SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20868, 7 November 1929, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Wednesday, November 6. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury). CHARGE OF INDECENCY. Thomas Henry Edward Roskilley was charged with, on July 22, at Dunedin, wilfully and obscenely exposing his person in a public place. There was a second similar charge against the accused. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) conducted the case; Mr R. H. Simpson appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. All witnesses were ordered out of court. In stating the facts to the jury, the Crown Prosecutor said the offence took place on the Town Belt, on a path leading from Alison crescent, Mornington, to York place. The question was whether the two girls were right in identifying the accused. They told the same siory and both unhesitatingly picked him out in the police yard as the man. He anticipated that the defence would bo that at tho time of the offence the accused was not in the locality, but was out at his mother’s home on the Flat or somewhere between the Flat and the centre of the city. The question of identification was, therefore, an important one. If the accused could establish an alibi he could not be guilty of the offence, but the jury should bear in mind that an alibi depended on a great many circumstances before it could be safely accepted. It was for the jury to say whether they believed the two girls, who swore positively that the m oused was the man concerned.

Evidence was given by the two girls, one of whom is' 15J years of age and the other 15 years. The girls agreed that the man was poorly dressed, and one of them said he was wearing a brown overcoat, while the other said he had no overcoat.

Detective-Sergeant Nuttall (who was in charge of the identification parade when the two girls picked out the accused), Constable Harvey, and Detective Kearton also gave evidence. Mr Simpson said the defence would be that on July 22, at the time mentioned by the girls (a quarter-past 1) the accused was not on the Town Belt in Dunedin, but at his own home in South Dunedin. It was often extremely difficult to fix what happened on an exact date and to think back to say what took place on that day, but in this case there were opportunities that were remarkable, because in the house there was a married sister of the accused. The doctor had been sent for, and when he went out ho ordered her removal to the Hospital. That day, therefore, was not likely to fade from the memory of any of the persons who were in the house.

Mrs Roskilley (mother of the accused) said she remembered what happened in her house on July 22 last. Her daughter was very ill, and the doctor was expected. The doctor came and gave hie report, and next day the daughter was taken to the Hospital. The accused was in the house all the morning, and left a little before noon to bring the children home from the kindergarten. He returned about a quar-ter-past 12. Witness’s son-in-law and another daughter were also in the house. The family commenced dinner just before half-past 12. Dinner occupied half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour. The accused was at dinner, and remained at the table until they all rose. The accused left the house at 20 minutes past 1 for town.

By the Crown Prosecutor: Witness was sure it was 20 minutes past 1 when her son left home. She looked at the clock at the time. Before leaving he said he would have to hurry as he wished to meet a man at the Grand Hotel at half-past 1 Accused was not duo at work until night. He worked all night, returning a little after 8 a.m. Ho was sometimes in bed all day. rising at half-past 4. Mrs Roy (daughter of the previous witness) gave corroborative evidence. William D. Ryan (son-in-law of Mrs Rosldlley) said that on July 22 he was at Mrs Roskilloy’s house before dinner. Ho saw the accused there. Accused brought the children homo from the kindergarten, and dinner then came on. Accused was at dinner when witness left the house a few minutes after half-past 12. Vera Paterson (fiancee of the accused) ■ said she met the accused 6n the afternoon of Monday, July 22, at a quarter past 2, and they went to the pictures. James’ L. Wilson, residing at Dunedin South, an id he had walked with his children from the kindergarten to his homo (next tp that of accused), and it took 15 minutes.

