CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2425, 5 September 1900, Page 11

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

' (Wednesday, August 29. ' (Before his Honor,' Mr Justice Williams.) ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. Mary Ellen Tradick, who was convicted of attempting to commit suicide, was brought before the court for sentence. Sentence had been deferred in order that inquiries might be made as to whether any persons would be prepared to take charge»of the woman. It being reported to the court that the Salvation Army "Refuge Home management was willing to take $he woman in, His Honor said: I will not pass sentence now. Accused will be remanded till the next sitting, of the court,' but she will be released in the meantime on condition that she goes to the Salvation- Army Rescue Horns, and stay there till next sittings. If she behaves herself in the. Salvation Army Rescue Home, and stays there, no sentence will be passed upon her. If she does nob, she will be brought up for sentence. - i It was pointed out by the counsel sitting at the table that there was nothing to stop the woman from i-walking out, of "the Rescue Home that afternoon, or at any time, and conseqiiently his Honor declared that accused would be ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. If she went into the Salvation Army Home and stayed there for thiee months she would 'not be called up for sentence. 1 ALLEGED ATTEMPTED EAPE. James Robertson, John Mackie, and Alexander Mackie, three youths, were charged oh. three counts -with attempted rape at Mosgiel on Axv gust 12, with assaulting with intent, and with indecent assault. Accused pleaded " Not guilty." - Mr Solomon appeared for Robertson and Mr Hanlon for the two other accused. The Crown Prosecutor, in stating the. particulars of' the case at/ some length, said that the first and second counts were practically the same. The prosecutrix was going on for 17 years of age. On Sunday evening, the 12th August, at Mosgiel, she and another girl had been to the Salvation Army meeting. The girl White was in service at Wingatiii, and her companion, whose name was Bertha Dixon, accompanied her along the road. They passed accused, who said " Good-night " to them, and commenced follov/ing them. The girls retraced their steps towards Mosgiel, and afterwards proceeded on their way to Wingatui again. They met the accused again, and again accused spoke to them. Once more the girls turned to go back., As they 'did so Robertson put his arms around the girl White's waist and laid her on the ground. Alexander Mackie caught her by the head and held her down, placing his hands across her mouth to prevent her crying out. While she was thus on the ground Robertson disarranged her clothing, and tore a portion of it. Meanwhile the girl Dickson went off for assistance, and brought up some men, who interfered. The accused^ were subsequently arrested by the police. Evidence for the piosecufion was given by Margaret White, Bertha Dixon, Robert .Cameron, Robert M'Clintock, William~"Ruthven, Jas. Nicolson, and Constable Christie." Cameron and Ruthven gave their evidence in such a way that they were treated as hostile witnesses. The former -did not support a statement which it appeared had previously been made to the police, ancL the latter, while admitting a wiitten statement made to the police, and signed by him, said that certain admissions made in the statement were not true. Mr Solomon, in addressing v the jury on behalf of Robertson, said the whole basis of the case so far as the indictment against the prisoners was concerned depended upon the question of indecency. The only evidence that should give the jury any difficulty was the evidence of the boy Ruthven. But he (counsel) submitted that they should set that aside altogether, because the witness was not to be believed. They were not to say that the statement which the boy made to the constable the other day was true. It did not follow that because he niade^ that statement that that was evidence against the prisoners. He (counsel) was bound to admit that the evidence the boy gave in court that day wa| not true, because it did not coincide with _some features of the case that were perfectly obvious. He had no doubt that the reason Riit'hven did not state what was true was that he wanted, as far as he could, to shield the prisoners. But, as he had said, his evidence should be set aside altogether. The law hedged round charges of this sort with the greatest possible care. Every charge made by a woman against a man must be proved with the greatest particularity ; and the girls who had given evidence were admittedly unchaste. The evidence went to show that one of the young fellows put his arm round the prosecutrix' s waist, and the other one put his arm around her neck. There was no doubt that they did that, but he (counsel) put it to the jury that that was all that was done. The whole thing was a familiarity, and very likely an improper familiarity ; but there was no suggestion of indecency. The question of indecency depended entirely upon the word of the girl White; and there was no corroboration whatever of her s^itement to indecency. Not only was there no corroboration, but her statement made at the time of the occurrence was to discredit that view of the case. He (counsel) submitted that the