Monday, August 29.

Otago Witness, Issue 2010, 1 September 1892, Page 33

Monday, August 29.

The first witness examined was a girl, who stated she was 13 years and nine months old, and had been in the Industrial School since November 1881. Her evidence corroborated that of two girls who gave evidence on Saturday as to their not seeing Hugh Titchener do anything wrong to a girl of their class on the Friday before the school picnic at the Taieri Mouth. Master Hugh had never done anything wrong to her. She had minded Master Hugh's baby, but never went down to the house to mind it. Mr Fraser : Do you remember Mr Titchener telling you after the sergeant left that if a girl had done wrong the others were not to go near her?-No. x Did anybody tell you not to say anything about it?— Yes. Who told you ?— Mrs Gibb told us not to say Did she tell you' not to tell the other girls about it?-No. That was the reason you never spoke about it? Yes. Did you know what you were coming heve for this morning?— l thought just to be asked about 1 Why did you think that ? Cannot you answer ? Yes Mr 'Habens : How did you , know you were coming here to be asked questions about this?— Because I thought when Mrs Gibb was asking us about it, we would have to come. Mr Fraser : Did you know Master Hugh bad got into trouble?— We only knew the little Mrs Gibb was telling us. ... .. Did she tell you ?-No, she said the girl (named) had been saying something about Master Hugh and about us. , , „ T , „ Did Mrs Gibb say it was not true?— l dont 'MT'Habens : Now, you knew pretty well what you were coming here for this morning ; didn t y °You knew it was something about Master Hugh litchencr?— Yes. Now, when did you first hear people saying Ihings about Master Hugh Titchener ?- Just the tight Mrs Gibb was asking us if we heard of "it. A boy, inmate of the institution, said he re-

membered the assault with one girl being talked about amongst the boys some eight months ago. He and another boy were in the schoolroom on the day after the picnic, when Hugh Titchenor was alleged to have "insulted" the girl, and had to clean up the room during play hour. Nothing took place improper then.

A boy boarder in the school, and the one who assisted the last witness in cleaning up the schoolroom, gave corroborative testimony. Isabella Gibb, sewing mistress of the school, said she had been in her present position for nearly three years, and it was part of her duty to sec that the children were properly looked after and prevented from doing harm. They were always encouraged to be on friendly terms with the master. She fully recognised the responsibility of having charge of such children as were there, and every care was taken day and night. Up to the time when she had heard of one of the girls principally concerned in this inquiry making a complaint about Hugh .Titchener's conduct, she had never had a suspicion of anything wrong, and she did not believe it now. The girl in question had come to her after making that complaint, and said that as she was leaving the school she would like her (witness) to intercede with the master and matron and obtain their forgiveness for what had been said, because it was untrue. Witness refused to do so, and told her to go herself and ask for pardon ; for if it had been her son so spoken of she would never forgive it. Just then Mr Titchener called witness away, and some time afterwards he again called out to her to come to him, as tho girl was wanting to say something that he would be glad for her to hear. Tho girl then sat down to write a letter asking for pardon, and stating that what sho had said about Hugh Titchener was imfcrue. She did this without being instigated to do so either by witness or Mr Titchenor. That girl was a little wild, but she was not, in her opinion, unredeemable. The letter was written without dictation from anyone, in fact, so much was this tho case that when the girl asked how to spell the word " authority " Mr Tifcchcner at once told her to spell it her own way. The other girl who had complained told witness about it one night in the dormitory. Witness overheard her and another girl talking, and one of them said : " You had better tell Mrs Gibb." Witness at once stepped out from where she wai, and the story was told to her. That was the first she had heard of it, and she had never previously heard of anything immoral in the conduct of the institution.

Cross examined by Mr Fraser : Witness said she had been very much hurt by counsel's statement that the institution was little better than a State brothel.

Mr Fraser declared that he had used the term when under excitement from his learned friend's interruptions. He would retract, and regretted having used the term; but he should have a chance later on to refer more particularly to it. A girl inmate gave evidence to the effect that the girl, who had asserted she had been insulted several times, came to her one night in bed and said that Master Hugh had insulted her, and that she could take him to court and get a lot of money out of him, and if her mother started a thing she was a woman who would never forget it. Two sisters, young women, who had formerly been inmates of the institution for seven or eight years, and were now married, gave voluntary evidence to the effect that they had never seen any impropriety committed in tho institution, or heard of any. They both declared they would willingly place their children in the institution to be brought up. Mr Solomon said he had received at least 50 letters from different parts of tbe colony to the same effect as the evidence given by the last witnesses.