Addicting; the jury, Mr Simpson submitted that it was possible a mistake had been made with regard to identity. The opportunity of the girl of observing the man was a very casual glance. The story they told was contradicted by a mass of evidence on the other side. ( Further, the girls differed in their evidence. One said the man was wearing an overcoat and the other said ho was not. _lt was six weeks later that the identification parade was hold, and it would bo difficult for a girl to recognise a man, of whom she had only a passing glance, after the lapse of that time. The girls said tho man, was in working clothes. On the other hand, there was evidence that the on the day in question took hie young lady to the pictures, and that being so ho would not bo in working clothes, Tho Crown Prosecutor said the alibi it wan attempted to set up in this case was what was known as a family alibi, and it was for the jury to say whether the evidence in support was satisfactory or not. The alibi scarcely covered tho time of the offence. There was one grievous defect. Tho jury was loft uTjii a complete blank between the time the accused left home and tho time he met Miss Paterson. There was no evidence of what took place between 2D minutes past 1 and a quarter past 2. Why did tho accused not call the man he met at 1.30 p.m. to fill hvat any rate, part of the blank?

His Honor, in his address, said it would no doubt be concluded by the jury that the girls were witnesses of truth, and that the offences wore committed, but there was tho question whether the accused was the man who committed the offences Referring to the opportunities the girls had of observing the man, hie Honor paid it was for tho jury* having heard tho evidence, to sny whether tho girls had sufficient Opportunity of being impressed with the appearance of the, man. Even truthful witnesses might differ in describing the dress of a person. Tho girls agreed that the man wore working clothes. Tho defence said tho accused could not ba tho man, because he was in another place, and was Otherwise dressed at the time the offence was committed. If the jury accepted the evidence of the defence, it was clear that tho accused was in his mothers home up to 1.30 p.m. or thereabouts But even if the jury accepted that testimony there mbs a gap of time in which the movements of the accused were not accounted for. It did not appear from the evidence wlmre the accused was between the time he left his home and 2.15 p.m.. when he met Miss Paterson. His Honor commented on the fact that the man whom the accused met in town had not been called.

After the jury had retired, it was pointed out by Mr Simpson that the offcnce_ was alleged to have taken place at 1.10 p.m,, and evidence bad been led to show that the accused left his home at 1.20 p.m. The Grown Prosecutor said that no evidence had been given as to the time of the occurrence, but he was prepared to admit that the school the girls attended to.resume at 1.35 p.m. The jury returned, and hie Honor intL* mated to them that the Crown admitted that the school which the girls attended was to resume at 1.35 p.m. The jury retired at 3.30 p.m., and returned an hour later with a verdict of not gmltv.

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. Charles Wilfred Burrell appeared to answer three charges of indecently assaulting females. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr White. The Crown Prosecutor opened his remarks to the jury by reading a Statement made voluntarily to the police bv the accused and signed by him. In this‘statement the accused said he had a boot repairing shop in Lawrence street, Mornmg ton. Three girls, whom he named, visited hw shop, and made certain proposals to him. which ho rejected. On one occasion, when he turned out two of the girls, they threw clods of earth into his premises. On another occasion, when he told a girl to leave his shop, slit? knocked down some of the showcards. When a.

girl went to his shop for a pair of boots she waited in the back room, as the booitwere not ready, but he did not interfere with her. He had never taken girls into the back room of his premises. Aftei reading the statement Mr Adams outlined portion of the evidence he intended to call, and said it was for the jury to whether they believed the evidence of the girls who would be called as witnesses.

Evidence was given by one of the girls [II jears of age), who told the court of happenings, which, she alleged; took place between herself and other girls and the accused in the back room of the accused's premises.

, Ip answer to Mr White the girl said that she and other girls used to go to the accused s shop about three times a week, demanding money from the accused. Accused used to get very angry with them, and one day the shop boy chased them out. Accused had also chased them out. Once witness threw mud into the shop because the accused would not give them money Another girl knocked down showcards, because the accused would not give them money. The girls used to sing choruses on the back opposite to annoy the accused. Accused said to them that he would get the police unless they kept out of his shop. Counsel drew witness’s, attention to discrepanc;es between her evidence and that of the other girls in the lower court, and witness said the other girls were not telling the truth.

. Ap°^ er . sirl (II years of age) gave similar erudence. b

Further evidence for the Crown will be heard this i"nvn>nrT,