SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20866, 5 November 1929, Page 17

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. •Monday November 4. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury). A SERIOUS CHARGE. Francis Joseph Gantley was charged with, on or about October 18, 1928, and also on November 14, 1028, unlawfully carnally knowing a girl over the age of 12 years and under the age of 16 years. The accused, who was represented by Mr E- J. Anderson, pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said the case was one in which the defence of consent by the girl was not open to the accused Evidence would be produced to show the age of the girl and her condition subsequent to the acts complained of. and the only question for the jury to determine was whether or not the accused actually committed the acts out of which the present charges arose. One of the most significant points of the statement which the accused had made to the police was his point-blank denial of having been in the company of the complainant on the dates alleged, a denial which would be contradicted by the sworn testimony of the complainant, her sister, and another man. The complainant said that about October 10, 1928, she came to Dunedin from her home at Waitahuna to join her sister in domestic service. On the evening of Labour Day, she was in company with her sister and a young man, when they met the..accused, w ]j o W ns introduced to them as “ Mr Woods.” The four young people then went for a walk to Jubilee Park. The complainant and the accused, who were together, became separated from the others, and witness detailed what had taken place in the park. The next occasion on which she saw the accused was on November 14, the night of the general elections. On that occasion he had followed her to the house where she was employed, and she had admitted him - ’ to one of the rooms, where there Had again been impropriety. She did not see the accused again till April'when she met him on a train travelling between Beaumont and Waitahuna. Sue was aware of her condition at that time, and had taxed him with the responsibility. She had given birth to a child on July 30, 1929. The witness described having identified the accused at an identification parade held at the detective office, in -Dunedin, in June last. A sister of the complainant also identified the accused as the man in whose company the two girls had been on the evening of Labour Day. The mother of the girl gave dvidence as to the latter’s age, and produced a birth certificate showing her to have been born in August. 1913. Corroborative evidence of the identity of the accused and of his having been i the company of the girls on the evening of Labour Day was given by the man who bad been the fourth member of the party. Detective Lean and Chief Detective Cameron gave formal evidence of the identification., parade and the subsequent arrest of the accused. Mr Anderson, in addressing the jury, said that the evidence of the two girls showed several serious gaps, and in some cases they had flatly contradicted one another. Charges of thii nature were very easily mdde, and il was often extremely difficult for the accused person, not matter how innocent he might be, to clear himself. He submitted, however, that the evidence produced by the Crown left a doubt regarding what actually took place, which would not justify the jury in considering the case of the prosecution proved. In summing up, his Honor remarked that though there was uncertainty regarding some of the details, the jury, as men of the world, might find themselves disposed to look hpon them as not inconsistent with the youthfulness of the _ complainant in her position. There still remained several important statements which were corroborated by the evidence of the sister and the other man. The jury retired at 12.45 p.m. and returned at 3.25 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on the first count, and not guilty on the second count. The accused was remanded till 10 a.ra. to-morrow for sentence. CHARGES AGAINST CHINAMAN. Kum Yoon Lee, also known as William Chan, jun., and Tong Sing Lee, appeared on 13 charges, as follows:—(1) That he obtained £2 from Frederick Griffiths Paape by means of a valueless cheque on the National Bank at Invercargill; (2) that he obtained £5 from Paape by the same means; (3) that he obtained 14s 6d from Paape by the same means; (4) that he obtained credit of £8 from William Dawson Cowie by means of fraud: (5) that be obtained £SO from Francis George O’Bierne by false pretences; (6) that after presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him he concealed part of his property—to wit, silk and soft goods exceeding £lO in value; (7) that, being a person adjudged a bankrupt, he made a material omission, in the statement relating to his affairs; (8) that, being a perso.n adjudged a bankrupt, he contracted a debt for £2 from Grigor Grant at a time when he could not have had any reasonable probable expectation _ of being able to*pay it as well as all his other debts; (9) that under . the same circumstances he contracted a debt for £63 14s 4d with Bntterworth Bros., Ltd; (10) that he obtained goods valued at £3O 16s lOd from Mercer and Mitchell by false representations: (11) that he contracted a debt for £l9 12s 8d at a time when he could not have had any reasonable or probable expectation of beirg able to pay the debt as well as all his other debts; (12) that, being a person adjudged a bankrupt, be failed to deliver up to the official assignee all such parts of his property as were in his custody or under his control — to wit, certain silks and other soft goods which lie was required by law to deliver up; and (13) that he incurred a debt or liability to Frederick Griffiths Paape by obtaining credit of £26 5s by means of fraud. