JULIAN GUILTY.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 December 1924, Page 10

JULIAN GUILTY.

TWO CHARGES PROVED. FORMAL VERDICT ON 01 HERS. DECISION NOT ASKED FOR. REMANDED FOR SENTENCE. A verdict of guilty on the first -two coun'te of the -six on which he was indieted was returned by the jury against Samuel Percy Julian, of Tikorangi, in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, the verdict being with respect to the charges of incest with his eldest daughter. Owing to the refusal of three other daughters to give evidence against their father on the other four counts, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. 11. Weston) said the Crown would not ask for a decision on these charges, and the jury, -at the request of His Honour Mr. Justice MacGregor, before whom the trial was conducted, returned, a formal verdict of not -guilty with respect to them. Julian was demanded for sentence.

The greater part of yesterday’s hearing was occupied by the addresses of counsel and His Honour’s summing up, the laslt witness for the defence beingcalled when the court resumed. The judge complimented Mr. L. M. Moss, who appeared for the accused, on the able manner in whica he had conducted the defence, stating that he had made the best possible points in his case.

Thomas R. Julian, another brother of the accused, said that when the boys left home to go to their married sister at Warea he met them in New Plymouth and gave them their fare. The boys had told him of the row at home between their father and mother, but •had made no accusations against their father.

Cross-examined by Mr. Weston, the witness repeated that neither of the boys had made any charges against his father.

Mr. Weston said that one of‘the boys had said in the lower court that he had told the witness that 'his father had offended against his sisters, but this witness once again denied. COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE. Appealing for a cool and dispassionate consideration of the ease, Mr. Moss advised the jury not to worry about what people might say about the case. This .consideration was none of their concern. They were ‘bound by oath to find a verdict on the evidence and the evidence alone. He wanted them to consider how difficult it was for a man to disprove a charge of a sexual nature. It was impossible for an accused to bring evidence that on any day he- had not committed an offence. He would have to establish about 360 alibis. The jury was entitled to consider all the home surroundings, and he asked was it possible for the accused to have carried on the series of misdeeds alleged against ihim over a number of years without

someone out-side—the mother or the police—getting some inkling of it? If these offences had been committed would not the girls have “kicked” against them, the natural thing to do? But while they had had the opportunity of running to neighbours they had not done so. Mr. Moss impressed on 'the jury that it was not for the defence to disprove the case, but for the Crown to prove it, and to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Commenting on the retraction of evidence by some of the witnesses for the Crown. Mr. Moss asked -the jury whether in such circumstances they could convict. He stressed and quoted opinions on the necessity for the jury being free I from any reasonable doubt. It must ! not be merely a doubt but a reasonable doubt, and if they had such a doubt ■ they must not convict. He asked them 'not to allow the sense of disgust which I such charges must arouse, and had aroused, to outweigh their judgment. j Turning to the charges, he asked why had the accused not been charged twelve I months ago when the eldest girl’s seclond child had been born. The -girl had ! said she had told her mother that her ' father was the parent of her child, but [could they believe that,' with the know- ■ ledge in her possession, her mother had i allowed the accused to carry on for an'other twelve months? Counsel criticis‘ed the evidence of the girl, stating that it was on her evidence that the Crown I would have largely to rely. She was a girl with a pretty old head and had moved around a good deal, yet she asked them to believe that her father had told her he would put money in the bank for her, when she must have known -that her father had not sixpence to his name. She -knew he had been ruined by the slump.

She had also said that she had never called her father any name, as much as to say that he was too contemptible to be addressed, yet irreproachable witnesses had said she and the otner children had called their father “Dad.” Would they call a beast “Dad”? If they could find the motive for these lies, Mr. Moss said, they would fathom the bottom of the case. The girl had been described a.s always being cheerful. She had ’been from home alt service many times. ’Would she have gone back home quite cheerfully if this business had been going on? Mr, Mos? closed his address with a further appeal to the jury to judge solely on the evidence. REPLY BY CROWN. Replying, Mr. Weslton. said the defence had emphasised the abnormality of the case, and that the feeling of most people when they heard of it was that the accused should be immediately put away. There was, however, a big section who would say such a case could not be true, but unfortunaltely the criminal reco-rds contained accounts of similar cases. Dealing with the charges and the retraction of evidence by the three younger -girls, Mr. Weston said that, subject to the ruling of the Judge, the Crown could not ask for convictions on the charges in which these girls' -names had been mentioned. It was a case of ■incest, and -unless they had the evidence of the girls actually concerned they could not convict. The charges with relation to the married daughter, however, would stand, and on these the Crown would ask for the verdict. ‘‘History contains the names of many heroines who have made noble sacrifices and amongst -these the name of tffe eldest girl is entitled to a high place, continued Mr. Weston* as he referred to the sacrifice the married'daughter 'had made in Lomihg forward to .save'her sisters. Before she tvas married; he said,.