whole evidence was that two of the prisoners had been guilty of a slight familiarity. Mr Hanlon thought the jury could have no manner of doubt whatever but that the prosecution must fail, because the essential ingredient of the case — viz., indecency — had not been satisfactorily proved. The jury had no right to read between tho lines, but must give their verdict upon the evidence alone. So far as John Mackie was concerned, he was not in the same position as the other two accused, and the jury would have no hesitation in finding a verdict of "Not guilty" against him. Both girls admitted impropriety with men; and their object in doubling and redoubling backwards and forwards up the lonely street, where they were on the night in question, was plainly to get 'these young fellows to pick them up. It did not follow because there was some skylarking that there was any indecency. x When the offence alleged to have been committed took place the girl White made a complaint, but there was not a single word about indecency, and, strangely enoxigh, when Alexander Mackie was arrested he said the very same /thing that the girl said at the time of the occurrence. If these young fellows wanted to commit an act of indecency they would in all probability have selected a more retired spot, ■ instead of a place where there were so many people about. Then, if they had committed the offence they were supposed to have committed, they would have run away; but the fact that they did not run away pointed in the direction that they felt they were not guilty of any serious offence. There was absolutely no evidence against John Mackie, and the jury could not bring in a verdict against him simply because he said when the girls w«re going away, " We will have you next Sxxnday night." His Honor having summed up, Mr Solomon asked him if he would direct the jury that if they were not satisfied that there was indecency it was open- to them to find a verdict of common assault. His Honor said the real point of the case ■was indecency. He should have thought that the jury would probably take the girl's story Agjt Sjagjle; and .?& they slid not believe in the

act of indecency they would think the whole thing was a lark. But they need not take that view. The re^.l point of_ the case they had been trying was indecency;, but it was competent for the jury to find a verdicf of common assault if they wished to do so. If there was no indecency there was nothing .that anybody need trouble - about, as the "case would never have been brought. Mr Solomon: It is either a very indecent assault, or else it is larking. l His Honor : I think so. The Jury retired at 4.55 p.m., and returned to court at 5.35 with a verdict of " Not guilty." The accused were then dischaiged. Thursday, August 30 His Honor took his seat en the bench at 10.30 a.m. HECEIVING STOLEN TEOIFRTY. Frederick Win. Wedlake, alias Woodlake, and James Mahoney, were chaiged with having on or about December 18, 1899, received "a quantity of stolen goods — to wit, aclock, cutlery, and spoons, — knowing the same to have been stolen. Both accused pleaded Not guilty. The former was defended by Mr Hanlon, and' the latter by Mr Sim. The Crown Prosecutor Fraser), in opening the case for the Crown, called attention to the fact that Wedlake in the indictment had an alias. He did not wish the jury to' draw the deduction that the accused went under an alias. ,The mere fact of the two names appearing on the indictment aross from a confusion in the minds of the colice, and was not the result of Wedlake' s rwii action. . The property »was stolen from -a man called Murphyat Invercargill in November. A man named M'Kensie and a woman .-lamed Ellen Chancy were charged at a recent' tession of the court with having, stolen this property. M'Kcnzie was convicted of the charge, and Chancy was acquitted. Chancy came to Duuedin fiom Invercargill, and on her arrival here she went to the Ballarat Pawn Ofnce. Wedlake and Mshoney were both at the rffice. The latter had previously been an assistant there, but it would appear from the evidence that he had been kept on in" connection with the shop for the purpose of instructing Wedlake. When Chancy, went to the Ballarat ofnce she took a clock' with her' and pawned it. She afterwards called with some knives, forks, and" spoons that she had got from M'Kenzie. She told Wedlake that she wanted about £2 for tho things. Wedlake then appeared to have ceriaiii suspicions, and asked her if it was all right. He made a selection from the lot, and said he would give 15s 'for "what he selected. She asked, What about the rest? " He replied that they were not saleable, but iie woulCl sell them if he could, -and give her the money, and he gave her 10s. When she went io the place with the clock she told Mahoney it was given to her lo sell, but she did not know where it came from or whether it was all right. She afterwards went back to the shop, and wanted to get the goods for which she was given 10s ; but Wedlake told her he had given them to Mahoney to try and sell. Some weeks afterwards M%enzie and Ihe woman were tried for stealing certain goods which had been stolen from Mr Murphy's house, and the woman was acquitted. After the sessions \the woman saw Wedlake, and he congratulated her on being acquitted, gave her 10s, and, said if he had known that the ifuff was stolen he would not