SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18482, 17 February 1922, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

CHIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, February 16. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) The criminal sittings of the Supremo Court were continued yesterday. ATTEMPTED MURDER. Joseph Switalla w'as charged with, on or about December 24, 1921, at Allanton, ho attempted to murder Jacob Switalla. There wore further charges of intent to do bodily harm, and of causing actual bodily harm. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended. The Grown Prosecutor said that the facts were exceedingly simple. The accused and Jacob Switalla were step-brothers, tho accused being the son of the old lady, Mrs Switalla, and Jacob her stop-son. When they wore not working (hey lived with their mother, and they wore on December 24. Tho family was of Polish descent. About 8 o’clock on Christmas Eve accused came into the room in which his brother was lying on a couch. The first that'Jacob knew was that ho received three blows over tho head. Medical examination showed that those blows had not be/en given by a sharp instrument. As Jacob was rising from the couch lie received a fourth blow on the shoulder from tho sharp edge of the axe. Joseph went outside, and Jacob, following him, was hit with a rail. There had apparently been a fooling of jealousy on the part of the accused because Jacob got on better with the mother than Joseph did. It was possible also that accused might have been under tho influence of liquor. Fortunately no permanent injury had been done to Jacob. On the other hand the injury might have been of such a nature as to cause death. It w r as a question' of with what intent the blows were struck. Jacob Switalla. labourer, said, that he resided at Mosgiel. The accused was working at Kuri Bush.. On Christmas last they wore living with his mother at Allanton. Witness corroborated the statement of the Crown Prosecutor. He thought that the accused was under the influence of liquor. After the accused had gone out of the kitchen he went outside and threw a wooden post and a lot of bags and buckets at tho front of the door. Witness could not see accused outside from where ho was lying on the couch. After the fourth blow with the axe their mother came in and took the axe from the accused. Witness did not know what the first throe blows were struck with. Witness had not tho use of his left arm, as a result of a bicycle accident. He could not raise his arm above his head. He made no report to the authorities. < John Patrick Shaw, medical practitioner, Mosgiel, said that he answered a telephone call to the Switallas’ home. Jacob appeared

