SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22326, 28 July 1934, Page 19

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday before Mr Justice Kennedy. | STILL UNABLE TO APPEAR When Thomas William Robinson was again called upon for sentence on two charges of making false declarations, Ins counsel (Mr J. G. Warringtonl stated that the prisoner was still in hospital, but it was almost certain that he would be discharged within a fortnight. His Honor directed that the prisoner should be brought before the court as soon as his condition reasonably perUUtted ' A BAD RECORD Courtney Clark Pledger, who was represented by Mr C. J. L. White, apneared for sentence upon charges ot breaking and entering a shop and stealing goods and breaking and entering a dwelling at night with intent to commit a crime. , , Mr White said that the prisoner, who was 27 years of age, had a list of offences that was not creditable, but up to the time of the latest offences had been involved in no serious crime. It had been only in April last that lie had first been sent to prison. The latest offences bad been due to the fact that* he had had no work and had got into bad company. After the offences the prisoner had disappeared'from Dunedin. He had had the nightmare of these charges hanging over his head, and the constant fear of arrest must have been in itself a-severe punishment. He had already spent three months and a-half in gaol while waiting to appear.' ' _ ~ The Crown prosecutor (Mr h. i!. Adams) said that the prisoner’s previous convictions had been spread over .13 years. He seemed to have'sufficient convictions to qualify as .an habitual criminal, yet it was only last year that he had had his first experience of gaol. His Honor said that the prisoner had eluded justice for a period of nine months. It had also been stated that be had been in prison for three months. He might have been sentenced earlier had he made his present plea of guilty earlier. He had been frequently treated with leniency, and the probation extended had been of no avail. He had. been before the court on various charges on no fewer than 11 occasions, and he appeared to have been progressively, clecliimi" until lie had committed the crimes to which he had now’ pleaded guilty. On the first charge he would be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for two years, and on the second to imprisonment w’itti hard labour for two years and six months, the sentences to be concurrent. GRAVE OFFENCES John Henry Moulin, who also was represented by Mr White, appeared foi sentence on three charges of carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 16. Mr White said that, the prisoner was 58 years of age, and had been separated from his wife for a number of years. He bad only one previous conviction, bavins been fined £lO eight years ago for making a false declaration. He was a hard-w’orking man, and had been living a semi-lierniit’s life —air unnatural ana miserable existence. He was, further-more.-in a bad state of health. “ There is no doubt but that you unlawfully corrupted the unfortunate girl,” said his Honor in sentencing tuc prisoner to imprisonment with. hard labour for two years and six mouths upon each charge, the sentences to be. concurrent. PETITION FOR DIVORCE ALLEGATION OF ADULTERY UPHELD • The greater part of the day was taken up with the hearing of a petition for divorce by Eric Douglas Yorstou against Rose Yorston on the ground of adulter;, Thomas Edward Wright being named, as co-respondent. • . ‘ .... Mr' White appeared for the petitioner and Mr E. J. Anderson for the respondent and the co-respondent. . \ Mr White, in opening his case, said that, the jury * -had simply ■ to decide whether the. respondent and the _ corespondent committed adultery, on October 18 last. The parties had married soiue eight years ago. ..Fortunately, .there were no children., Yorston. had a .small farm at Finegand, on ■, the outskirts ot Halclutha, and-he and his wife- lived ;tae r e until October last. Two years ago the co-respondent went to work at a ; farm which almost adjoined that of Yorstou. The parties were all friendly and also attended "dances. For some time nothing occurred to which exception could ue taken, though it was true that Mrs Yorston had waved to Wright and also whispered to him in a dance hall. In August, however, the respondent entered upon a. peculiar line of conduct. She offeied to do Wright’s washing free of charge. This seemed to have been done to give Wright an opportunity of calling at the house. The petitioner’s first real suspicions were aroused on Sunday, October 15. He thought that there w’as something in the wind that night and pretended to be ill. He Heard a car pull up and Ins wife go out. The moment she had gone he slipped out the back way and went up to the car. ’ He could see Wright and his wife in the car close beside each other, and he heard them make an appointment to meet on the following Wednesday night. He then left and went back inside. Shortly afterwards his wife returned. but the petitioner kept to himself the fact that he had overheard the appointment. On the Wednesday a brother-in-law of the petitioner named M’Allister kept a watch and saw the respondent and the co-respondent meet outside Yorston’s gate and go along the road. After he saw them enter some willows on the river bank he went back for Yorstou. They stalked the couple and would say that adultery took place. On the return of Mrs Yorston the petitioner said some uncomplimentary things to her, got some clothes and went to live with M’Allister. ' . It was rather peculiar, Mr White added, that the evidence in this case had practically been gone over before in the Magistrate’s Court at. Balclutha when the wife sued Yorston as a destitute person. On that occasion both the respondent and the co-respondent admitted that they went down to the willows, and the wife said that she heard a rustling sound. Impropriety, however, was denied. Counsel added that it would be alleged by the wife that Yorston lived with her for two or three days after the alleged adultery, but this would be denied. The petitioner gave evidence along the lines of counsel’s opening statement. To Mr Anderson; Witness stated that he had previously accused hie wife of adultery with another man named Wright. Asked why he did not tackle the corespondent on the Sunday night when he wae in the car with Mrs Yorstou, the petitioner replied: “I wanted to get the goods.” You mean that you wanted to get evidence of adultery, between Wright and your wife? —Exactly. Witness added that his wife offered to give him a confession in which a man named Sinclair was mentioned if he would 1 agree not to proceed against Wright. Corroborative evidence was given by Martin M’Allister, a farmer, of Finegand, and Isabel Betsie M’Allister, his wife. The petitioner’s mother, Jane Ann Yorston, said that in her presence the respondent admitted misconduct with Wright, and witness understood that she was referring to October IS. She also stated that if Yorston would let Wright off she would make an appointment with another man and go out with him. She would let her husband know, and he could bring witnesses along. She added that she had nothing to be ashamed of, as she had never, been taught to distinguish right from wrong. In opening the case for the respondent and co-respondent, Mr Anderson said that it would consist . of their evidence alone. Yorston, his wife, Wright, and Wright’s sister were friendly and enjoyed social evenings together in Yorston’s house. Apparently, the domestic affairs of the Yorstons had not run smoothly because Yorston had made allegations of his wife’s unfaithfulness with two other men. The position developed in such a way that Yorston wanted to get rid of his j wife, and it was arranged that she and Wright were to be followed on this particular evening. Had the jury ever heard of such a botch being made of an endeavour to tax a woman with adultery? Mr Anderson asked. It might not have been a proper thing for Mrs Yorston and Wright to go into the willows, but the fact remained that they did. They would say, however, that there was no