had told her husband-to-be of her father's offences against her and he had stuck to her and she had found happiness. The spectre of her past was ‘becoming dimmer and dimmer, when suddenly the boys had arrived and had told her their father was interfering with her sisters. The girl was at the cross roads. Silence would mean hiding her own .past from the world, but that would let her sisters suffer. If she tried to save -her sisters her own shame would be revealed. She had taken the right road and had told the police. Counsel proceeded ito refer to these charges and the answer of the defence. ; and dealing with the general question of corroboration, said the jury was entitled to consider the retraction by the other girls and the boy. If a man or his friends or relations tampered with the witnesses, 'then it was reasonable to suppose that they regarded his case as a poor one. The motive they had given for making up such a story as they had told the police and the magistrate was too trivial. Could they believe it? And could they believe ithe accused and his wife when they said they really believed the motive actuating the children was [ that they regarded their father as being ! too strict? No one but an accomplished actor could Lave made up such a tale I and have situok to it as these children I had done to the police and the magis- .

•trate. If that tale was false, and they were becomyvj frightened they would have been frightened long ago and would have broken down in the lower court. THE JUDGE SUMS UP. Summing up His Honour isaid that, as the jury had lizard, three of the witnesses connected with the case had declined in that court tn give evidence against their father and the Crown had therefore abandoned the charges as far as they were concerned, the jury now being asked to confine their attention to the two charges in which the eldest girl was concerned. As to these charges, the dates mentioned were only approximate, the dates given being those about the periods when the two children who had been born to ithe girl would have •been conceived. While they could examine the whole of the evidence, it was only -on these two counts that they would have to find a verdict.

“I need scarcely tell you that this is a most revolting and disgusting case l /’ 11. Honour continued. He had had, ■un’fortxmately, to try several cases of a sexual nature in the North Island recently, ‘but the ease then before the court was the most revolting -that had come before him. In cases of incest they generally found two features common to all of them. The first was that the girl corrupted in that manner generally became -used to it and did not take much notice -of it, and, in the second place, fear played a big part. It had -taken a loqi'g time to .try the case, but they could sum it up very shortly. The crux -of the wlwle case -was; “Did the jury believe that the information originally given to the police was correct?” If they believed that, then ithey should convict, but if they had >a reasonable doubt they should acquit the accused. QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY. The case for the Grown consisted of two parts, the judge went on. The first part was the medical evidence, which -was quite clear and conclusive and had disclosed the horrible fact that all four girls had been «tampereci with, not once -but on ‘numerous occasions. Then they had the verbal evidence' as to the facts of the case as told by the children themselves. Their story had disclosed the horrible state of affairs that their father had (systematically for a number of years, and as each girl grew up to the age of ten and eleven, taken her away and violated her, making threate when forbidding her to tell.

They had it then that these four children had been tampered with by . some person or persons, and the question was: Who was the. man or who were the men who had been responsible? What, had the girls to say to this? Of course, in a case of that nature the £irk were naturally secretive and the facts would not come out until some rime later, but on September 23 last, with their young brother, they had formally complained to the police that their father was the man in the case. It appeared that the immediate cause of the complaint was a disturbance in the family home.

It was rather significant that the complaint was made by the married daughter, who, owing -to her marriage some time previously, was the only one removed from her father. The main question w.as whether these complaints were true or false. Was there any reason why the jury should disbelieve -them? Whether that dreadful story was true or false was (known only to the children themselves and to the father. No one else could know the actual facte. Each girl -had fold practically the isame story. Finally, a young boy saw actual tampering with one of the girls. -He told his mother, there was a .row, the -boys -had taken sticks to their father and then had run away and £he story had been told. STORIES OF CHILDREN.