have left the clock up there. At a later date Wedlake came lo' - her,' and told her that the detective had ii?en about the other articles pledged, .and < said he was going to take" the articles to Detective .Campbell- He also asked her what "he was To tell the detective he gave for the articles. When the detective went to the Ballarat Pawn Office to make inquiries about the things that had been stolen from Mr Murphy's he asked if they 'had taken, into pledge or had ' purchased a marble clock and some knives, forks, and spoons. The accubed, however, said they had never seen the articles in question. The clock was discovered on April 20. Detective Boddam went to the Ballarat Pawn Office, saw the clock, and asked Wedlake why he had not t.jld h:in that he had got before, as it was the clock the police had been asking for for some time. - The detective then asked him ]f_he had any cutlery which had been pledged by Mrs M'Kenzie. The accused replied that the only articles that Mrs M'Kenzie lpledged were some articles of jewellery, besides the clock. On the vL6th July the accused were "arrested, and "Wedlake said in the course of a conversation : " This is a bad job for me." Detective Boddam told him it was his own fatilt, as he had been asked about the things. Wedlake said he had consulted his mother about the matter, and she advised him to give the things up to the detective, but somebody else advised him not to do so. Mr Sim said he proposed to raise the question whether on the present indictment it was competent for the Crown to prove separate receipts by the two prisoners when what they were charged with was the joint receipt of cer-' tain goods. The Crown Prosecutor was right no doubt to indict the two prisoners together and to have them tried together, but he had no right to indict them for a joint offence, and then proceed to prove two separate offences. After some discussion on this point, his Honor said when the evidence was taken it might be a question of direction for the jury.' He would reserve the point. Evidence for the prosecution was given, by, George Sarsfield Murphy, Alexander M'Kenzie, Ellen Chancy, Detective Campbell, Thos. Edward Shiel, Dr Gordon Macdonald, "and Detective Boddam, and, after the evidence of Detective Cooney had been read, the case far the Crown was closed. Mr Sim said that at this stage he would ask his Honor's ruling as to whether there was any case to go to the jury. The Crown Piosecutor submitted that the weight of evidence went to show that Mahoney was acting in the shop during December, January, February, and March, and in concert with Wedlake, and that when ' Chancy went there, she told him that there was some doxibt about the goods. He told her to go to Wedlake, and the weight of the whole evidence went to show that .tl/ey both got possession about the same time. His Honor intimated that he would allow the case to go to the jury, and reserve the point raised by Mr Sim for the Court of Appeal. Mr Hanlon then addressed the jviry. He said that the jury would have very little difficulty in arriving at a verdict, as the point to be decided was a simple one. The prisoners were charged that they received the articles into their possession well knowing them to have been stolen. He would ask them to pay particular attention to the wording of the indictment—that at the time they received these articles into their possession they well knew that they were stolen articles. It did not matter what they found out afterwards. All they had to confine themselves to was what was the knowledge of the accused, at the time they received the goods. Before' they could bring in a verdict of guilty they would have to satisfy themselves that' Wedlake well knew the articles were stolen when he got them, and counsel submitted that there was not one tittle of evidence to support this. It would not be svifiicient if it were proved that the accused even suspected that the goods were stolen, or that they subsequently learnt that they had been stolen. The jury must not go beyond the state of the accused's mind when the articles came into the place. The woman Chancy had been arraigned on this very same charge — namely, that she took the goods . into her possession knowing them to. have been

stolen, and -she was acquitted. The jury fovm3 that she did not know that they were *i«len, an.i as she gave_them.to the accused how eouldi it be said that the accused could have ha>s any information from the woman Chancy that would lead-them to know that they were stolen? E« submitted that the jury .must bring in a 9t«dict of acquittal. Mr Sim also spoke on the same lines regar^ ing his client, contending that the Crown haa absolutely failed to prove that the accused knew well at the time they received the goods that they were stolen. His Honor having summed up, The jury retired at 3.30 p.m., and returned in half an hour with a verdict of " Not guilty." Accused were then discharged. ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. James Johnston was charged with assaulting and robbing William Philp in the Pier Hotel on July 9 There was a second count that accused robbed the prosecutor, and a third one that he assaulted the prosecutor. The Jury retired at 5.5 p.m., and returned into ,court at 5.18 with a verdict of '• Not guilty." The accused was theii discharge's. This concluded the criminal sittings.