slightly dazed, and there was a lame quantity of blood. Witness found three wounds on the head, and one on the right shoulder The wounds on the head appeared to be made with a blunt instrument—possibly die handle of the axe. The wound on the shoulder was just on the root of the neck. Witness put three stitches in that wound. The wound was well down into the muscie. It was not a dangerous wound. He also put stitches into two of the wounds on the head —in one case one stitch, and the second wound two stitches. The wounds were completely healed now. , Detective Beer said that he arrested the accused on the 10th of this month at Kun 'Bush. Accused made no reply when witness read over the warrant to him. He visited the house of the accused. Mrs Switalla was a very old woman, 93 years of age. He had to get some information from her, but her English was so broken that he could not understand her. . Accused elected to give evidence. Ho said be left Kuri Bush, where he had been working, about 9 on Christmas Evo. He stopped at the hotel at Henley for about two hours, and had six or seven drinks of gin. Ho arrived home about seven or eight o'clock. His brother was there, and asked witness to have a drink of whisky. They oach had a di’ink, and spoke to each other about the garden. Witness took some bags from the kitchen and put them on the saddle. His brother started cursing him, and he cursed him back. He went out, and when he came m Jacob called him a bastard, and he called Jacob a bastard Jacob then rushed in and tried to throttle him. Witness got the axe and struck him with it. His mother then came in and said,/ “Why don t you stop rowing—you are continually rowing.” _ To the Crown Prosecutor: Ho never intended to Tjit Jacob with the sharp of the axe. Jacob came at him with the .carvujg knife, and he got the axe, which was standing outside. He got the sacks to put over the saddle, as it looked like rain. His brother was in the house all this time. Jacob told him to leave the _ bags, and swore at him. and he swore back. He had the whisky as soon as he got into the house. There was no quarrel until witness started to take the bags. They were spread on the floor of the kitchen, being used as carpets. His brother cursed and swore at him, and he pursed and swore back. When ho was coming back from his bedroom Jacob rushed him, got him down, and tried to choke him. They both went out. and ho took his mother down to the other house about 50 yards away. They returned to their own house later on, and he went to bod. He saw the doctor come in that night, but the doctor did not see him (witness). He showed the doctor his throat on the Monday, and he told him to paint it with iodine. His mother was in bed when ho came home from Kuri Bush. 'The carving knife was lying on the table, and when Jacob grabbed it ho ran away. Jacob was about the door of the kitchen when witness struck him the first blow—with the hnadlo of the axe. Jacob went back into the kitchen, and he cave him_ a couple more clouts, Jacob had the knife in his hand, and he throw it at witness after the first blow was stmek. Witness then went outside. He never struck Jacob in the garden with a rail—there-was no rail there to use. Witness was pretty drunk, and his brother looked as if he had had a few drinks too. it had always been the, same for years and years, these quarrels with his brother. When the detective arrested him he did not tell him very much. He told him about the axe and the knife. Dr Shaw, recalled, said that he hod examined accused's throat on the following Monday. Ho complained of pain in his throat, and when he examined it there were signs of slight tenderness on each side of the throat. He thought that the pain might have been caused by accused being caught by the throat. Joseph told him that be had been caught by the throat. In answer to a question by a juryman. Dr Shaw said that the injured person was dazed, but that ho could not smell liquor on him. • Jacob Switalla, recalled, said that there was a bottle of whisky in the house. He; did not ask his brother to have a drink. Witness had one drink, but not while Joseph was there. There was no truth in the accused’.? story—ho did not swear at him. They never quarrelled. This attack on him was positively unprovoked. Ilia Honor, in summing up, said that he thought the jury need not trouble about the third count, and should confine their attention to the first two counts. They had heard the story told by each of the brothers, and according to Jacob the prisoner had made a wholly unprovoked attack on him while he was lying on a couch. They had heard the story told by the accused that they quarrelled, and that his brother came at him with a carving knife and that he then took an axe. Even if they accepted the story of the prisoner, it was dear that the blows were not struck in self-defence. Ho thought, therefore, that that could he left out of consideration. Their having no justification for self-defence, then it was really a question of which of the two counts they ought to convict prisoner on. Unless he struck in Self-defence it was clear that prisoner had committed a brecah of the law. The jury had to decide whether the prisoner attempted to kill his brother or only attempted to do him bodily harm. Prisoner said that he knew what he was doing, so it was clear that he was capable of forming a clear intention. It seemed reasonably clear that prisoner did not intend to murder His brother, because if he had had the intention nothing could have been easier, armed as he was with a weapon like that.

The jury retired at 11.35, and returned at 12.20 with a verdict of guilty on the second count and not guilty on' the first count, and with a strong recommendation to mercy. Tho prisoner was placed in the dock at the conclusion of the sitting for sentence. His Honor said that in this case the jury had found the prisoner not guilty of the more -serious charge and guilty of'the minor charge, with a recommenrfation to mercy. In view of that recommendation lie thought it. would be sufficient if prisoner was sentenced to a term of one year's imprisonment, with hard labour. ASSAULT ON A GIRI,. James Muir Fraser was charged with on January 1, 1922. at Dunedin, assaulting a girl with intent to commit rape, and on a second count with indecent assault. Accused pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr Baj,

