THE UDY CASE.

Wairarapa Age, 11 April 1929, Page 5

THE UDY CASE.

SUPREME COURT HEARING CONCLUDED. JURY FINDS THE ACCUSED NOT GUILTY. YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. The hearing of the case in which Owen Llewellyn, Udy, of Carterton, was charged with assaulting his father, Albert John Udy, so as to cause him actual bodily harm, was resumed at the Masterton sittings of the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour, Mr. Justice Smith. Mr. R. R. Burridge appeared for the Grown and Mr. H. E. Hart for the accused. The first witness called was Mrs. A. J. Udy, mother of the accused, who was examined and cross-examined at length regarding what happened on February 7 when her husband was wounded with a knife. Mr. Hart then called the Owen -Llewellyn Udy, who was questioned in detail as to the events ot February 7. He said that after striking him twice:, his father aimed a: third blow at him. His father’s fist passed between, witness ’a left arm and body. His father slipped forward. Witness leaned back and warded off his father with his left arm. He had forgotten all about the knife in his right hand and did not attempt to strike his father. At Mr. Hart’s suggestion, he and witness gave a demonstration of what witness said had happened when his father was injured. Witness said that it. was only when he felt his father's shirt against his hand that he remembered the knife. STATEMENT REPUDIATED. When he first spoke to the police and on later occasions he told them that is was an accident. Detective Jarrold came down to Carterton at about 11 o’clock. He (the detective) put a paper in his typewriter, started off with what witness had told Constable O'Connell, and said he wanted a little more detail. Witness told the detective two or three times that it was an accident but the detective would not take that down. He “reckoned that it was not an accident." The detective said, witness continued, “You were scared of the old man. He was drunlc and you thought he was going to bash you and so you let him have it.” Witness said this was wrong, but the detective said it was right. Finally witness said he supposed it was all right. He did not want to be kept there all night, but wanted to get home. He hud got up that morning at 4 o’clock and was expecting to get up at the same hour next day. When the detective finished the statement it was about 1.30 a.m. Witness had been up twenty-one and a half hours. In further examination by Mr. Hart, witness denied the accuracy of other details in the statement typed by the detective. He did not say that he did not feel like* telling the police that he had stabbed his father. He had been .on good torn, with his father. During this occurrence he did not threaten his father at all. He had forgotten all about the knife in his hand. He did not remember saying to Constable O’Connell, “I let him -have it."

“NO CHANCE OF GOING HOME.” To Mr. Burridge: He was supplied with tea at the Carterton. Police Station. He <did not ask to be allowed to go home or to- have a sleep. He had no chance of going home. Detective Jarrold did not ask him if he would make a statement. The detective took the statement witness had made to Constable O'Connell and said he would get some more detail. Towards the end he let the detective put down what he wanted to 1 put down. Mr. Burridge: “You read over the whole of this statement yourself, didn’t you?”—“No, I looked through it. I was nearly asleep and' wanted to get home.” “When did you first let the police or the detective know that you. were going to deny the truth of this statement—in Court here, to-day, is it not?” —“I suppose so.” Asked by Mr. Burridge why he had not, when in Carterton, notified the police that the statement was false, witness replied, “What was the use of that ? ’ ’» Mr Burridge read through part of the statement asking witness to say what parts were incorrect. Accused endorsed many details and repudiated 1 others. He denied telling his mother to go to hell. He did not say to the detective that he fell when first struck by his father. What happened was that he nearly fell. When the detective read the statement over to him, he said, he was not taking much notice. He was tired. • Mr. Burridge: “Why did you not refuse to make a statement at all?”— “If I didn’t make a. statement he would have kept me there all night. ’ ’ AN EXPLICIT DENIAL. Mr. Burridge: “Isn’t it a fact that at the time your father struck the third blow you gave him a jab with your right hand?”—“No, I didn’t.” “You swear that?”—“Yes.” Witness denied a suggestion by counsel that he leant back in order to> 'get room to strike with his right hand. He said he just leant back naturally. To further questions he said he was not. very quick-tempered. He remained quite calm and 'did not lose his temper during the row with his father. He denied telling Constable O’Connell that when his father came at him again he “let him have it.” He tried to tell Detective Jarrold what had happened, but the detective did not agree and got what he wanted. Mr. Burridge: “Did the detective accuse you of stabbing your father before commencing to take the statement?” — “He never said anything about it.” The two Carterton constables were present when the statement was read over to him.