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) conducted the case, Mr R. H. Simpson appeared for the accused. Mr Adams referred shortly to the charges in the indictment. In regard to the charge of obtaining £SO from Mr O’Beirne, he said that Mr O’Beirne was a solicitor at Invercargill. Accused, a market gardener, wrote to Mr O’Beirne asking for a loan of money, and mentioning certain chattels on which he wished to raise the loan. A bill of sale was prepared, and the accused received the money. The case for the Crown was that the accused did not own any of the chattels, but that they belonged to his father When Mr O’Beirne sent a bailiff to claim the chattels, they were claimed by the father. The accused remained in Inver cargill for some months after that time, but left about the end of 1928 for Dunedin. There was nothing sinister about three names being borne by the Chinaman, because in a Chinese community such a fact was capable of a perfectly innocent explanation Shortly after leaving Invercargill the accused was made bankrupt. In a statement to the official assignee, the accused said that he went to Invercargill about the end of 1927 to assume control of his father’s market garden From December, 1927, to March 1928. the gardens were a success. Then due to the low rates for market garden produce and the failure of certain crops he had to borrow sums of money, Hines.l- - upon him, and he had to borrow from Mr Preston, this money going to pay accounts due. The sum he borrowed was, in all, £l3o—£so from Mr O’Beirne and £BO from Mr Preston. His father then took over the gardens. When he came to Dunedin, therefore, he owed this sum. and his finances were so low that he had to borrow £2 from his father for his railway fare. After coming to Dunedin he stayed in the Oban Hotel He remained there for some weeks, with his wife and child, running up a bill for £26 ss. The accused claimed to have a bank account at Invercargill, and handed certain cheques to Mr Paape, which were duly honoured. But the time came when the account was empty, and a cheque given to Mr Paape was returned dishonoured. It was for the jury to say whether this was a fraudulent act. Unless the accused could satisfy the jury that he had opened an overdraft at the bank at Invercargill the only question for the jury was. Did the accused have the funds in the bank xvhen he gave the cheque to Mr Paape? With another cheque for £27 the accused paid his hotel account for £26 5s 6d. receiving 14e 6d in change. Accused was also charged with incurring a liability' by obtaining credit of £2G 5s 6d by means of fraud. If the' jury was satisfied that the accused went to tie hotel without any intention of

paying his debts incurred there he had committed the offence with which he was charged. Mr Adams proceeded to give details o£ other chargee. He added that firms in Dunedin were induced to give credit to the accused, as they had known his father, who was at one time Chinese missionary in Dunedin, and on the faith of representations made by the accused. With regard to the bankruptcy charges, he pointed out that whan the accused became bankrupt he could have had no reasonable expectation of paying debts due to Butterworth Bros, and others, as well as the amounts owing to his creditors. Then, in the statement of his affairs handed by the accused as a bankrupt to the official assignee, he had failed to dis-. close that he was in debt to a number of creditors in the sum of £264 10s lid, in addition to the £412 which he owed to his creditors. At that time his debts, totalled £676, whereas when he came from Invercargill to Dunedin his debts were £l3O. The accused was also charged with concealing silk goods which were subsequently found on premises lately occupied by him. These goods, worth about £SO, consisted of silken material, part of the goods purchased from Butterworth Bros. As to the remaining goods, the evidence would be that they corresponded with the goods sold by Butterworth Bros, to the accused, although it was not possible to show that the particular goods came from Butterworth Bros. At a later date the accused motored to the Gridiron Hotel in Dunedin and entered the premises wearing his motoring gloves, with his wife and child, apparently a wealthy man. He stayed there for some time in ease and comfort, and then disappeared, leaving the landlord lamenting. He invited the jury to believe that the accused went to the hotel with the intention of swindling the landlord out of the amount due for board and lodging, because he had no reasonable prospect of paying for the liability he there incurred. Evidence in support of the statement of the Crown Prosecutor was given by F. G. O’Beirne (solicitor, Invercargill), Frederick Griffiths Paape (Oban HoM. Dunedin), Mrs Paape, Douglas V M'Cay (ot Mercer and Mitchell, general %nerchants, Dunedin). Henry Mitchell (of the same firm), and David L. Todd (builder), and the affidavit of T. A, Abercrombie (bank officer, Invercargill) was read and put in. 1 The court adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.