The Crown Prosecutor said that the accused was 20 years of age, and the girl was about the same ' age. The girl lived at Mornington. The story opened at Dawson’s jewellery shop on' January 1, at about 9 o'clock. The girl was standing near the shop, when the accused got into conversation with her. Who spoke first was of small moment. A man named Harper also came and spoke to the girl. Harper knew the girl. The accused started off homo with the girl. Whether the girl or the accused suggested they should go home together did not matter. Harper caught up again with them at Manse street, and walked with them up Stafford street. The three of them stood talking for some time at the lop of Stafford street. About 10.50 p.m. two men were passing along one of the tracks on the belt when they hoard a woman call, and a moment later they came upon the girl. She was on the ground, and her dress was disordered. They then saw a short man whom neither could identify, running away as fast as he could. The girl staled that during the struggle, and while the man was holding one of her wrists, she asked him his name. The accused drew out a notebook, and showed her his name written on one of the pages. The girl torn the page out and kept it. There was no doubt that the girl had been assaulted, and the question was whether the accused was, or was not, the man. It might be suggested that someone else had met the girl after the accused had left her. What motive, however, could the girl have in shielding another man at the expense of the accused. The girl gave evidence corroborating the Crown prosecutor’s statemet* Cross examined. Witness*''admitted that she was out with ilarpir on the previous Friday night. _ She had to meet him again in Mornington on January 1. She did not keep the appointment—it was at half-past 6. kept it. She went to church that night. She went out of church at 7 o’clock, but not to see if Harper was at the trams beds. She left the church early to go to a meeting at the Savoy corner. It was not to meet any man—if she was not to meet Harper she would not meet anybody. At 9 o’clock on the Sunday night she was at the Savoy corner. She had a walking stick over her arm. It was not the accused’s or Harper’s stick—it was another man’s stick. She had spoken to this other man, in the niain street at the Octagon. This man walked to the Savoy corner with her. When Fraser spoke to her the third man walked away, and left his stick with her. The third man did not ask to see her home. Certainly not, he was a married man. When Harper came up he said something about the appointment—witness did not know what it was. A pocket book was produced at the Savoy corner, but she did not know why it was produced. It was not at Dawson’s corner that she tore the accused’s name out of .the book. She had never seen the accused before the night of January 1. Harper did not take her home that night because the accused persisted in coming with her. She did not give the accused any encouragement, lire notebook was produced again at Stafford street to enable witnesss to give Harper her address. At the top of Stafford street she made as if she was going away from the accused. She said “good night’’ to him. She intended to go over the belt by the broad road. Accused persisted in aocompanmg her, despite the fact that he could he was not wanted. When at the head Stafford street the accused took her by Hie wrists, and forced her up the track. Had she not been weak in strength at the time accused would not have got her along the track. She screamed frequently and loudly, and straggled all the time. She was screaming before the two men came up. She called the accused a “blasted rotten dog.” Her hat was a yard or two away, and the hatpin was stuck in the ground alongside it. Had she been able to stop the accused she would haye done so. A juryman asked bow far witness was from the neatest house when witness screamed. The witness said she had not the faintest idea. . To his Honor: She was screaming all the time. She was going along the “Chinese” track. The accused took her threo-paxts of the way dong the track. His Honor: Quite; a long way. To Mr Hay: The accused did not walk up with her to the Hglinton road. On lesummg after the luncheon adjournment the foreman of the jury said they would like to ask the girl two questions: (1) How did she account for the hatpin, being stuck in the ground alongside her hat, a couple of yards away? (2) What became of the walking stick? The girl went into the box again, and his Honor asked her the questions. She said that the man fame and got his walking stick before she started home with tho accused. , . As regards the first question, the girl said that she could not say how far the hat and hatpin were from where she was struggling, but they were beyond her reach. His Honor asked how the hat and hatpin got there if she was engaged in a struggle at the time?

The girl: I cannot say how they got there, seeing I was struggling at the time. She did not take the hat off, and neither did she place the hatpin alongside it. John Edward Harper, labourer,- said that he remembered Sunday evening, January 1. He was coming along the street, and met the girl exactly opposite the Bristol at about 9 o’clock. The accused was with her. He had never seen the accused before. He spoke to the girl. He was with them about 20 minutes. A man came along and took his walking stick. He saw the accused’s pocketbook while be was l there. It was given to him to get the girl’s address, Witness intended going away, and he wanted to write to her. The accused, he thought, wrote the address, and the page was given to him (witness). Witness asked where she was going, and she said she was going home. Witness went to the Fountain, and then went home. He caught up on a. couple about Melville street, and they turned out to he the accused and the girl. Ho walked up with them. They stopped directly opposite his (witness’s) gate in Stafford street. The pocketbook was not produced in Stafford street. He went in homo, and the other two went up tho street. It was SO minutes past 10 * when witness got home.

