Friday, August 26.

Otago Witness, Issue 2010, 1 September 1892, Page 32

Friday, August 26.

The first witness called was a young woman who recently.left the institution. She was examined at considerable length, and tho effect of her evidence was that while employed by Mrs Titchener, sen., as a servant she was twice insulted by Hugh Titchener. On one occasion he called her out of the kitchen to clean his boots, and they went to the washhouse, where she was brushing his boots, which were on his feet on a chair, when he caught hold of her around the waist. She struggled and managed to get away from him, and went on cleaning nis boots. She did not make any complaint then, or call out. A fortnight later, while engaged putting Hugh.Titchener's child to bed, he again insulted her. He lived in a separate house in the grounds, and on the occasion referred to his wife was out, and witness was looking after the baby. She was in the bedroom, and Hugh Titchener called her from there into the sitting room, where he attempted to assault her, but she again managed to struggle out of his grasp, and ran_ out of the room. She wrote to her sister complaining of his conduct, and requested to be taken from the institution. She also told some of the girls in the institution what had taken place, and some of them told her that he had insulted them. She didn't like to complain to any of the Titchener family about it, because she was sure they would not believe her. They did not believe her when her sister wrote to them about it. In cross-examination by Mr Solomon, witness declared that, except on the two occasions referred to, Hugh litchener had never done or said anything of an insultiug character "to her. It was true that on the night before she left the institution she had written to Mr Titchener, son., stating tbat her story was a false one, and begging pardon for having told it, but that letter was written at the instigation of a person employed in the institution and in Mr Titchener's presence. That part of the letter in which she said that Hugh Titchener had not insulted her was not true. Emma Titchener, called at the request of Mr Fraser, stated that she had been matron at the' Industrial School for over 16 years. Only two of her sous had held official positions in the institution, but she acknowledged that one of them had lived there without paying the Government for his board, although he had allowed her a sum out of his wages. One son had married a girl who had been an inmate and was a servant in the place, and she was a very good girl too. A child was born before that marriage, and the girl alleged that witness' son, who afterwards married her, was the father. Witness had never heard of any of the children being insulted until this story was told by the last witness, who was always a very lazy girl and a great storyteller, and, as she was constantly being found fault with on those grounds, she had got to hate witness. She had another fault, too ; she used words that witness declined to repeat. Witness was never away from the institution, and must have heard of these insults to the children if they had ever taken place. The inquiry was adjourned from 1 o clock till 7.30 p.m., when „,,«■ Mrs Titchener was further examined by Mr Frasor. She had never heard of any complaints in connection with any of her sons. It was not a fact that she punished girls on her own responsibility for accusations made against one of her sons. She did not recollect a complaint ever having been lodged with her in the absence of her husband. She saw the letter whicli the last witness wrote in her husband's hand, but she did not read it. That was the only time she had ever seen the letter. The sister of the girl who, under examination on the previous day, declared that Hugh Titchener had insulted her on several occasions, was then called. She said she was an inmate of the institution with her sister. Her sister told her that she was insulted by Hugh Titchener, but she didnot say in what manner she was insulted. She told lier about two months before she left the institution. In cross-examination witness said she did not believe her sister when she said she was insulted. Witness was doubtful whether her sister was in, the habit of speaking the truth. She did not believe hor sister in this instance. Witness was about a year and a-half in the institution, and was in Hugh Titchener's room. He had never offered her any rudeness, and she had never heard of any rudeness on his part except that the first witness that morning told her he had insulted her. This was after her sister's statement. Witness did not tell her sister at the time that she did not believe her. She did not appear angry. She could not say whether the first witness that morning generally told the truth. She was a rowdy girl and used bad language, but not very bad language. When the girl referred to told her how Mr Titchener had treated her she was laughing. Her sister was not laughing when she referred to her case. Witness had always been treated kindly in the institution. She was freqently told while she was in the institution by Mr Titchener that if anything improper took place she was to inform him. If she herself had been treated in the manner in which her sister was stated to have been, she would have informed Mr Titchener. To Mr Fraser : Her sister did not always tell the truth. She had often said things which were not true. She would not altogether call her untruthful. She was not rowdy in the institution, and never uged improper language. Witnoss had seen Mr Titchener about three weeks ago, when he asked her if she was leaving the place. He told her if she wanted any clothes she need only to ask him. Mr Habens : Did he say where he would get the money from? Witness s I have money in the bank. (Con t}nuipg), He called again afterwards and asked

her if Hugh Titchener had ever insulted her. She had never said that he insulted her, and sho told him he had not. He asked her to writo and give Hugh Titchener a character. She did so, writing it herself. At this time she knew that her sister had made a charge against Mr Titchener, but she did not believe it. The only girl in the institution that had told her she had been assaulted was the girl she referred to before. That girl used slang words and bad words such as " damn." Witness did not check it because the firl was older than she was, and ought to have nown better. She did not tell Mr Titchener what the girl had told her. Sho could not belicvo Mr Fraser : Why did you not tell Mr Titchener ?