Dealing with the stories of the children, His Honour said that first'of all the children had each made a voluntary statement in writing to the police and had signed that statement. That was very clear. Then, in the second place, these young people had given sworn evidence in the Magistrate’s Court and on that evidence their father had been committed for trial. The evidence had followed the general lines of the statement made to tne police a week previously. The jury -knew also that the eldest girl, the married one and the only one to escape their father’s control, had adhered to her story in the Supreme Court, but the younger children had attempted to retract their story. “If 'it rested with that,” His Honour said, “there might have been some difficulty, but fortunately for justice and tho,. children themselves it does not rest there -because after the arrest of the accused the younger children remained with their mother, and 'after .some weeksdelay they, or someone on their behalf, intimated that they were not going to adhere to their story.” His Honour then referred to the interview which had 'been arranged with Mr. -F. E. Walsbn> a man who was held in the highest respect, and read his evidence to /the jury. Eventually, after Mr. Wilson had finished with them, His Honour said, the two older children, the more responsible ones, had said -they were going to stick to -their story, the oldest -one adding “because it is true.” . Could they -doubt 'that, the story the children -told originally was true? What reason could be given for the invention of such a. story? The children had said it was because their father' was too .strict. Of course, that was no reason at, all. They ,had .said, in the bpx .in •iliait, court that it ;was ; because tiieir father would not Jet tpepi go. to daiices,

but they had told a different atory at the interview. There they had said it was because their father had threatened to thrash the boy. Both etories, o/ course, were absurd.

THE REAL REASON. “Is it not perfectly plain to you af men of the world,” -His Honour asked the jury, “that the real reason why they went back on their story after being with that poor mother tor a week or two, is ‘that they have tried for their poor mother’s sake to help her j and get their father out of gaol. can hardly blame those poor, unhappy children.” Turning to Julian's story, His Honour referred to the fact that the accused had not made any denial of the charges when the warrant was read to him and, in the second place, had apparently asked which member of the family had given him away. He had practically admitted the whole of the revolting crime and had not made -any denial in the lower court. Of course, it was a question for the jury, who, if they believed the children’s story, should convict him, bu't, if not, -should acquit him.

WJiat was the defence which, His Honour -said, had been ably conducted and the best possible points made? It was that the Crown had not fully proved its case, secondly that the girls were untruthful and unreliable, and also that the Crown case had been disproved by the evidence for tjie defence. The prisoner had denied his guilt and had 'blamed his daughters, whose downfall, the Crown -said, was caused by him. He had blamed his daughters from the box, but one could not judge a man too harshly in such circumstances. “Then there was the wife, torn between love for her husband and love for her children; trying to believe in her husband,” Hi« Honour continued. Could they believe wha<t a poor distracted >voman might «ay in a -case like this. They couW not blame her for anything she might say. TWO KINDS OF PERJURY. His Honour said he did not wish refer to the details of the defence. It practically amounted to this, that the four girls had frequently been iritimate with men <au-l for some unknown reason had made up their minds to publish their shame to the world, make up 'the story against their father and possibly kill their poor mothhr. And one of these girls was a child of 13! If they believed ithat, the prisoner should, ’be acquitted, the victim of four designing daughters who wanted to put hini in gaol. There had been, unfortunately, a great deal of talk of perjury in thia case, His Honour added. There Were two kinds of perjury, he would like the jury* to know. The first was committed in an effort to have a fellow creature put in gaol, but it was very rarely that they would find anyone sinking to such a depth of infamy. The other kind of perjury tried to get a fellow creature out of trouble. It was generally done by relatives and intimate friends, and, His Honour was afraid, happened every day and every week and would happen so long as human nature remained unchanged. He thought it was unheard of tha't four young girls -should conspire to* gether with their -brother to have theiY father (put in gaol, and. at tho isame time publish to the .world ‘their own shame and dishonour. The judge again advised the jury -that the matter was for their determination on the evidence. They must be -morally certain of the guilt of the accused before they pould convict. The jury retired at 2.45 p.m., and was an hour and five minutes in arriving at a verdict, Julian being remanded a* stated.