adultery* Evidence would be given that the parties actually went on living together. What Yorstou was waiting for was a confession, and, after pressure, he got one on the following Sunday. On the Monday he left. The suggestion was made that even if there were adultery, which was denied, it had been condoned by Yorston’s action in living with his ' The respondent, in giving evidence, said that she told her husband of her appointment with Wright for October 18 immediately after she made it. She admitted that she made a statement confessing adultery with Sinclair, stating that Yorston told her that he would use it to obtain £IOOO damages from Sinclair and obtain a divorce. After he had got the money he would pay off his debts and they could live together again. In reply to Mr White, the respondent stated that the confession that she made with respect to Sinclair was not true. So you deliberately lent yourself as a party ’to a conspiracy?—The Witness s reply wag inaudible. It was a put-up job?—He asked me:to do it. ■■ . , You were getting nothing out of it but were willing to brand yourself as an adultress—Again* the reply was inaudiyle. Was it not strange that you should do this after having been with Wright on the Wednesday night?—Yes. And the reason why you agreed to tins outrageous admission was to protect Wright?—He said he was not going to have anything to do with Wright. Asked why she went out with \V right, the respondent stated that as her husband was going out with Miss Wright she saw no harm in Wright and herself going out together. She admitted that she had said in the lower court that she met Wright' to get one back on her husband. Mr White: Would that not bo playing into his bands? ' , Witness: I supjiose jt would. . The respondent admitted that Wright put his arm around her in the willows. She first denied that Wright had kissed her but later admitted that he did. The co-respondent admitted that he had put his arm round the respondent and kissed her on. two or three occasions. He saw no harm in meeting a married woman. Mrs Yorston said that Yorston would not care. >

Mr White; Why did you put your ami round her?—l suppose the closer you are the wanner you are.—(Laughter.) What did you kiss her for?—That would not he much good for heat-generat-ing purposes.—lt was just for fun. The co-respondent admitted asking Yorston to drop the case against him, hut denied that he offered money. Mr Anderson, in his address to the jury, said that the question before the jury was whether, from the facts, the inference could clearly be drawn that adultery was committed. It was not the duty of the jury to investigate the morals of the position. Counsel suggested that the petitioner’s conduct, -especially, in obtaining a confession with respect to Sinclair, showed that he had not been sure of what- he had seen. While stupid nonsense went on between a married woman gnd a single man —and counsel must agree that it was most improper—it was, he suggested, a long way short of adultery.

Mr White said that the petitioner was not mercenary, and asked for no damages for his wife’s shame. The jury had to take an ordinary coinmouseuse view of the actions of the parties. Hi s Honor, after summing up, put the following questions to the jury : —Did the respondent commit adultery with the corespondent? and. Did the co-respondent commit adultery with the respondent? l ‘ I apprehend that the evidence will leave you very little doubt as to what the proper answers'should be.” he added. The jury retired at 4.7. and returned 15 minutes’ later, answering eacli ques-tion-in the affirmative. 1 Mr White then moved for a decree nisi, and his Honor made the order requested, directing that .it should be made absolute after the expiration of three months. Mr Anderson asked for wife s costs. His Honor ordered that the' petitioner should pay the respondent’s costs amounting to £25, and that the co-respondent should pay the petitioner that sum of £23, plus £3O and witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to he fixed by the registrar. •