Witness : Don't you think it was her placo to have done so ? Witness said it did not come into her mind to tell Mr Titchener what had been said about Hugh Titchener. She would have told him if she thought it were true. Mr Eraser then stated that ho had had the girl w.hohadchargcdHughl'itchenerwithinsultingher on several occasions examined for his own information by Dr Brown. He did not propose to ask Dr Brown to give evidence, because medical evidence in a case of this nature would be of very little value, but ho proposed to read the report ho had got. * Mr Rabens said he thought it was quite un. necessary after the evidence they had heard. Mr Fraser : Quite so. Mr Habeas went on to say that evidence of a negative nature, of course, would bo very valuable, but any medical evidence as to a violation would bo superfluous. Mr Fraser admitted that that was so. Ho simply wished it to be noted that he had got a medical report, which ho handed in. He said that at that .stage he would call no further evidence and would therefore close his case, but it might be necessary to call more witnesses later on. *

Mr Solomon objected to that. Mr Fraser said that he took it that the inquiry was for the purpose of getting as much information as possible relative to the object of Mr Habens' visit. He had called all the evidence at present in his possession that he intended to call, but if anything new cropped up he would have a right to call evidence on that.

Mr Solomon agreed to this, and Mr Fraser then closed his case. Mr Solomon said he proposed to lay before Mr Habens as concisely as he could 1 the view he took of these charges, and the manner in which ho would meet them, lhat the inquiry was something more than a mere departmental inquiry — although that was the form in which it presented itself to Mr Habens— he need scarcely romind them. For, in addition to the fact that the inquiry was as to the manner in which the Industrial School had been conducted, there were also held over the shoulders of Mr Titchener, sen., and Mr Titchener, jun., two very serious charges, which were aay by day placed before the gaze of tho Sublic. If; the charges laid against the door of Ir Titchener, jun., were true, ho was not only unworthy to have any connection with an educational institution such as . the Industrial School, but he was also unworthy to appear in the company of virtuous women, and his character would be blasted for ever. On the shoulders of Mr Titchener, sen., thero was placed a charge of a different character, but equally severe, for ho was practically charged with having attempted to suborn witnesses in favour of his son. So far as the first and more serious charge was concerned, he would deal with that forthwith, but before doing so he wished to deal with another aspect of the case. It was their business as lawyers (in all cases) to draw a red herring if possible across the scent, and he must say that, so far as his friend Mr Fraser was concerned, he had carried out this practice in the most praiseworthy manner. Mr Fraser : I did it unconsciously then. Mr Solomon (continuing) : At the opening of tho case he (the speaker) had asked Mr Habens to tell him what was tho exact scope of tho inquiry. JIo replied that his business was to ascertain if possible if Mr Titchener and his son were worthy of a continuance of the confidence which had been placed in them by the Government. Mr Frasor, however, had travelled over a considerably wider area than was warranted by the scope of the inquiry thus defined, and this area practically embraced the question as to whether the institution could beproperly managed by the Titchenor family. They were not brought there to consider from a political point of view as to whether the institution could have been better managed or not in the past. To do so they would be compelled to travel over a considerable area and introduce political phases which he was sure Mr Habens would not permit them to discuss. Passing on, then, to the charge preferred against Mr Titchener, jun., the speaker stated that Mr Titchener, iun., had a right to demand— and did do so-a verdict from Mr Habens, or from whoever else was to decide in the matter, as to the morality of his character ; and whether he was adjudged guilty or whether he was adjudged not guilty, he (counsel) was instructed to state that in no case would ho resume his duties at the institution. Dealing with the charges that had been preferred against Hugh Titchener, Mr Habens, evincing a knowledge of the world that he hat done during the time that that inquiry had been held, need hardly be informed that in all the charges made by a woman against a man the law demanded that there must be corroboration on some material point. Ifivery man born was at any moment liable to bo attacked by a woman who said that her chastity had been violated, and the law wisely said these charges should be corroborated. Ho thought he was justified in saying that there wasno possiblesetofcircumstanceswhich gave rise to more charges levied purely and solely for the purposes of blackmail than the charge that a man had been fuilty of an outrage against a woman. That eing so, the law, as he before stated, required circumstantiality and corroboraion before the charge could be held o bo proved. Was it possible to imagine a position in which a man could be more open to such a charge than the place Mr Titchener, jun., occupied. There they had young girls who had been raisad in very unpleasant surroundings — girls who, if they were not actually immoral, were very lucky if they had no immoral tendencies. He asked permission to recite aa instance, the circumstances surrounding tho charge in which were similar to the present charge. The case was an authentic one, and happened in England. A schoolmaster named the Rev. Mr Barlow was charged by two girls with having assaulted one of them. The children alleged that on a particular day one of them was kept in after school, and when the other children had gone the offence was committed. The second girl swore that sho saw the outrage committed. The man waa tried and found guilty, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. After some eight years had passed, when the girls had grown up, one of them at childbirth became dangerously ill, and before sho died she confessed that the whole story of the man's guilt was a concoction. That was an authenticated case known to lawyers, and exemplified the dangers attending such charges as these. In the present case tho charge was supported by three girls. In addition to the ordinary doubt surrounding such a case, they had from the friends of theso very girls the fact that their evidencewas not worthy of credence. Beyond the evidence of the first girl's own sister, it had been proved that her evidence was unworthy of credit. Concerning the second girl, he would show that, in addition to what had been stated by one of the witnesses, so far from being the modest, bashful creature she appeared to be before the inquiry, she was a bold girl, addicted to bad language, and had frequently to be reproved for misconduct in the school. The last witness had stated that when she told her that she had been insultef}"*>y Mr Hugh Titchener, she did not appear to roe much disconcerted, but was laughing, r Theft the evidence of the other girl, it would be sho/vn, was equally unreliable. She first told a st/sry about {in outrage having been committed on her by a man at the Taieri, and on the police making strict investigations the whole thing was founa to be a pure fabrication. Was not that sufficient to make a person say he could not believe her story ? Resides this they had the fact that the ffirl had been brought from a highly immoral life on the Flat. That was tho character of one of the three witnesses on whose evidence they weta asked to blast the character of this young man. He would not refer at any length to the character of tho mother of the girl. She had committed a orime. and had expiated it; She had told them thaii when she first beard of the offence aha. would aojj