Cross-examined, witness said that the girl’s address was not given to him in Stafford street. He knew tho girl He had been opt with her on tho Friday night previous to tlie Sunday of the New Year. Witness was to have met v her on the Sunday night (January 1) at half-past 6, but she did not keep tlie' appointment. The girl said that the accused was going to take her home. It was not at Manse street that he caught up on the girl. The clock in his house was a pretty correct one. He saw his young brother go in while he was standing at the gate, and ho looked at the clock when he got in to see what time yb was. .Tlie Sunday night was tho first time onl which he had trade her an appointment at the Morington tram sheds. 1 James Baird -Shanks, engine fitter, residing at Momington. sai l that he knew the " Uhin/ sc ” traok over the Bolt. Witness remembered going over the traok on tho night of January 1. He was with a man named Harley The lime was half-past 10. He heard a girl talking'loudly. He went on up the hill, and he heard the girl say “You’ll disgrace me; -ouTI disgrace me,*’ in a loud tone. He would then be about lo or 20 paces away. He heard the girl talking at ab.jut 40 paces away, but could not hoar whit she said. The pair were near the bush, about 10ft or 12ft from the track. The mai went into the hush. He could not identify him. Tlie girl was not doing anvthing when witness first saw her. Ho could not say whether the girl’s clothing was disarranged. He did not notice the hat. It was pretty gloomy in tho bush. The other man assisted her off the ground, and asked her if'she had lost anything. 9110 girl was crying, and her hair was tangled up Ho saw no disarrangement about the girl’s clothes. Ho found a hatpin about a couple of yards away from whore the girl was lying. It was stuck in the ground He had never seen the girl previously. Ho accompanied her part of tho way home. It was near the top of the track where he saw tho pair.

Cross-examined, witness said that it appeared to him from the way the girl was talking that she had received rough treatment. There were two or three houses within about 70 yards or 80 yards. It took him about five minutes to walk up the track. He heard no screaming. He thought that, he would have heard screaming had any been going on Robert Edgar Hurley, labourer, residing at Morington, said that he was on tho "Chinese” track with Mr Shanks on January 1 at half-past 10. He heard a woman calling out, but could not hear what she was saying. He had to go about 20 yards from the time he first heard the voice 'till ho first saw her. The girl was about 6ft from the track, on the right hand side. It was about 40 yards from tho top of the track. Ft was very dark at the time. He only saw the form of a man running down the track. Witness went over, and the girl seemed to be getting un. He assisted her up. ihe girl looked as if she had been pulled about a bit. Her hair was disar ranged, and her blouse seemed to be knocked about a bit. She had an overcoat on. There was a bit of grass on the coat. The girl said that she had been assaulted. He saw the girl home. She said that she had lost her brooch. Witness offered to go round next morning, and he found the brooch. Croa-tuAiniaed, wjtoeM coaaidered tlut

the track was about, 240 _ yards long. It was not tjjl he got within 20 paces that he heard anything at all. He was hard ol hearing. William Hildridge Vernon, brother of the girl, said that his sister lived with him ai Morniiigton. She got home at about K minutes to ll on the Sunday night. Wit ness remarked that it was a nice time to come home, and she then told what had happened to her. The girl seemed to have been very much pulled about and as if she had had a very rough handling. She showed witness the address written on the piece of paper. Detective Hannafin said that he saw the accused on the next day. He admitted thai he had taken a girl home on January 1 The accused denied interfering with her. Ho said that he had put his arm round her going up Stafford street but that was all. He asked accused if he had a pocket book, and he produced one. Witness then handed the accused the slip of paper with the name on, and he admitted it was his writing. The'accused made a statement. (This was read to the jury.) The statement said that the girl came past him while he was standing at the Savoy corner-and said “Good night.” Accused thought he knew her—that she was a girl_ from Moonlight. The girl said that she did not know where Moonlight was; that she came from Auckland. A man came and asked the girl for his stick, and the girl asked him (accused) if he was going to take her home. He agreed, and ■ went with her up Stafford street. He left her at .Eglinton road, at her request, as she said that her brother might see her. I The' accused then went into the witness- ' box. He said that he was a labourer, residing at Macandrew road. He was 20

years oi age. xio saw tno gin on ounaay night, January 1, at Dawson’s comer. He was standing with another chap, and the girl said: “Good night.” She said: “How are you getting on?” and he said:. “All right. How are you?” Witness mistook her for a girl from Moonlight, and asked if she was just down for a holiday. She said: “Where from?” and he said: “Moonlight.” She said that she came from Auckland, and that she was living at Mornington with her brother. She said that she was going back in March or April. Three men came along the road just off the footpath, and she said “Good' nighf” to them. She called out to one of them: “I’ll see. you after. I have a bone to pick to you.” She then asked the man (he turned out to be Harper) why ho had not turned up that night. The man said: “Hullo! you’ve got another one to-night. I’ve sewn you with,six already,” and she made to strike him with the stick. He (Harper) asked witness if he lived up Mornington, and witness was going to say “No” when the girl nodded her head for him to take her nrvmft. Hamer askpfi h«r. if rVi*» was point?

