ON THE “MAORI”

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11170, 28 March 1922, Page 5

ON THE “MAORI”

ASSAULTED IN HER CABIN IS EVIDENCE OF SECOND ASSAULT ADMISSIBLE? APPEAL COURT’S RULING. An indictment of attempted assault on a female on board the 5.9. Maori in January last, and the evidence given at tw.o trials of Alfred Bell on this charge, were the subject of a case stated by Mr Justice Hosking before the Court of Appeal Teeter day. Mr \V. C. MacGregor, K.C. (Solici-tor-General) appeared for the Crown, and Mr O. C. Mazengarb for the accused. TWO TRIALS. At the first trial, according to Hie Honour’s facts, the jury failed to agree; at the second a verdict of “guilty” was found, with a recommendation to leniency, on account of the accused having 'been under the influence of liquor. The woman assaulted was a saloon passenger from Lyttelton to Wellington, in a cabin in which there were two other women. Accused occupied a berth in the same alley-way. She gave evidence that she was awakened to find a man with his hand on her. She made an exclamation, the light was on by another occupant of the cabin, and the man left. She identified the accused i positively. EVIDENCE OBJECTED TO. All the evidence as to the actions of the accused, subsequent to the entry into the woman’s cabin, including that of a woman in another cabin, into which he was alleged lyv her and two watching stewards to have entered, was objected to but His Honour said he' admitted it, and stated that he would reserve the question as to its admissibility for the consideration of the Court of Appeal. He demanded the prisoner to appear for sentence if the conviction should be affirmed by this court. EVIDENCE OF TWO WOMEN. The evidence objected' to, said Mr Mazengarb was that of th© second woman, Mrs S., who gave evidence of an attempted indecent assault, quite apart from the assault on the first woman. Miss B. The evidence of identification was weak, and! such as would not b 6 sufficient to convict; but which, supported by that of the other woman, might do sc. It was not until next morning, when he was fully dressed, on the wharf, that Miss 'B. had identified accused. The Chief Justice: That is a matter for the jury, not a question of the admissibility of evidence. Counsel quoted authorities. One was that of a judgment that evidence of a subsequent offence was not admissible; that it was a second felony, and should have been proceeded upon as ducK.

The Chief Tustice: Suppose Mrs S. identified him. Would her evidence be admissible? Counsel: Yes. A MAN IN LIGHT PYJAMAS. The Chief Justice: Well, she did not identify him, beyond saying that a man in light pyjamas bad come to her cabin, and done an improper, thing to her. How does it affect you? Counsel: It prejudices us materially, because there is the attempt to show that accused was seen in the ladies’ quarter, in the vicinity of Mrs S.’s cabin. There is a natural prejudice and suspicion against an accused, man in all cases like this. The Solicitor-General was not called on for a reply. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The Chief Justice said he was of opinion that the evidence of Mrs S. was admissible. sThe defence set up of an alibi was untenable. He was further of the opinion that the accused was sober. Mr Justice Sim agreed that the evidence was properly admitted. Mr Justice Hoskins said that th© defence of drunkenness hadTbeen disposed of. The seoond offence would appear to have been carrying out a design th© accused formed at the time of the first.' Mr Justice Stringer held that the evidence submitted bad rebutted both the defences set up. Mr Justice Adams agreed.