believe it, and when she heard, it afterwards on coming out of gaol she became distracted over it, although she herself admitted she knew the child had been tampered with at the early age of eight. If she believed the story that had been told her, why did she not lay her complaint immediately before the proper authorities? She knew perfectly well that this was the proper course to follow. It would be proved, however, that she asked Mr Titchener to pay her L2OO to settle the matter, and when she learned from Mr Titchener that she could get nothing from him, she went to Mr Jiuga Titchener. When she could not bleed the old wan she went to the son— not to bleed him m the ordinary sense of the word, as she threatened to do by tearing his windpipe-up or down, the sneaker forgot which-but by bleeding him metapWcally speaking. When she found that she could not get the money out of the one or the other, she laid the information Then they came to the evidence of the child herself. They had the opinion of the sister that this evidence was not true. Her sister was more likely to arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter than outsiders, and knew the true character of the girl better than he (Mr Fraser) or anyone else did ; and the fact that she said that she did not consider her • evidence true ■was of the utmost importance, and wentalong way to show what th« evidence of the girl was really worth. Counsel then gave his opinion as to the motives which prompted those who had made the charges in acting as they had done. The evidence as to one of the girls was that she wished to get out of the institution. She said that she liked the treatment she received at the school, with the exception of one thing, and that was the way in which she had been treated by Mr Hugh Titchener. Yet, according to her own account, she voluntarily went into a dark room with the man whom she said tried to corrupt the other girls of the institution. If they stopped there, without calling any further evidence, they were bound to come to the conclusion that her testimony was so tinged with falsehood as to be utterly unreliable. He would show by half a dozen witnesses that at the time that Mr Hugh Titchener was supposed to have gone into the room and committed the offence he was walking up and down in front of the house, in view of the assembled classss, and that he never went out of their sight. Then.'again, they had the evidence of one of the officials— a highly respectable woman— who would tell them that before she left the iastitution the eirl previously referred to voluntarily retracted what she had said about Mr Hugh Titchener, stating that it was entirely untrue. She asked this -• lady to apologise to Mr Titchener on her behalf, but tbe lady declined, saying that if it were her child that the girl had spoken of she could never forgive her. The girl subsequently wrote a note of her own free will apologising for what she had said. So far as the child of the woman who first laid, the complaint was concerned, it would be very difficult to account for the motives that actuated her doing as she had done— it was very difficult to account for the motives of a girl who was so untruthful. His side suggested that the child had been coerced by its mother. It must be perfectly clear that, taking her own evidence as true, she was 14 years old, and was little better than a prostitute. Every witness in the inquiry had spoken of Mr Titchener, sen., in the highest possible terms of praise. It might be suggested that Mr Titchener should have communicated to the department the fact that a charg? of this sort had been made. It might be also said that Mr Titchener in writing the letter he had to the sister of the girl who had been summoned first that morning had acted improperly ; and Mr Fraser had said that it showed that he was endeavouring to stifle the evidence— or, in plain Buglish, to square the witness. But he submitted, as regarded the report, there was nothing to report. A complaint had been made against his son. This was subsequently withdrawn, and an apology being tendered the matter was ended. Then as regarded the letter, looked at in the light of subsequent events it presented an entirely different phase. He said : A May I ask you to restrain Mary from ever referring to the painful subject again; and should I ever feel called upon to ask Mary to defend me or mine, I hope she will not hesitate to do so.' Mr Titchener simply asked her to assist to restrain her sister. He had in view the fact that she had previously made the statement and had then withdrawn it. In conclusion, he stated that here they had a man who had devoted 17 years" of the best time of his life in the management of this institution. During the whole of these years not one word had been laid' at his door, and they were now asked to allow this honourable career to be blasted by the reports of untruthful girls. The inquiry was then adjourned till 10 o clock next morning.