MAN ACQUITTED ON ASSAULT CHARGE

Press, Volume C, Issue 29509, 10 May 1961, Page 8

MAN ACQUITTED ON ASSAULT CHARGE

Was a young woman passenger in a car driven along Horseshoe Lake road by Trevor James Everest, aged 26. a truck driver, intentionally pushed by him from the car, or did she jump voluntarily or fall accidentally? These questions were put to a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The jury, by its verdict of not guilty, found Everest, charged with assaulting the young woman, had not intentionally pushed her from the car. Mr Justice Richmond discharged Everest. The jury took 30 minute' to reach its verdict. Mr C. M. Roper conducted the case for the Crown. Mr R. G. Blunt apneared for Everest, who pleaded not guilty. His Honour, on the application of Mr Roper, prohibited publication of the young woman’s name. Crown's Case Opening the case for the Crown, Mr Roper said that the young woman met the accused in February this year. On March 3. she would say. he called at her flat and invited her out the following day. a Saturday. She would say that the accused called for her in a taxi about 2 30 n.m., and they went to the beer garden at the Valley Inn, Heathcote. They stayed until about 6 p.m.. and the girl would say she was sober when she left. She went in a taxi to the accused’s home, where he had tea, but she did not feel like any. She and the accused then went to a garage to pick up the accused’s car and returned to the accused's home. Later the accused said he would take her home in his father’s car. as his was not going well. “The young woman will say that the accused stopped •he car and tried to be familiar with her He tried to kiss her. she will say. and then asked her if she was going to have sexual intercourse. although not in those "xact words "Opened the Door” “The young woman will say she told the accused not tn be stupid. The accused then got the car going, but not towards the citv She will say she onened the door of the car and tried to get out, but the car was going too fast. In Horseshoe Lake road, the girl will say. she saw two women and called out for help She will say the accused then pushed her out of the car and that she fell on the road and does not remember anything unf'l she woke up in a house in Horseshoe Lake road." Mr Roper said. Counsel said that the two women, Doris Emily Watt, a widow, and Kathleen Lucy Wells, a sminster. would give evidence of hearing a cry for help as a small car came towards them They looked at the car. and as it went on up the road they saw a bodylying in th«J road. It was

the young woman, and they moved her from the road. The car, the women would say, passed them again in the opposite direction, but did not stop. Shoe Found Later, one of the young woman’s shoes was found between the bucket seats of the accused’s fa’her’s car. Mr Roper said. The accused, interviewed by the police, made a long statement. He denied pushing the young woman out of the car and denied making any indecent suggestion to her. “The accused said in his statement that the young woman got out of the car voluntarily and was walking up the road when he last saw her. This conflicts with the evidence of the two women. If the girl voluntarily decided to walk home and got out of the car, it will be observed that she must have been walking in one shoe,” Mr Roper concluded. The young woman gave evidence along the lines of counsel's opening. She said that after the accused had asked her to have intercourse and she had refused he had asked if she would like to have a little sleep. She said she told the accused she did not think he would stoop so low. “I had my hand on the door handle of the car. It was going about 25 miles an hour. The accused put his hand behind me and pushed my back. I fell out on to the road.” the young woman said. Cross-examined Cross-examined by Mr Blunt, the young woman said she had six small beers and a whisky. She did riot have any more. She was sober The accused was drinking port wine and brandy and beers. He appeared to be sober when thev left. She had opened the door when she first, thought of getting out of the car. It was going too fast. Mr Blunt: If the car was going fast at all. there would be a head wind tending to force the door open. The witness: Yes. If the wind blew the door open you would fall out. dragged by the door?—Yes. if I held on to the door handle. But I did not hold on to the handle. I pu» it to you, that the door swung open and that you were dragged out by the handle? —No. Father's Evidence Charles Everest, a retired carpenter and father of the accused, said he found a high-heeled shoe in his car the corning after November 4. It was similar to the shoe produced in Court. Cross-examined, the witness said he noticed a bottle in the young woman’s handbag when she was at Ms place during the evening of November 4. She appeared to have had "quite a bit to drink.” Her eyes were definitely blurry. Re-examined by Mr Roper, the witness said the accused “appeared to be all right" that evening.

To Mr Roper, the witness said the young woman's handbag was a “navy blue, black one, long and not very deep.” Recalled by Mr Roper, the young woman produced a handbag, and said it was the one she had at the accused's home. In her earlier evidence she had denied having a bottle of wine in it. Cross-examined, the young woman measured her handbag and said it was lOin long. She did not know how long an "ordinary sherry bottle” was. Detective B. Riach read a statement he said was made by the accused. The accused was quoted as saying the young woman had been drinking wine and whisky and beer at the beer garden. She had taken a bottle of wine, port wine and sherry, from the beer garden. In his statement, the accused said that he and the young woman had had a “mug-up and kiss” in his car in the driveway of his home from 8.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. that day. The young woman had not objected. “On the way in my father’s car after we left home, the young woman opened the car door. By this time there was only a little left in the bottle. She had been drinking it on her own. She opened the door and tried to get out. I leant over and shut the door, and said, ‘What’s the matter?' She did not reply. She just opened the door and got out of the car. I saw two women in the road. She started walking back towards the town. I drove off.” Defence Address Mr Blunt called no evidence for the defence. Mr Roper did not make a final address. The Crown had to prove that Everest had pushed the girl from the car to sustain the charge of assault, the “intentional application of force." Mr Blunt submitted to the jury. The only evidence of intent came” from the young woman. She was a mature person who “had been about a bit. She had had something to drink. She admitted she had decided tc jump before, but the car was going too fast. "She says she saw two women. Did she think. ‘I shall get out and go to them?' I out that to her, but she denied it. There is no corroboration of her story that she was pushed. The .accused may well have mistaken one of the two women for the young women walking on the road behind him.” Summing-Up Summing up, his Honour said the Crown had to satisfy the jury that the accused had pushed the young woman as alleged and that he had pushed her intentionally. It was entirely a matter for the jury to decide what weight st gave to the evidence of the witnesses. There was no legal requirement demanding that the young woman’s evidence be corroborated. She had given her story on oath and had been cross-examined at length. The jury had ample opportunity to' judge her veracity. ■-