A Serious Affair.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 595, 16 April 1891, Page 3

A Serious Affair.

C. M. MAUNSELL BEFORE THE COURT. LIGHTLY LET DOWN. At the Police Court on Tuesday morning, before Mr Booth, R.M., Cecil Mowbray Maunsell was, on the information of Sergeant Carlyon, charged with being unlawfully on the premises of Mr A. F. Hardy, on the morning of April 11. Mr Skeet appeared on behalf of the accused, who, on being asked to plead, said he had no knowledge whatever of the thing. Mr Skeet said the facts were that Maunsell had been drunk, and bad gone into the house in mistake for his own. The publicity given to the case would be a severe punishment and lesson to him, and he was very sorry for the annoyance he had caused. Unfortunately the section under which the charge was laid did not leave much option with His Worship, and did not provide for a fine. Sergeant Carlyon said the evidence would go to ebow that Maunsell knew what be was doing, though he (the Sergeant) was not prepared to prove a more serious charge than that of being illegally on the premises. A. F. Hardy deposed that he and Mrs Hardv bad left home on the Wednesday night and had gone to Toros, leaving their eight children at home, the eldest being 21, His house was on the Whataupoko, about 100 yards above that of the accused, which was on the opposite side of the road. He described the house. He had only a slight acquaintance wi h accused. Constable Brooking deposed that he was on duty on the Friday night, and between 11 and 12 saw accused going round the Masonic corner with another man. The latter •aid to accused, “ Come on, we will go home,” and they then went in the direction of Whataupoko. The accused’s house was about a mile distant. Witness had no appearance of being drunk, and witness had no reason to think he was drunk—he could Walk right enough then. Bertha Hardy, whose features bore the unmistakeable traces of recent illness, and also that she had been crying, was the next witness called, and her simp e teetimony was Slven with remarkable distinctness. She etailed the circumstances, which showed that last Friday night, or early on Saturday morning, the accused, who was dressed in the way. ordinary but had his boots off, came into their house and opened the door of her bedroom. He stood in the doorway with a lighted match in his hand. Witness recognised the face ; he stood there a few •econds, looking at her, then closed the door and walked to another part of the hou>e. She was very frightened, and struck a match and lighted a candle. Looking through a crack in the door she then saw him standing there ; her sister had come out from her bedroom, and was speaking to him. Her •later eaid, ° Oh, Mr Maunsell,” —what are you doing here?” Witness did not hear any answer, but saw accused poking his tongue in and out and making grimaces at her sister. Accused made very little noise in coming to the doorway, Mr Bkeet said he had no questions to ask the witness, Kate Hardy, the elder sister, w<is next examined. She, too, bore traces of tears, but her evidence was very cl« ar. She deposed that on the niwht in question her father and mother were away up the country, and she slept in the house, her brother, two sisters, and the little children being also at home. The done was shut in the usual way—the catch did not fasten properly, but it required a good pull or •hove to get the door open. At ten minutes to one she heard a noise on the verandah. She listened, wondering what it was, and then got up, in her night-dress, and went into the dining room, concluding that it was her father who had come home from the country. There she met Maunsell f ice to face, standing by the doorway of her mother’s room. She asked him what he was doing there, and told hm there was the door and he had better go. He •aid it was a mistake. Witness continued : I •aid I would call my brother, and he asked me not to make a noise as it was a mistake. I said it was a very funny “ mistake ” to be in another person's house wandering from room to room. He simply stood there making grimaces, and poking his tongue out. I went out and called my brother, who got up, and when we came back accused was still leaning against the door. My brother told him to go away, and secured asked my brother to go With him to look for the boots. The front door was closed. Mv brother opened the door, and eventually accused left. Next morning I noticed footprints from the house, as of some one with socks on going in the direction of town. I cou'd not say whether accused was sober or drunk, but he seemed to know very jvell w|iat he was doing I only know the accused by sight; Mrs Maunsell I know just to speak to, but we are not visitors to their house, nor they to ours. My sister has been In bad health, and the occurrence distressed her very much—she seemed paralysed with fear.