Mr. Burridge: “The material parts of your statement were l put in by Detective Jarrold and are quite untrue?” .< < Yes. ’ ’ A SUPPOSED OBLIGATION. Mr. Hart: “Did the police or Detective Jarrold tell you -that you need not make any statement at all?”—“They never said anything about it.” “Did you think from the way Detective Jarrold approached you that you had to make a statement?”—“Yds.” Mr. Hart read an extract from his own cross-examination of Detective Jarrold in the Lower Court as .showing that on that occasion the accuracy of the statement taken by the detective from the accused was challenged. AN UNPRECEDENTED FEATURE. In the course of his address to the jury, Mr. Hart said that in this case the man alleged to have been assaulted had come into Court and said that the accused did not strike him and that there had been an accident. This, said counsel, was unprecedented in all his experience of courts. Five persons who were present said there had been an accident. The evidence on the other side was one single statement said to have been made by the accused at 2 o’clock in the morning to Constable O’Connell. He did not for a moment think that the constable had intended to “put it across” the boy, but in all probability there had ben a misunderstanding. Such misunderstandings arose very easily. The only other evidence was the statement taken by Detective Jarrold. Accused said part of that statement was incorrect. He said the detective refused to take down his statement that the occurrence was an accident. Counsel submitted that the detective went down to Chrterton with the preconceived idea that the lad had been guilty of a crime. The lad was like putty in the experienced detective’s hands, and told him whatever he liked. No credence could be attached to such a statement against the lad’s sworn evidence in the l>ox. CASE FOR THE CROWN. Mr. Burridge said that perhaps the greatest difficulty of the Crown in relation to this case was that of showing that accused intended to commit an assault. Counsel put it to the jury that the facts suggested that accused was waiting for something. He might have thrown the knife away or might have reitred altogether from proximity to his father. This might be a remote thing from which to draw intent. Counsel suggested that the retention of the knife implied an intention to use it in some direction. The principal evidence for the Crown was the statement accused made to Detective Jarrold. Accused read this- statement over, it was again read to him and Detective Jarrold told him to object to it if there was any mistake in it. The statement represented answers to questions. Perhaps some of the questions were leading questions. To find accused not guilty, they had to believe what accused had told them—that the statement contained what had been put into it by the detective. Was it conceivable that the detective'—be he as clever as he might —could have manufactured the story which the accused had signed—a statement referring to many details which could not have been within the detective’s knowledge. The boy need not have made a statement, or if he had made a statement he need not have signed it. The evidence, counsel submitted, was consistent with an act of sudden retaliation by accused. A PROPER INQUIRY. His Honour said that the case had been fairly fully discussed by counsel on both sides. It might seem a peculiar thing that the accused should be on trial for this offence when his father,; who was wounded, said that it was an accident. They had the spectacle of a family quarrel being tried before them as a matter of public concern. That was right and proper. If, in this community, families • should settle their differences with knives there would soon be a reign of lawlessness. Where anything of this kind occurred, it was very necessary, that it should be investigated before a jury in public. The jury had to determine whether, at the time the knife entered his father’s body, accused at that moment intended

to stab his father. Accused’s statement to Constable O’Connell that he “ let him have it” indicated that he did something to his father, but he did not directly say that he pushed the knife into him. If the jury believed the statement made to Detective Jarrold) they would be fully entitled, in accordance with their oath, to find the accused guilty. The correctness or otherwise of a statement of this kind depended a good deal on the officer by -whom it was taken and upon the opportunity given to an accused person of perusing his statement. There could be no question that a statement taken immediately after an occurrence might be a most powerful engine in establishing either the guilt or innocence of an accused person. In this case the statement was taken at about 2 a.m. and accused had been up very early. On the other hand, the statement was taken fairly soon after the occurrence, it was read by accused, read over again to him, and signed by accused as being true. After touching on some leading details of the evidence, His Honour said that the use of a knife inserted some inches into an abdomen was not, in the circumstances, a proper exercise of selfdefence. On the whole of the circumstances, the accused was entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The jury retired at 12.28 p.m., and returned at 1 p.m. The foreman announced that they had agreed upon a verdiqt of not guilty. The accused was discharged. The jury were thanked by the Judge for their services and all jurors were excused from further attendance the present sittings. >