Hugh Titcheuer stated that he was 32 years of age, and had been married for nearly seven years. He had acted as schoolmaster in the Industrial School for 11 or 12 years. Mr Solomon : Now, Mr Fraser has referred to what he calls scandals in the school. He first of all brought it out in evidence that some 10 or 12 years ago a cabman, who afterwards proved to be the father of a child, said you had had something to do with a girl in the institution. Did you know anything about this at the time ? Witness : Not at all. Had you anything whatever to do with the ?— Not in the slightest. Did she ever charge you with having anything do with her?— Not in the slightest. We are told that some time after that a girl who had been absent from the Industrial School for some three years made a charge against you — a girl who went to the Burnham School. Did you near anything about that? — Not till some 12 months or two years after she left. I had nothing to do with the girl and treated the thing with contempt. In further examination, witness denied that there had ever been the slightest familiarity between him and the girl, who had charged him with having twice attempted to assault her. &he was a girl he thought very little of, and he never spoke much to her. As to the girl who had alleged he had " insulted " her on several occasions what she had said was quite untrue.

Mr Solomon rcaa a letter written to the cabman, referred to, by the girl who, it was alleged, had borne a child to Hugh Titchener, in which she scouted the idea of her ever having committed an act of indiscretion with any man but him (the cabman). This letter was picked up, long after, at the Industrial School gate, where it dropped out of the man's pocket. This concluded the evidence.

Mr Solomon, reviewing tho evidence, said his learned friend had made accusations against the institution in his opening which had manifestly not been proved, and he need hardly say that the most severe statements, unless supported by evidence, were a waste" of words. They would all give his learned friend credit for having been very industrious in collecting all the materials to show up the institution for the last eight or ten years, and he would ask, what had been laid before them? His learned friend had characterised the institution as a most immoral place, and what had he brought before them? He had proved the existence of what he called four scandals in connection with the institution — one, 11 years old ; one, 10 years old ; and the others of recent growth. The one that was 11 years old had been absolutely proved to be foundationless and a conspiracy ; and in regard to the charge 10 years ago, the Government fully accepted Mr Titchener's and his son's statements, with the corroborative evidence furnished with them. The first of the witnesses called by Mr Fraser had told a story that was full of improbabilities ; besides which the woman had sworn to have revenge ou Mr Titchener. As to the story of the girl, who alleged that Hugh Titchener had twice taken liberties with her, learned counsel said here was a girl who wanted to get out of the school, and made up this story in order to get away. The case against the officials, then, was left to the convict woman and her daughter. One most important factor in this case was that tho girl thought she could get money. There was the whole thing— conceived in the daughter's brain and fostered by the mother's ingenuity. There was motive in every case. In the first case, revenge ; in the second, anxiety to get out of the institution ; in the third, money. The condition of the institution for the last 10 years had been examined into in the most vigorous way, and not one witness had spoken of Mr Titchener but in the highest terms of praise. He would ask Mr Habens how many ef the public

