TEN YEARS’ GAOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 December 1924, Page 8

TEN YEARS’ GAOL.

SENTENCE ON JULIAN HARD LABOUR ORDERED.

THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE. fhe maximum sentence of ten years’ Imprisonment with hard labour was imposed on Samuel Percy Julian by His Honour Mr. Justice MacGregor in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday morning. Julian, who was a siiaremilker of Tikorangi, had been charged on six counts with the crime of incest, and was convicted on two, the Crown, owing to the refusal of four of the accused’s children to repeat their evidence of the lower court, not asking for a verdict on the other four. A crowded court illustrated the interest that has been taken in the case. Shortly before 10 o’clock, when the court ’was to open, a large number of men assembled outside the courthouse for the purpose of catching a glimpse of the prisoner, and these, with added strength, hied into the court when the door* were opened. After the prisoner had been sentenced, a considerable number also waited around the court to see Julian taken away, but the gaoler detained him in the court cell until the crowd had dispersed. Later in the morning Julian was removed quietly to Che gaol to commence his long sentence. MAINTAINED INNOCENCE. Addressing the court on behalf of the prisoner, Mr. L. M. Moss said that in a matter of thia sort there was little counsel could say. M hile not desiring in any way to palliate the offence there were some points, however, which, in fairness to the prisoner, should be brought to His Honour’s notice. Julian still maintained his innocence, and counsel thought that assertion should be known to His Honour. Mr. Mos® submitted that it was fair that one who had lived in the environment Julian had lived in should not be judged in the same circumstances as those who lived in an environment conducive to a higher moral tone. It was notorious that conditions in the dairying industry in some places were not those which would tend to create a decent moral atmosphere, and it was under such conditions that Julian and his family had lived.

An incident which had occurred in the hospital recently showed that Julian had some spark of decent feeling. He was in the hospital suffering from appendicitL when a little child suffering from severe burn* was brought in. It was necessary to obtain skin to be grafted on to the child, and when volunteers were called for Julian came forward. He still bore the marks of that operation. That showed. Mr. Mose said, that the man was not the callous brute the evidence suggested. There •was also some suggestion of drink in the man’s history, and while this was not urged in palliation, it was but right that His Honour’s attention should be drawn to tlie fact that the eldest girl had said that her father was under the influence of liquor when he knocked her about. In reply to Hie Honour. Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown Prosecutor) intimated that he did not intend to address the court. -PARTICULARLY BAD CASE.” Passing sentence, His Honour said he did «not propose tv refer to the facts again. All he need say was that the case wa< a particularly bad one of its kind. It would be difficult, in fact, to conceive a worse case, a more revolting case of incest, especially between father and daughter. The jury.- after a long and careful trial, had come unanimously to the conclusion that the accused was guiky. and His Honour was bound to say that he quite agreed with that verdict. In those circumstances it was his duty to pa®s a long sentence on the prisoner. He had listened very carefully to what counsel had eaid. but he was unable to see any grounds for palliation of the offence or for reduction of punishment. Section 155 of the , Crimes Act said that everyone over the age of 16 years who was convicted of the crime of incest was liable to imprisonment for ten years with hard labour. His Honour said he regretted that he was unable to see anv reason to reduce that sentence, which he then passed on the prisoner.