Frederick Hardy, a manly young fellow, and the brother of the Mispes Hardy, was next called, and corroborated the evidence bo So far as he could Fpeak on the matter. He WBB sBleep when bis sister called him, and he heard do conversation between accused and his sister. He ordered accused out, and the latter then wanted his boots found. After •tending a little while, making faces and poking his tongne out at Miss Hardy, accused left—witness did not know in which direction ♦ be then went, only hearing the gate shut after fclm. The accused’s house and theirs were about a hundred yards apart ; there was no Similarity between them. Mr Bkeet said the evidence only upheld What Maunsell stated, that he made a mistake—there was no evil intention. The section under which the information was laid was to make him a rogue and vagabond — the section was not to meet such a case, it was only to apply to a disreputable character. That he took off his boots was probably Lis usual proceeding to prevent disturbing those in his house. The grimaces that he made showed that he was not in a condition that he was responsible for his actions—in a condition, he admitted, in which he ought not to have been. The whole thing was a mistake, and there was do evidence to commit. He was prepared to call evidence tkat the accused was drunk. His Worship : I think you had better do that $ the evidence so far tends to show that be was capable of taking oare of himself. C. F, Wood head deposed that about a quarter to ten Major Pitt called him into the Club to see if he could do anything with Mr Maunsell, whom witness found to he helplessly drunk, almost speechless. He advised Maunsell to lay down, but about half an hour later Lo was gone. He was surprised that Maunsell had been frble to get home at all, and if he thought be could have got him home he would have taken him. He had known accused a long time, and he bore an excellent Character, excepting that he was a little partial to drink. A kinder-hearted man be never knew, and in his sober senses he would never do a thing of the kind, The Sergeant; Have you never heard of hi? doing a similar thing before ? Mr Sheet' jumped to his feet, and said sharply that this was not evidence. ‘pbe Sergeant held firmly that the question of character having been raised he had a perfect right tp cross-examine the witnesses en U, Mr Bkeet appealed to Hia Worship, His Worship: You are putting this man up to show that Maunsell bears an irreprcacbable character excepting that he takes too much drink, The Sergeant (to witness): I ask again, yon beard of accused having previously Veen concerned in such a thing in Gisborne F Mr Skeet: That is not evidence; he must •peak as to his own knowledge. His Worship: It must be something he knows himself ; yon can’t put a question as to what he has heard, Mr Bkeet • It is heresay. The Sergeant: I must bear with your Worship, but I feel that I have the right. A witness gets up and gives accused a good chaiactar, and I have a right to ask if he does net know someihitg bad. Mr Bkeet still strongly objected, and there was an ctost-fire on the sublet,

which was put an end to by Mr Skeet saying, “ I don’t want to argue wi:h the Sergeant ; I leave it with your Worship.” The Seigeant: I press for an answer. Mr Skeet: You can only ask what has come within his own know'edge. His Worship (to the Sergeant) : I suppose you might get a number of people to say they had heard so-and-so. Mr Skeet; Supposing you heard in the street that Mr Maunsell had committal some seiious crime five yearci ago, that is not evidence. The Sergeant : I am not bringing evidence ;I am only cross-examining. I feel that I have a perfect right to ask any question and get an answer. Of course I bow to your Worship’s decision if you say no. His Worship (to witness): Do you know anything of Maunsell’s previous character corresponding with the charge now made? Witness : I do not. The Sergeant: I still ask has the witness heard of Maunsell having committed a similar offence before ? Mr Skeet: Then I object; what is the use of it ?—it ia not evidence. lam surprised at the Sergeant asking such a thing. His Worship definitely ruled that he could not take heresay as evidence. The Sergeant said it was not necessarily evidence, but when good character was set up he thought he should be allowed to crossexamine on it. His Worship : I do not think you can put it in ; as soon as it is on my notes it is evidence.

The Sergeant: Well, I will leave it at that.

Major Pitt deposed that he had seen accused about 10 on Friday night, when he was very drunk—he ceu d just stagger about. Tuat was in the Giub. where he l-ft him. Had known accused ever since he came to Gisborne, and except the accused was too fond of the drink, so far as he knew he had borne a good character and was not likely to commit such an offence as that set up. To the Sergeant: Dined with him that evening. Did not know anything special of his character wi’b reference to women. Did not know whether accused went home that night. When Constable Brooking said accused could walk all right when he saw him he would, he thought, speak falsely—he did not say he would do so willingly. Mr Skeet urged it was clear the accused had simply made a mistake. Sergeant Carlyon asked His Worship to rule whether he could bring rebutting evidence in relation to character. His Worship did not want to prevent any evidence being called, but he did not think he could allow it. Mr Skeet saie he was astonished at the Sergeant asking such a thing. The Sergeant said he was satipfiefl on the point, but in view of what Hi? Worship said he would not press the matter. His AV orship then made a few comments on the casH, which he said was one of the most painful that had ever come before him a man holding the position that Maunsell did, being without any right whatever on the premises were young girls were living, when their father and mother were away. The defence iteelf was a disgrace to any man, much more to a gentlem -n, which he supposed Mr Maunsell was, living there as he did and with his antecedents. He himself had known Mr Maunsell for some time, and that to him made the case s’ ill more painful. He felt that in justice he was bound to give accused the benefit of ihe doubt as to the plea that he had by mistake entered the wrong house, especially as he had been in a state of incapable drunkenness at about ten. The astonishing thing was how he got to the house at all. The suspicious thing about the whole matter was the taking off of hia boots ; probably he thought he was going to his own room. When he asked for help to find his boots it did not look as if he had his wits about him. It appeared he then went away without them, and the evidence did not show where they were. Hie Worship went on to say the question was whether he was to treat accused as a rogue and vagabond and send him to prison, there being no option of a fine. He read the Act and eaid he would like to hear what the Sergeant had to say. The first clause provided that a charge if considered trifling might be disrui-sed, though it was proved, the accused to pay costa; or by another clause he might be convicted and discharged conditionally on sureties being provided for that he would come up when called upon, The Sergeant s»rnngiy objected to the case being considered trifling, and pressed for a conviction, but said the latter clause might possibly meet the case—it was the least that cou'd be done. Accused was then bound over in his nwn recognisances of £5O, and another of £5O or two of £25, to appear for s c ntence when called upon. Mr Woodhead then went surety, and the accused was liberated.