OLD MAN S INNOCENCE TWICE UPHELD THOUGH TWICE ATTACKED

NZ Truth, Issue 1253, 5 December 1929, Page 7

OLD M AN S INNOCENCE TWICE UPHELD THOUGH TWICE ATTACKED

GIRL'S STARTLING ALLEGATION

"Evidence Most Contradictory" Was S.M's Opinion of Her Story

COUNSEL HINTS AT APPEAL PROCEEDINGS

(From. "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) ..-.■/'. . . ■ . •■ ■ ■ -. ■

For the second time this year a young girl, who has only just turned 16, attempted to name as the father of her child, born last April, a seventy-years-old Auckland building contractor. In July last, proceedings were taken m the Auckland Magistrate's Court, but Mr, Wyvern Wilson, S.M., who heard the case, stated he was unable to accept the girl's accusations. When the renewed application for an order was made last week, Mr. S. H. Levien, S.M., was on the bench, and came to a similar decision. It is possible thati the last has not yet been heard of the matter, the magistrate being asked to fix security for an appeal to the* Supreme Court by Mr. J. J. Sullivan, counsel for the applicant.

THE girl, giving evidence, said she was 16 on October 3. Her baby was born on April 3. . She had known Walter Sansbury, the defendant, for many years, his workshop and office 'being just round the corner from where she lived. ■: It was her custom to visit the fac-. Tory and fetch firewood, but m June of 1928, she said, Sansbury started to work oh Sundays and made an arrangement with her mother to allow her to take him a jug of tea round for his midday meal. On June. 17, she alleged, he assaulted her. She said she struggled with him, but she admitted it was not for long. Similar happenings occurred later, according to her story, both on Sundays and week days. She did not tell

her mother about what had happened allegedly on Sansbury's instructions. •In the girl's estimation, this state of affairs lasted for two or three months until she discovered her condition. Sansbury, she said, asked her if she was m good health. Later he also asked her ii anything- had occurred between her. and -any .other man, but she told h|[m nothing, had., rt . . ' ' "Wh en did youvfirst ren\emb% •. June 17, 1928, as the' essential^date?" 'was the. opening question of Mr. R. A. Singer, Sansbury's counsel. "When I entered St. Mary's Homes m January of this year,"- was the reply. Counsel: When did your mother discover this? — Just before Christmas. I could not then remember the date m June, but I did after the baby . was born. . . "' .'. ■■' -„ •. v .■ ,i I want you .to be careful about' this. Do you sweair it-Ayas-after ; "oie" b?iby was born that' you/ .tola;^your: mother that flrsf date,, JbecauseAvjien the first case was heard: here m July, you then told the. : magistrate that it was the first time: you mentioned any , date at all?— I don't know; 1 can't remember for certain. •,/ Howdfd you come to recall the date definitely?—! just remembered it. ' You did riot .discus's lit with anyone or look at- an almanac?— No. , ■

iiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiMiiimiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.iii You are certain/you told your mother before j r ou first gave evidence? — Quite. So that what you told the magistrate then was wrong? ' Mr. Sullivan objected that counsel was bullying the witness, but Mr. Singer retorted he was only trying to get information from her. . "It is one of tk^ most difficult tasks ; I've eyer^had," he said. "How long did these relations continue?" asked counsel next. ■ "For some months," replied the girl. Counsel: But m the last court case you told the magistrate that it was only for a fortnight, and no, longer? — Yes, I think I did, tout I now cay that it was for two or three months. Once again Mr. Sullivan intervened, but Mr. Singer's plea that he was merely endeavoring to demonstrate the unreliability of the girl's evidence was upheld by the bench., "I cannot make anything out of the witness's statements, as to how long she alleges this state of affairs lasted," said Mr. Levien. Mr. Singer: Perhaps, to save time, your Worship will allow me to postpone the balance of my cross-examina-tion? Mr. Sullivan: My friend is trying to draw from the bench a direction a's to 'whether, the decision of the case will be m his favor. ... Mr. Levien; I have had plenty ' of experience and I do not think counsel can extract much information from me, Mr. Sullivan. ■Continuing his questioning, Mr. Singer asked the girl if it was true she used to fetch the morning payer daily from the hut of a' man named Young. She admitted that she used to do so. Counsel: And what did you- do there? —I used to read the paper. 'n the hut or talk with Young for a few minutes. When your mother was m hospital, did Sansbury suggest it was improper for yoli to visit the hut? — Yes, he did. He was concerned about' iL?— Yes. And you also visited' the hut m the evenings, alone?— Yes. That concluded the cross-examina-tion and Mr. Sullivan contented himself with securing a denial from hi*s client. that anythiner had ever happened between her and Young. The next . witness was the girl's mother, Annie Smyth, who said, she had >r£marri~ed since the^death .'of ■•■her daughter's father. .' . According to her, she noticed her ; daughter's/ state of at, the . end of J v ne, 1928/ but 'on being '-'taxed, the girl denied it. Eventually, just prior to Christmas, she ;■ admitted certain things and named ■'.{■ Sansbury as being responsible. 1 \< ■ Mrs. Smyth a,lso alleged that during June, Sansbury -offered to take the girl for 'a trip to Whangarei, but as sea-travel always made her daughter ? sick, she had refused to let her go. ■ At that time she had no suspicions 1 that Sansbury's offer and motives were not all above board. ... , '■ On- being tackled, Sansbury, said Mrs.SnVyth, denied" ever having interfered with the girl, but she- said, he suggested a visit t-o a doctor.' ' He also suggested that Yoiing might be responsible, but the latter who was