homo with him, and she said “No,” that her young man would not let her. She asked witness quietly whether ho would take her home, and he said “Yes.” The girl asked Harper if he would give her his ! address. Accused gave the girl a bit ot paper, and she wrote something on it and gave it to. Harper, and also gave him an- i other note' She saw accused’s name on the ' pocket book, and she asked if she oculd have it. He said “Yes,” and she tore the leaf out. Harper asked her where she worked, and she said it.was on the paper—that she worked at the Hoslyn mills. Just after that Harper left. Before Harper left the third man'came back for,his walking, stick, and the girl said to him (accused): “Good riddance.” He and the girl went towards Stafford street. Going up Stafford street Harper caught up on them. They stood talking near the top of the street. She asked Harper for his name and address again. Harper showed her some other address. Ho (accused) went on with the girl up Mornington way. They went up the “Chinese” path, and he put his arm round her vvaidt and she put her arm round his waist. 1 hey went right up on to the Eglinton road, when the girl said he had better not come any further in case her brother saw him. Just after that ho left her. It was a lie (hat he pulled her along the track. He did no indecent act to her. He came down the Mornington tram line, and found it vwas 12 minutes past 10. To the Crown Prosecutor: He told the constable that it was 12 minutes past 10 when he came down the tram line. He did not tell Detective Hannafin that he came down the “Chinese” track. Mr Hay aaid that he had seen Constable M’Cartney during the afternoon' tea interval and he had stated that the girl had admitted to him (the constable) the following day that she did not know Harper’s name The Crown Prosecutor had agreed to call Constable M’Cartney. He thought it was a very commendable action on the part of Constable M’Cartney, Constable M’Cartney, stationed at Mbmington, said he saw the girj on the morning after the offence was alleged to have been committed. The girl told him that she did not know Harper by name. Mr Hay, in addressing the jury, said they must be satisfied that the man with the girl on the track that night was the accused. No person saw the man except the girl, and her evidence, learned counsel held, was utterlv unreliable. Could they believe that Fraser could have dragged this girl 200yds along the track. Was he able to do it? On the face of it the story was absurd. Then as .to the screaming loudly, there were houses 'within 70yds. and the two men Shanks and Hurley did not hear her screaming-. Her statement in that respect waa utterly and absolutely unreliable. Then as to the story as to how she had tom out the paper with Fraser’s name on it during the struggle and put ) it in her pocket. Her evidence on these , points alone was absolutely unreliable, and what man amongst them was capable of ; saying on what point she should be belieyed. The accused’s story as regards Harper’s name was corroborated by Constable M’Cartney. The Crown had not satisfied the jury that Fraser was the man. There would have hcen no complaint had the two men not oome on the scene. The Crown Prosecutor said that he admitted that the burden of the proof rested on the Crown. If they were satisfied that the accused was the man then they were bound to convict, him. After all the girl bad the slip of paper with the man’s

and that was the essential fact. It was bis name in his own handwriting. As regards the screaming one of the witnesses heard the girl at 40 paces, and the other man, who was hard of hearing, heard her at 20 paces. They had to decide whether substantially to believe the story os a whole, if a girl was a consenting party, she did not raise her voice, nor choose a place within 6tt of a public track. That point should satisfy 'the jury that the girl Wak not a consenting party. With regard to the hat and pin, the girl was found in a state which showed that she was very much upset. She said that she had used the. hatpin, in self-defence, and , that the accused had taken it from her and stuck it .n the ground. In the struggle they would get away from the hat. The girl must have been in a considerable state of excitement, and they must remember that if it was a case of consent, why did the man bolt? The mere fact that the man bolted was in itself a strong argument that there had been an assault. He submitted that the most material evidence of’ the accused was that he looked at his watch and found it 10.. minutes, post 10. That statement was not made to she. detective. In order to exonerate the accused the defence was forced to bring another unknown man on the scene. He asked whether that. was a theory which could appeal to them as reasonable. He submitted to them that the accused was the man who committed the assault.

