A PECULIAR CHARGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16584, 17 November 1921, Page 6

A PECULIAR CHARGE.

CASE FOR COURT OF APPEAL. John Leonard was charged. befor« Mr Justice Adams and’a common jury of twelve in the Supreme Court yesterday, with having unlawfully carnally known a mental defective—his wifo —on December 25, 1920, at Christchurch. Accused, who was represented by Mr F. S. Wilding, pleaded not guilty. Mr Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the Crown. Mr Wilding moved, under Section 399 of the Crimes Act, that there was no crime disclosed in the indictment. He contended that the Act under which, accused was charged could not apply to man and wife. Mr A. T. Donnelly said that the case presented some difficulty. The man probably had no knowledge that he was committing an offence. The question was whether the words “ any female ” in the Act were wide enough to cover el man’s own wife- The Legislature apparently had meant it as an absolute liability, and had provided its only exception in Sub-section 3—that the man f did not know that the woman was a mental defective. However, the matter admitted of some doubt. His Honor said he thought it undesirable to express an opinion on the point at that stage. Very interesting and important questions had been raised by Mr Wilding. He proposed to direct the jury without decision as to these points- If the jury found accused guilty, then ho would remand him on bail and take the case to the Court of Appeal. After a short retirement the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. They added a strong recommendation to mercy, on the ground that the act was committed through ignorance of the law. Attention was called to what was termed “ the laxity of the authorities in not warning Leonard at the time of iiis visit.” His Honor requested Mr Donnelly and Mr Wilding to prepare a case for the Court of Appeal Accused was remanded on bail. His Honor said that ho would serve also for the Court of Appeal thw question as to whether the jury’s verdict amounted to one of guilty