summoned to the conference, also denied all knowledge of the girl's plight. A later meeting was arranged with Sansbury, 'but ■when she and her husband arrived, he was not there, the only person present being Mr. Singer's clerk. The latter, according to Mrs. Smyth's story, said he was there to represent Sansbury and offered £200 for expenses, and made an appointment for yet a third meeting. Mrs. Smyth said she refused £200 and Avanted £400 as a minimum sum, since she would have the expense of rearing the child. In answer to Mr. Singer, she said her daughter told her about it all just before Christmas. "When I first saw Sansbury after that," she continued, "he denied my accusation. He asked why she could not go to a doctor, but he did not get a chance to say it a second time." Counsel: Did he ask you what was wrong or did you mention it? — Neither, but he knew well. Then he mentioned Young, and while we were waiting, I said I wanted £500, but he said he would go to gaol first. When I told Mr. Young what was wrong, he seemed quite shocked and denied ever having interfered with my daughter. Her daughter was working for a cev- | tain firm when she started taking tea m to Sansbury, and Mr. Singer said he was glad to hear that, as he was informed, she did not start working for them till September.. Mr. Singer: When you met my clerk, did you demand £500 and say that the alleged interference was a crime, and did my clerk say that your demand was 'blackmail?— No. And at the later meeting did you come down to £250 and then to £200, and dfd he say he would put your request before my client — your blackmailing request ?— No, certainly not, I would not have taken £250. but it was a direct offer of that amount, not a request. The stepfather, Walter Smyth, said that it was an offer of £200, l-ut they would not have .accepted less than £400 as the girl was ruined for life. To Mr. Singer. Smyth said hs arrived at £400, by taking 10/- per week for 16 years,.but a the.n-iention of money did not appear to him. 'to be blackmail. Indeed! lie could' 'not remember the word being/used. He persisted m this statement when, examined, 'by the magistrate. Henry John • Herbert Young described -the -girl's visits to his hut and also the interview between himself, Mrs. Smyth and Salisbury, when it was suggested that he was the man. responsible. "I said: 'What's, that? You had better-be careful or I'll summons you for defamation of character, when ..Mrs.. Smyth made the suecrestion'." said Young. "Sansbury said it was a pity they could not get some boy to marry the girl, but I told him she was only 15 and far. too young." That concluded the evidence for the girl. Mr. Sullivan said he would suggest he had established a prima facie casp, and had proved a new piece of evidence m the offer of the Whangarei trip.

In the course of a lengthy summing ! up, Mr. Levien said the girl's evidence was most contradictory on .essential points, and other items showed that she was not reliable. . • • "It is not for me to say, however, whether that unreliability, is due to dishonesty or to subnormality." ' . .' V He would like to 'be fair to the girl and if she had discharged the pnua-.of proof, he would have said that a prima facie case had been made but, but her evidence left a large residue of doubt. "It may. appear at first sight that the remarks about a visit to a doctor, alleged to have been made by Sansbury are very' damning," said the magistrate, "but they are .' also' oonsisrent withan innocent inquiry as • to" whether a medical man had stated that .she was m a certain condition. "The question of payment,' 'too,' can be interpreted innocently. The clerk may have endeavored to ascertain these people's intentions and claims. In view of Mrs. Smyth's evidence it cannot be construed into an admission of guilt. Whenever the defendant was interviewed, he always maintained his innocence. "There is also absent from the -case any of the r.sual corroboration and I could not possibly find, on the evidence offered, that the girl has established her claim. The various statements are far too conflicting."' . ' A request that security for an appeal be fixed, was made by Mr. Sullivan.

"My clients have a fcelkig that they may have been prejudiced because of the previous hearing," lie said. "m that caKO, your Worshi|)." said Mr. Singer, "I would ask that the security be made adequate. This is the second time my client, who is an, old man, has been dragged before the court,, and he has no chance of.obiaining costs from these r.eople." The magistrate decided that if application w.i.s made m the usual way, he would fix the security later.