ALLEGED CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

Waikato Independent, Volume III, Issue 183, 25 January 1906, Page 6

ALLEGED CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

At the Cambridge Police Court yesterday afternoon, before Messrs W. Rout, J. Fisher, and J. Forrest, Justices of the Peace, George Anderson Laidlaw, an elderly man, was charged that on the 11th day of January, 1906, at Tamahere, he did indecently assault one Bessie Pennell, a married woman. Constable McNamara prosecuted. Accused was undefended. Bessie Maud Pennell, wife of Percy Pennell, residing at Tamahere, said she first knew accused about five months ago, he being employed in driving Mr Boyce’s baker’s cart. On the 11th January last, accused came to the back 'door of her house to deliver bread. She had a conversation with him. He then gave her a bill, saying he had made a mistake and had given her bill to her mother-in-law and asked her if she would take her’s in exchange. This she agreed to do. She had given him some plums a few days before and he returned the billy on the day of the offence. She asked him if he had brought a kit as she would give him some more. Accused then remarked that he never saw her idle, as she always had something in her hand. He then asked her if she knew of a girl for Mrs John May who lived opposite. In reply to a further question from Laidlaw, witness said she knew the Mays, as she had stopped there before she was married, and it was not a bad place. Laidlaw complained that Mr Boyce gave him the longest rounds and let his sons have the shortest rounds. She replied “ I suppose you get enough Christmas boxes to make up for it.” He said “ No.” She then said, “ Well, come and have a look at my Christmas box,” which was a stool her father had bought her. Laidlaw came inside the house and examined the stool, which was in the dining-room. She also showed him her husband’s Christmas box, a chair, on the verandah. In doing so he passed from the dining room through the front room and to the verandah. Aiter examining the chair, accused went back through the front door, and she thought he was going for his basket. She showed him a couch. He passed some remark about the style of the couch. She said it was a carving representing a shamrock. Accused then caught her by the hand, and threw her on the couch. She said, “ You had better not start any business with me or else I’ll scream.” He said, “ Submit quietly ; don’t scream, or make a noise.” She understood by his action that he intended to take advantage of her. He had his arms round her waist when she was on the couch ; she was in a sitting position, leaning back. She relaxed his hold and rushed into her bedroom. Laidlaw was still in the room and said, “ Hid you ever try the springs on that bed ?” meaning the bed in the room. She made no answer to the question, but sought to draw his attention to a pair of chest of drawers. He looked at the latter and then walked round the bed after her. Witness jumped over the bed, and ran out of the room. Accused followed her, and started to apologise for his conduct when he got to the kitchen. She said she would not take his apology, but she would forgive him, but not forget. She told him not to leave any more bread at her house, as she would not take it. Laidlaw replied, “ Oh, that will get me the sack. I have a wife to keep I” She replied,“ Is your wife any more to you than my husband and my character is to me ?” Witness burst out crying, and feeling faint, went out of the house. Accused followed and called out after her, but she would not turn back. Accused then went away on his cart. She finished crying and went to her mother-in-law’s, a distance of a quarter of a mile away. Her mother-in-law was out, but her sister-in-law, aged 17, and her brother-in-law, a boy of eight years, were at home. Her sister-in-law, on seeing she had been crying, asked what was the matter. The girl said her mother had gone to Matangi. Witness spoke about the bill incident, and the girl again asked what was the matter. Witness told her what had happened. Her husband returned home at 7.30 o’clock that night, and she immediately acquainted him of the occurrence. After he had eaten his dinner, he said he was going to Cambridge to have his revenge on accused. Witness accompanied her husband to Cambridge, and both went to the place where Laidlaw was lodging. Accused’s wife came to the door and said her husband was out. Her husband and herself then drove down the street and returned to the house in about ten minutes. Her husband knocked at the door, accused’s wife came out, and a little after Laidlaw appeared on the verandah. Witness called out to him, ‘‘Mr Laidlaw, is that you,” he replied “ Yes.” Her husband replied, “ I want to speak to you.” Witness’s husband said, “What did you mean by your conduct towards my wife.” Accused replied, “ I didn’t, what do you mean,” and he denied the alleged offence. Witness said, “ 150 .Yon deny asking me to give in to you quietly and peaceably?” Accused replied, “ I do deny it, and I don’t know how you could bring such a thing against me.” He then said, “ I call you anything but a lady,” and walked into the house. That was the last she saw of him that night. In company with her husband she went and reported the case to the police. To Mr Rout; Her bedroom door was

