness said the examination was strongly in her favour. " "You know' evidence of a similar nature was given in another case and four months after the girl concerned was examined and declared in this condition sho had a child?”—"Of course I cannot swear that she has never had intercourse, hut Marian ElliStt has every sign of -virginity.” His Worship said ho did 1 not propose to dismiss the information yet. MERELY A MUSICAL EVENING. Mr Myers then called Private Erio Gunman, who said ho was present at No. 48, on the night of tho raid. Ho was -with his wife and had boon there with his wife previously. Vfhey had boon asked- up for a musical evening. On each visit there were a number of people present who took part in the music and dancing. During |hese occasions ho had not seen or hoard 1 anything that was wrong. He could have taken his mother or his sister there. To Mr Jackson: Tho suppers at those gatherings wore quite frugal—cheese and biscuits. Cross-examined by Inspector Marsack, witness said he knew accused Olsen for some time past. Ho had heard that sho was living around tho hay with accused Griffin. ‘‘Did you hear whv Mrs Griffin left this house at Oriental Bay?” Mr Myers objected to this question, and the Bench upheld the objection. Mr Myers; ‘‘To ask such a question is hardly playing tho game.” Finally witness said that he wished to make it clear that ho had visited tho house in Kelburn for no other purpose titan to. spend a musical evening. EILEEN PRINGLE’S EVIDENCE. Eileen Pringle stated in her evidence that sho was a schoolteacher. Bho stayed with the two Elliotts. Sho had visited tho house at Kelburn nine or ton times. She was always accompanied by ono or two of tho girls. She had never seen any immorality in the house. Mi’ Jackson: ‘‘Did you see any smoking and drinking at tho houseP” Witness; ‘Yes, all except Mrs Griffin were drinking. Mrs Griffin and Miss Olsen do not smoke.” Questioned by Inspector Marsack, witness said that ns far as sho could remomhor the Elliotts were away one night from tho room where they stay-

ed with her. At the house in Kelburn she had drunk wine occasionally, sometimes beer. Sho also smoked a bit. “Do' you remember kissing an officer on the eraudah on the night of the raid?”—“l do not remember.” “Is it that you wer© kissing so many that you do not remember?” —“I got such a shock that night that I do not remember.” Stanley John Collins, accountant at Abbott, Oram and Co.'s, said he had known the two Elliott girls for eight years. The present charge against Marion Elliott was contrary to everything he had known about her. Mrs Ida Hoad, of Miijoribanks street, said she visited the house on the evening of the raid with Miss . Pascoe. Everything at tho house was respectable, and she would never have gone there if she had known otherwise. Mr Myers: “And you were arrested and marched to the police station?” Witness; “Yes.” “And rather roughly handled?”— “Yes.” ‘‘You also suffered the indignity of being searched?”—“Yes, by a policeman.” Inspector Marsack : ‘‘l want to know what policeman searched you?” Witness said she had made a mistake. It was the matron who had searched her at the station. .Mr Myers; And your name was handed by tho police to ‘Truth’?”— —“Yes.” Inspector Marsack denied this, and His Worship said it was a matter for inquiry. MARION ELLIOTT’S EVIDENCE. Marion Elliott thou gavo evidence. She was nineteen years of age, and was born in Wellington. For eight months sho had boon employed as a typist. During the occasions sho had visited tho house she had never misconducted herself with any man. Sho had never drunk whisky, except as medicine. The allegations against her of misbehaviour on tho night Gillespie was up at the house were untrue. That evening sho had just returned from Blenheim, and was very tired. Sho went to sleep on iv chair, and fell off it. Gillespie and accused Olsen, picked her off tho floor. No misbehaviour at all took place. . Sho had never during her visit at the house, laid on tho bed with any men. At 5 p.m. the case was further adjourned until 10.30 a.m; to-day.