A SERIOUS CHARGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3224, 22 May 1911, Page 5

A SERIOUS CHARGE.

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY’-' BY DIRECTION. JUDGES “ SORRY, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES.” [FEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.J WELLINGTON 1 . May 21. At the Supreme Court yesterday, Edward Reynolds and Annie Peterson, were charged with using an instrument •for an unlawful nurnose on a girl of 17 years, between the 14th and 25th March. Reynolds was also charged with uni awfully supplying an instrument, knowing it to have been intended for. an unlawful purpose. Mr, A. L. Herdman appeared for Petersen, and Mr. T. M. Wilford for Reynolds, and both counsel applied to have the cases tried separately, as otherwise their defence would be prejudiced. Mr. T. Neiave (Crown Prosecutor) opposed the application, and His Honor, the Chief Justice, retired for a few minutes to consult Mr. Justice Chairman on a point. When His Honor returned to the bench he announced that he would not grant the application, but if desired, he would reserve the point for the Court of Appeal should it be necessary. Both counsel availed themselves of this permission. His Honor directed the Court to be cleared and ordered that particulars of the case be not published. During the hearing a point arose concerntim™ the necessity for corroboration of the girl’s story. Mr. Herdman said that the case ,as shaped by the Crown did not disclose any evidence _ which corroborated the story of the principal witness, who was an accomplice. There was no corroboration as to the actual perpetration of the deed. Counsel proceeded to quote authorities on this point. Mr. Wilford contended, quoting Russell on Crimes, page 2286. that it had long been adopted as a general rule of practice that the testimony of an accomplice ought to receive confirmation, and that unless it be Corroborated in some material part by unimpeachable evidence, the presiding Judge ought to advise the jury to acquit the prisoner. To adjudge defendant guilty in a paternity case was impossible under our law without corroborative evidence. This case could not be dealt with except by acquittal. Mr Neave combated the point raised. His Honor upheld the contention, and directed the jury to bring in a verdict of “not guilty.” He had (he said) to put aside his personal feelings in the matter. He assumed the girl’s story to be true, but notwithstanding that, our law was such that in this class of crime where the girl herself was a participant, and did the thing voltintarily, there .must be some corroboration of her story, and he did not think it would be safe for the jury to bring in any other verdict than that of “not guilty.” The girl might have a civil remedy. . Her parents might be able to Sue for seduction. and might call Mrs Peterson, who would be bound 1 to give evidence. If lie was wrong the Court of Appeal would rearrest him and, if proper, would order a new trial. His Honor was very sorry under , the circumstances, but as a judge he must carry out the Jaw. The jury acted in accordance _ with the direction, and found a verdict of “not guilty.” Air. Neave will move for a new trial and a nolle prosequi was entered on the other charges.