right opposite the couch where he threw her. She rushed in and intended to shut the door, but he was too quick for her. It was on her husband’s suggestion that they went to Laidlaw’s place before seeing the police. Had he apologised, she \Vould have forgiven him. He had told her that he had no garden or fruit, and she pitied him and gave him the plums. To the accused : She did not recollect saying when she saw accused at his house that if he apologised there would be no more about it. She did not show him into her bedroom purposely. Admitted showing him the quilt and feathers, said it was all good feathers, but that was to divert his attention; denied saying that the springs were good too. Never invited old or young men to the house for improper purposes. Young men, friends of her husband’s, had often came to their place. Recollected showing Arthur Boyce once through her house. Accused remarked it was no use asking complainant any more questions, as he could not get the truth. They would get the whole truth of the affair from him. Evidence was given by a girl aged 17, sister-in-law of informant, to the effect that Mrs Percy Pennell came to their house about 3.30 pan. on the 11th inst,, and told her that Mr Laidlaw had thrown her (Mrs Pennell) on the couch. When telling her the circumstances Mrs Pennell was crying, and she appeared to be frightened. Replying to accused, she stated she had never known him to be at all forward when he delivered bread at their house. Percy Pennell, husband of the complainant, deposed he had not seen accused until the night of the 11th inst. He returned home about 7 pan. His wife was standing at the door looking very bad. He asked her what was the matter, and she told him’that the driver of Boyce’s baker’s cart, whom he had since ascertained was the accused, had assaulted her. Witness here detailed what his wife told him had taken place, which was virtually the same as the evidence given by her, except that she told him she sat on the table when accused had his arm round her, and that she said if he did not go away she would scream and call the attention of the men in the harvest field. When witness interrogated accused at his lodgings he denied being in witness’ house, but afterwards admitted he went in to see a stool. Laidlaw said he would absolutely deny all the accusations, and in addressing witness’ wife, he said, “ You have been very kind in giving me fruit, why should Ido anything to you.” Y/hen told that the matter would be placed in other hands, accused said, “ You can do what you like, my name is as good as yours or your wife’s.” He walked back towards the house, and exclaimed, “ My name is Laidlaw ; you can take it where you like.” He also said, “ Mrs Pennell, I call you anything but a lady; I can’t call you anything else.” To the Bench ; His object in going to Laidlaw’s was to get an apology more than anything else. To accused : Neither witness or his wife said that if defendant apologised nothing more would be said. Accused was tha next witness. He said he went to Pennell’s place on the 11th inst., at about 3 p.m. She was making a mat, and he remarked that she was an industrious woman. Complainant then asked him in the sittingroom to have a look at a stool and also a chair. He went as far as the bedroom door, and she turned up one end of the quilt and said it was all goose feathers and good springs. His horses were getting restless and he left. He detailed the conversation that took place between complainant, her husband, and himself. He denied the charge and said he never laid a hand on complainant. To the police: Could not assign any reason for the woman bringing the charge against him. Did tell Mr Boyce the following morning that Mrs Pennell firstly took him into the house, showed him the stool and couch, lifted up the quilt, and showed him the springs, and as it was more than human nature could stand, he picked up his basket and left. Accused declared he had no temptation in the matter. The Bench here adjourned to consider their verdict. After a few moments retirement, they announced that they considered a charge of common assault had been proved and convicted and fined accused £5 and costs .£2 12s 6d, in default one month’s imprisonment. Accused was allowed 14 days in which to pay the fine.