REVOLTING CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 11264, 3 February 1912, Page 6

REVOLTING CASE.

A SEVERE SENTENCE,

TWENTY YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.} WELLINGTON, Friday. A most revolting case was unfolded in the Supremo Court to-day, when Albert Henry Hughes,-a man about 2b ve-irs o.t age, was tried on a charge of' on December 9th, 1911, at Potouo,. committing a serious offence agaiust a uirl nine years ol" age. v Mr J list ice Chapman was on tlio Eeucli, and Mr H. 11. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, was Crown Prosecutor. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended l>y Mr Cracvoft Wilson. The Court was cleared during the hearing of the ease. The jury retired shortly after 5 p.m. and returned in about ten minutes , time with a verdict of guilty. His Honor stared, in reply to prisoner's counsel, that lie proposed to puss sentence immediately. Mr' Wilson thereupon said that lie felt bound to mention the prisoner's weakness of character. His i-ionor: It is of no use in a case of this sort. Mr Wilson: He lias had two kinds of fever, and has been under the doctor at Otaki on several occasions. nis Honor replied that that was eutirely a matter for tin , gaol authorities. Mr Wilson: 1 bow to your Honor's opinion, but L felt it my duty to mention these matters. His Honor: You are quite right to ;io so. Mr Wilson. Addressing the prisoner, His Honour said- This is the very worst case [ have ever had the misfortune to deal vvith—the most cruel and brutal outrage I ever heard of. You took this Uftle girl away from her home and ruthlessly violated her in that lonely spot. I have known people in my time hanged for such offences in the neighbouring States; but the leniency of the law now allows me to pass a less severe sentence on you. Ido not think it necessary to pass sentence of Life, although I may have some difficulty iv giving my reasons for not doing so. The sentence I am going to pass must, however, be a very long term—indeed, so Long that I iLo not deem it necessary to add the punishment of flogging, which I have done in some cases that have come before me. The only sentence consistent with my duties that lean puss for this outrage", is twenty years' imprisonment.'' with hard labour. Addressing the jury, His Honour continued: "This lias been a painful case for you, as well as for me. It may be that many people may think excessive the sentence I have just passed, but the law fixes the maximum penalty for such an offence at hard labour for life."' His Honour repeated that he might .have difficulty in giving reasons for imposing the sentence that he had; but it had been his endeavour to stamp out such outrages on young girls. For the. reason that publication of the details of these cases was frequently forliiuden. and because the newspapers for the sake of the decency of their own columns, did not enlarge upon them, even when publication was not forbidden, the public were not quite aware of the fact that these ort'ences were so frequent. "Certainly," His Honour concluded, "they are not often attended with such violence, but I can inform you that in a few years I have fried over ;■■ hundred of these cases." His Honour thanked the jury for their attention to the case, and discharged them from further attendance.