His Honor, in summing up, said that they had heard the girl's story, in regard to her being dragged along the track. If they j were satisfied that that story was completely ! true then accused ought to be found guilty on the first count. The story told by the accused was that they walked quietly up the “Chinese’ ’track to the Eglinton road, that he separated from her there, and that he was not the, man who was with her when Shanks and Hurley came on the scene. It was for them to say if the man was the accused. There was no doubt' that there was a man there, and that he had. been taking liberties with the girl. The jury had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was that man. The accused’s story involved this—that he left the girl and some other man appeared on the scene and took her down the track and attempted to ravish her. It seemed very difficult to believe that that oould be true, and it might occur to them that the accused was simply lying when he said that he was not the man* who was with the girl when Shanks and Hurley appeared. It was quite obvious' from the way the girl approached the mam and spoke to him —a perfect stranger—taking her own account of the meeting—it certainty would suggest to this young man that this young lady was not very particular as to whom she associated with, and, in all probability he thought that he would bo perfectly safe to take liberties, with her. She was so willing to be friendly with a stranger as to walk across the Town Belt with, him, so he' was certainly justified in thinking that she was a girl who was probably not inaccessible. If the jury was satisfied that accused was the man, they ought to satisfy . themselves how fair the girl’s story was 1 credible as to what was to her. Certainly there was a deal of evidence which suggested that she must have consented up to a certain stage, but apparently she was not prepared to go all the way. His Honor read the evidence dealing with what took place on the track. His Honor said that according to this young. Lady’s story she was being ravished, and this rape which had started was interrupted in order that the lady who was being ravished might get the name and address of the ravisher. This was really what they were asked to believe. The accused was holding on to,the girl, and was at the same time to get his pocket •book out and give her his name and address. The girl’s story was that a determined attack was made on her virtue, which she resented to the utmost of her power. Apparently nobody heard the screams—not even Shanks or Hurley, because all they heard was loud talking. And it was very significant that the first words Shanks heard were, “You’ll disgrace me" (twice). She said this in a fairly loud voice. Shanks’s evidence certainly contradicted that of the girl when she said that she was screaming, and neither did the evidence of Hurley support her in this direction. Her evidence suggested that she was engaged in an argument rather on the question of sexual intercourse. . Tf what, was done was done with the girl’s consent then of course there was no crime. Ac the same time they must remember that it was open for a woman to withdraw her consent at any time, and if the man persisted after, it‘was made plain to him that the woman did not consent, then the act was unlawful. The jury retired, and returned at an interval of 25 minutes with a verdict of not guilty. SERIOUS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. Leslie Allan Steven, who had pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges of breaking and entering and theft, withdrawing his plea of not guilty, entered on the occasion of his previous trial at Oamaru, came . up for sentence. His Honor said: The probation officer has recommended strongly that probation should be granted in this case. The prisoner does not deserve to be treated in this way. | After some hesitation I have decided., how- : ever, to grant probation, but not in the 1 way suggested. The prisoner is. ordered to come up for sentence for the crime committed in 1919, and in connection with that he is released on probation for « term of three years from this date, on the special condition that the prisoner abstain altogether" from drinking alcoholic liquor, and take out a prohibition order against himself forthwith and renew it from time to time. On the other charge the prisoner is ordered to pay a fine of £SO. This will

be more than sufficient to cover the expense to which the prisoner lias put the country in connection with the case, including the expenses of the sittings in Oamaru. These sittings were rendered necessary by this, case, as there was no other business at those sittings. In connection with this case the prisoner has mode the following written statement:— “On the evening in question my wife and I were visiting at Lindsay’s house. I have frequently to return to work at night. That evening it was necessary that I should return to work. . Lindsay and I left in my car to go to my place of work at Meek’s Mill. Lindsay left me there working. He came back about half an hour later and said -he had some stuff to take home, and asked me to come with him. We went to the premises a short distance away. When we got there the back basement door was open. I remained about the door of the basement. I was never in the shop above. Lindsay came back to me and handed mo the articles which were found on me. He went back to the. shop above and then came' rushing out saying the police were after him. We both ran away. Lindsay, I believe, went home direct, and afterwards escorted my wife home. I went back to’ my . place of business (Meek’s Mill), and, having seen that everything was right there. I put away my car and wont to Lindsay’s place for Mrs' Steven. She had already left with Lindsay. I then went home and was met by the police there.. As the police had identified me I was willing to plead guilty from the start, but Lindsay thought this would involve him, and I did not like, to do this, and we thought there was a : chance of our both getting off.” This shows that the evidence given by the constable at the trial in Oamaru was true, and' that the verdict of not guilty in Lindsay's case was a serious miscarriage of justice, Mr Hay said that he would undertake tosee that the fine of £SO was paid. This case concluded the criminal sittings.