PENSIONER ACQUITTED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 39, 17 February 1943, Page 3

PENSIONER ACQUITTED

INDECENT ASSAULT CHARGE SUPREME COURT TRIAL A verdict of not guilty on both counts was returned by a jury in the Supreme Court, Wanganui, yesterday, in the case of Edward Beamsley, pensioner and chimney sweep, aged 64, charged before Mr. Justice Smith with indecent assault on a female, and also assaulting a female. Th offences were alleged to have been committed at Aramoho on October 29. last. The case was heard yesterday morning, the jury retiring at 1.10 p.m, and returning with its verdict at 2.50 p.m. Accused was discharged. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. N. R. Bain, conducted the case for the Crown and Mr. A. D. Brodie appeared for accused. The jury consisted of Messrs. A. Stott (foreman). C. H. Gibbard. A. E. Snelling. H. N. Sargeant, G. King.

R. Carpenter, S. Baddeley, H. R. N. Kirk. L. Greenside. R. E. Vincent, S. J. Howes, and A. A. Temperton. In his opening address to the jury, Mr. Bain said accused was charged with indecent assault on a single woman, aged 31. She was an invalid because of an accident and had practically no schooling. For 19 years she lived at. Castlecliff and before the alleged offence had known accused bv sight. The Crown alleged. Mr. Bain added, rhat about two months before October 29 accused stopped the woman in the street and asked if she knew him. He enquired where she was living and she told him. giving the name of the street at Aramoho. Nothing more was said, and evidence would show that the woman did not see accused again till he knocked at her back door on the date of the alleged offence. Accused was dressed in his chimney-sweep garb and asked if she would like the chimney swept. It was agreed that he should do this work and he subsequently returned to the house that day.

The woman was alone at the time, said Mr. Bain, and it was alleged that after accused swept the chimney the woman became suspicious. Evidence would show that accused offered her a 10s note and said he would not charge for the chimney. She refused the note, but he put it in her hand and she subsequently placed it on a bench. The woman alleged that she was later assaulted by accused. She reported the matter to the police next day and handed them the 10s note. Accused, when interviewed, flatly denied the charge at first and then gave a lengthy statement and said the woman attempted to seduce him. After evidence of the alleged assault had been given, Constable H. H. Hudson said the woman in question called at the police station at 8.45 a.m. on October 30 and made a complaint. With Detective-Sergeant J. K. Robertson, witness subsequently visited accused at his home in Castlecliff. Accused, when invited to accompany them back to the detective office, said: “You have heard her story and you are going to hear mine.” He admitted that he was sweeping chimneys at Aramoho the previous day and expressed the opinion that the woman was mentally deficient. On the way to the city he reiterated his innocence. At the detective otficL he was warned that he was not obliged to make a statement, but he insisted and said he wished to make an explanation to detail his version of the matter. Accused then made a lengthy statement in which he said the woman had asked him to call and look at the chimney. He also stated that he gave her the 10s note because she was short of money. Detective-Sergeant J. K. Robertson, who also gave evidence, said when cross-examined by Mr. Brodie that a charge of attempted rape was dismissed when the case came before the Magistrate’s Court.

Mr. Brodie, in his address to the jury, submitted that the explanation made by accused to the police, on the day following the alleged assault, was too long and detailed for a story made up on the spur of the moment. His Honour, summing up, said it was dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of a woman complainant. In this case there was no corroborative evidence from any source. It was still open for the jury to convict on uncorroborated evidence, provided they were satisfied that in all circumstances the woman’s story was true, and bearing in mind the Judge’s warning. His Honour then reviewed the Crown evidence and the statement made by accused.