servants of the colony could go through such a rigorous examination as Mr Titchener's manage* ment of the Industrial School had been subjected to and come out so scatheless as Mr Titchener had. Mr Fraser, who replied at considerable length, said he wished it to be clearly understood that the result of his inquiries and of tho evidence that had been tendered to him had been this — that he was able* to say that he had not discovered any person who made any charge, direct or indirect, against any person employed about the' institution, with the exception of , Hugh Titchener. Outside the contaminating influence of Hugh Titchener, he assumed the morality of the school as a whole to be as good as it was possible it could be in the .case of a school that comprised children of tho various classes who were flopped into such a school. It appeared to him to bo a matter of considerable astonishment that it had not occurred to Mr Titchener in the past that it was a highly inadvisable thing that they should have had an institution almost entirely governed by one family, more especially when that institution was remote from the official centre. He contended that upon tho evidence it must bo admitted there had been grave laxity in tho past in the management of the institution. Dealing with the evidence, he submitted that to hurl against the principal witness that she was the child of a convict was rather a waste of words, for the same remark would apply to about half tho children in tho institution. He declared that the expressed intontion'on the part of Hugh Titchenor not to return to a position in the school was a deliberate bid, as it were, that the most lenient view possible should bo taken of his case. It was a most extraordinary thing that Hugh Titchener should be the sport of chance to this extent that in tho space of 10 years he, though an innocent man, should bo unjustly charged five times. In dealing with the charges they must group tho father and son together. They must assume that in matters of this Kind the father and son wore in consultation together and taking joint action. In respect to "the charge made by the girl who stated that Hugh Titchenor had twice attempted to assault her, learned counsel commented on Mr Titchener's evidence, that he believed his son innocent, yet directly contradicted himself in his own letter to the girl's sister, in which ho said he did not know whom to believe. With tho possibility of guilt, Mr Titchener suppressed the charge, so far as < the department was concerned, and continued his son in his position. He (Mr Fraser) declared there was at this &tage a deliberate intention to suppress this grave charge, and the son was a party to the intention, because if Hugh Titcheuer was innocent, seeing his father's mental distress, he would have demanded an inquiry. Then they had the extraordinary thing that Mr Titchenor. writing to the girl's sister on tho 9th August, when he knew of the girl's confession, did not tell the sister. Why did he not tell the sister that and ask that the girl should be reKnested; if called upon, to tell the truth ? What Mr Titchenor had to be frightened of, according to his own evidence, was not tho truth but a lie : and yet he asked tho girl to suppress tho fact. Let thorn remember the girl's position. She was apparently a girl who knew her way about, she was verging 911 womanhood, and she was not anxious, he took it, to Bhauio herself unnecessarily. She must have been aware she had to tell the truth dead in the teeth of a written statement. Surely that girl in giving her evidence spoke absolutely against interest and without motive. Ho did not attach much weight to the written statement she inado before she left the school, and, if it were true, why on earth did she not adhere to it. With reference to the charge made by the mother and daughter that the latter had been insulted several times by Hugh Titchener, counsel submitted that his learned fiicnd's theory that the motive was to obtain money was completely upset by the action > of tho mother m going to Mr Titchener's friend, Mr Phillips, and blowing the gaff" to him. In. connection with that same cass, he maintained, it was clear that the proposal for a settlement came from Mr Titchener, and that if a less sum had been mentioned by the woman it would have been paid, and there would have been again an entire suppression of the facts. Proceeding Mr Fraser said he had never exerted himself personally to obtain evidence, but had accepted that which had been offered after careful examination. On the .other side they had a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence. Counsel reiterated bis regrets that Mr Titchener and his family had not withdrawn from the institution directly these charges were brought against them, as there was, to say the least of it, a chance of undue influence being brought to bear. Speaking of the evidence as against* Hugh Titchener, counsel said it was clear that there' was a strongsuspicion of guilt 'at least, that ho' hoped that he Vould never be allowed another opportunity of repeating his conduct, and that he 4 would not be allowed to remain in tho service. , t Against Mr Titchener the evidence was one of reqjtrps and admissions, and no person, unless xinduly^wayed by sympathy for him, could say anything but that he stood guilty of a breach of trust. The.department could not pass over such conduct and repose confidence in him still further, though the blamo did not rest wholly on his shoulders he (counsel) was ready to admit. After some discussion as to points in the ovidence, Mr Solomon said : About tho report, Mr Habens. I suppose your report; will be njiade to the Government ?

Mr Habens : To my Minister, and it will be for him to make it a Cabinet matter if he thinks fit. Mr Solomon : Is it too much for me to ask you to convey to the Minister, when you report, that it is the earnest desire of the officials of the institution that your report be made public. I understand it is a matter for the department, but would you convey to the Minister the earnest desire of the officials whom I represent to the effect that your report, whatever it is, be made available for the public through the medium of the press. Mr Fraser : That is a matter entirely for the department. Mr Habens : I think there is very little doubt, knowing that reports cf these proceedings have been telegraphed all over the colony, tho Minister will communicate his decision to the press. Mr Solomon remarked that that would be hardly sufficient for their purpose. What ho wanted was the finding of the tribunal before whom the evidence was taken.

The inquiry was then brought to a close, . Mr Habens remarking that he desired, before they parted, to thank counsel on both sides for tho consideration they had shown to his inexperience.

The Waitaki County Council have decided to ask the representatives for the district to make inquiries as to the power of the Government to retain the subsidy to meet the damages awarded in connection with the pollution of the Maerewhenua.

At Mr Jude's organ recital in Christchurch Cathedral the offertory amounted to L4O 19s 6d, comprised in 1129 coins, as follows •.—Halfsovereigns 2, half-crowns 25, florins 28, shillings 419, sixpences 278, threepences 322, pence 25, half-pence 10. Th«re were 1122 seats, and it is computed 1300 persons were present ; so that a very good percentage contributed.