SECOND EDITION. A SERIOUS CHARGE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16375, 24 June 1927, Page 8

SECOND EDITION. A SERIOUS CHARGE

ACCUSED TO STAND TRIAL A man of ."..">. Frederick Charles Ottaway, was indicted in the Police Court; this morning before Ml-. E. C. Lcvyey, S.M., on n charge of committing a serious offence against a girl of }( years and 10 months at Patutahi on or about May 25. Mr. J. S. Wauchop appeared for the accused. On the application of Senior-Ser-geant lOitzpatrick the Court was cleared during the hearing of the case, al! witnesses also being ordered out of Court. The senior-sergeant stated that the cliild in the case was alleged to be the daughter of the accused, and His Worship would no doubt wonder why he was not charged with incest. The case was a preliminary one, however, ond the present charge was more serious' than that of incest. The accused had twice committed the offence with nhich he was charged—once in his own home, and once in a lane at Patutahi. The child had been living with her parents. Medical evidence was given by Dr. V.. ]\l. Gunn. The child concerned in the case, a pretty little girl, told the Court that she resided with her parents at Patutahi, having previously lived at Te Karaka .She had three sisters and one brother, all of whom were younger than herself. When she was living at Te Karaka her mother was ill and was taken to hospital, her brothers and sisters also being taken there. Witness described certain incidents, She f-tided tiiat her father had treated tier ir this manner on a number of occasions. Questioned hv Mr. Wanehop, the child said her father used to bully her. Evidence of Die child having told her mother of the occurrences was given liy a friend of tin- family. Witness Mas present when the child told tier mother, and the latter asked the girl why she had not told her before. The child answered that if she had done so her Father would have blown her brains GUI. Cieorge .Nelson, a. laborer, stated that Ins wife was related to the child, but iie did not know Ihe accused. On May 29 the child was brought to his house. Constable Brown deposed that when be took the accused his meals on the evening that lie was arrested the accused inaftc the following remarks: "This is a serious thing t bey have got me on. I know nothing whatever about tin- matter. I understand that the girl had been interfered with anyway. As recently as the last, school holidays this girl had been playing with boys. 1 have bad several complaints from her schoolmaster over her conduct with hoys at school. I know nothing about the matter." Thomas Alexander Michol, schoolmaster at Patutahi, stated that the child gave him the impression of being untruthful over a small matter, but he did not have much trouble with her. Witness knew nothing about her moral conduct, and he bad never complained about her conduct to the accused, whom lie had not seen before. To Mi'. Wauchop witness said if was not true that the child had not been punished and scolded for telling lies at school. When she first came to the school he gained the impression that she was not. truthful, but this was onlv in minor matters. In one instance' she stuck to a lie very persisentlv, but the matter'was not a serious one." Formal evidence of the arrest of the acused on June 4 was given by Const. Thompson. When the warrant was read over to the accused ho said: "That's news to me. 1 don't know anything about it." The accused said that he was the Frederick Chas. Ottaway mentioned in the birth certificate of the child as her father. Witness gave evidence of the locality where the offences were allegedly committed. Mr Wauchop said the case undoubtedly depended on the evidence of a child under the age of 10, who could not bo sworn. The child bad promised to tell the truth, but even in the box this morning .she had told what was not the truth. If she would be untruthful on a small matter she would be just as likely to He in a, case such as this. Once having told a lie she persisted ■ and stuck to it, as her schoolmaster had said. Apart from the child's story there was nothing at all. The doctor's evidence did not help a bit. Tlie Magistrate said be thought he should leave it for a jury to say whether the man was guilty or' not. He was inclined to think that the accused should demand to be. acquitted by a jury, rather than have it -said that it was not thought that he was guilty. Mr Wauchop agreed to tin's," and the accused was committed for trial at the next .sitting of the Supreme Court at fiisborne, being released on bail, in the sum of £2OO in his own recognisance, on condition that he reported to the police every 48 hoars.