THE KELBURN AFFAIR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 219, 5 June 1918, Page 6

THE KELBURN AFFAIR

JUDGMENT DELIVERED

TWO WOMEN CONVICTED

REFORMATORY treatment for TWELVE MONTHS. The reserved judgment, in the case arising from the rc-cent. Kelburn raid was delivered in the Magistrate's Court yestewlay morning by .Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, Tho Magistrate'said that in order to constitute the offence of keeping or managing or assisting in keeping-or managing a hoiiso of ill-fame under the War Regulations it is necessary to prove that tho women residing or resorting thereto lent their bodies for hire, but direct ovider.ee as to tho passing of money was not necessary. The charges against (he accused were laid pursuant to the additional War .Regulations made on August 21, lillG. No informations were laid; the defendants were brought up in custody, and no application .was made for the laying of written informations. Tho judgment referred to (lie. regulations, and tho deiinition of a iiouso of ill-famo contained therein, and stated that tin women arrested there on the night, of April 27 wero arrested as tlio result of an entry by warrant issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the regulations. The Magistrate proceeded to review tho evidence for the prosecution. "In regard to the evidence of alleged acts of immorality in Olsen's room," ho said, "whenever the observation were taken from the south side of the house, I am satisfied that even on a bright moonlieilt night there would be difficulty in identifying anyone in bed in *hat -oom, though male would be diotinguishable from female. Where, therefore, Constable Tricklebank from (he point indicated affected to identify particular women in that room, I am satisfied he lestified from inference and riot from observation. I visited the locus ;°n q 10 by consent, of all parties. The night then was dark. Tho night to which the constables testified was bright moonlight. 1 therefore did not see the place under tho same conditions as seen by the constables." Reviewing the evidence regarding the conduct of the house at 4S Upland Road, the Magistrate said that several evening a week were devoted to singing, dancing, and music, and usually a largo, number of persons was present. Tho defendants ad tutted some of the occasions to which the police deposed? anddenied others. The defendants and such of their male visitors as were tendered j to give evidence had denied all acts of immorality or indecency.' "Who." then, j is speaking the truth—the police or the: defendants nnd their witnesses ? The j former havo no motive for telling other than the truth. Assuming the police v evi-1 deuce to be true, the witnesses called' ; for the defence have the strongest nio- j tive for denying the allegations made by ! the police. Now, certain correspondence j was seized in receptacles admittedly be- i longing to the defendants Griffin and 01- j sen. This correspondence discloses amor-1 ous relations between each of these wo-. men and a number of men, mostly soldiers now abroad. . . The defendant Pringle had given evidence'' for the defence after her dismissal,'but tho iriost charitable aspect in which to regard tin* evidence was to find that she had told an untruth to save iher honour. Beftro residing at No. 48 Upland Road tho do- j fondants Griffin and Olsen had resided : at a house in Clydo Quay. There, tho • i evidence disclosed, they were visited by . i various men, mostly military officers, j t who usually brought some form of alcohol. Did men who were visiting a re-1 • putablo house inhabited solely by women , take alcohol wherewith ■ to entertain | ' lady friends? Such happenings were : ' usually reserved for brothels. The neigh-1 1 bonrs on each side of 48 Upland Koad ■ had mado complaints to the police about i tho manner in which it was being coni ducted. The evidence of Mr. Davidson, . in conjunction with other evidence, left : no doubt in the mind of the Court that ■ tho house was being conducted as a , house of ill-famo. In order to negativo i the evidence as to Marion Elliott, throe i doctors wero called to prove her condi- ; tion. The Court regarded this evidence i as to chastity as being inconclusive. It, i had been sought to discredit tho evidence of Constable Tricklebank by ad--1 ducing evidence that .he had referred to • tho defendant Griffin in obscene terms. The language, allowed to have neon 1 used by the constable on tho Kelburn ; uTam should havo been audiblo i to Lieutenant Morrison as well as to Lieutenant Carnahan. But Morrison did not hear the obscene words, and the two lieutenants and thfl constable had part- : ed on friendly terms at tho tramway terminus. This would have been unlikely • if Carnahan had addressed to tho constable tho contemptuous words to winch > ho had deposed. Tho words savoured of the camp, and the Court-would find that they wei'e concocted for tho purposo of tiie present case. Mr. O'Leary, counsel for Olsen, bad said the constable had used obscene words to him regarding Griffin. There was a flat contradiction between counsel and tho constable. Tho Court had no material on which to decide between them, and tliere was no reason why tho Court should believe one more than the other. This left the constable's evidence untonfched. Constable Cattanach corroborated Tricklebank s evi-. deuce in all material particulars, and no reasonable doubt had been cast on the former's evidence. The Magistrate referred to tho finding'of certain'pills in the boxes of Griffin and Olsen. There was no direct evidence that any money ' ever passed from tho male visitors ot this house to its female occupants. Such evidence must be difficult to procure. There was, however, a chain of circumstances which strongly suggested tho inference tliat money did pass, and tilts Court would so find. Mrs. Griffin hud stated that her weekly income did not exceed £o 10s. per week/ She was under liability to pay £i a week for rent. ,She had small instalments to pay oil her furniture, her son was a day boarder at a college, and her daughter was a boarder in a convent. Then there was the expenditure in entertaining her guests, which was considerable, and the cost 01 maintaining' herself and her children. This far exceeded her income, and she did not suggest that she was in debt. The Court could not 'accept the statement that her father, from a total income of ,£3 3s. a week, had sent her .£5 or iCG'a month in notes enclosed in letters which were not registered. If these monthly payments had been mado, what was to be said of a daughter ivlw accepted monthly doles from her father's slender income and used those doles to eutertain strangers I' "I shall find that on April 27,. 1918, and for at least three months prior thereto, tho house at 48 Upland Road was being kept as a house of ili-famo by the defendant Griffin, and that the defendant Olsen .had, during the period men'tioned, resided therein and taken a lead-

ing part in the management," added the Magistrate. "With regard to the defendant Elliott I shall find that such acts of immorality as she has committed cannot reasonably be held'to amount to acting or assisting in the keening or management of tho house, and she was neither the keeper Aior tho manager thereof. The information against her will, therefore, be dismissed. The defendants Griffin and Olsen will be convicted and sentenced to twelve months' reformative treatment." A Pica for Leniency. Mr. P. W. Jackson, who appeared for Mrs. Griffin, said that 110 wished to take exception to the sentences that the Court had decided to. inflict. Tho War liegulations permitted tho accused to bo lined instead of being imprisoned. It was usual, in tho case of a first offence, for the Court to imposo a fine and not a sentence of imprisonment. "I think I am correct in saying that Your Worship is the only Magistrate who has not-in-flicted a fine for a first offence," said Mr. Jacksoni "l know that Hie regulations are stricter since Hie War Kegulations came into force, but they do allow for a line being inflicted. Here is ayouii" woman who conies beiore the Court for the first time in her life. She has denied the offence Your Worship has found her guilty of. Should not she bo granted the privilege that is granted to most first offenders? I venture to say that had she the right of trial by "jury, a right taken away from her by the V ar Regulations, tho Supreme Court would have granted her probation or would ,

have convicted and discharged her. At the very most that Court wliuld have inflicted a line. It is possible now for lour Worship amend your decision by substituting a itiio fur imprisonment, or l'or reformatory treatment, which is tho same thing. 1 ask i'our Worship to do that. This is a case m which an appeal must lie. I submit that it is eminently a case in which an appeal should be mado to the Supreme Court, but under the regulations tho accused, pending the appeal, must go to prison. If, 011 appeal, - this conviction should bo quashed, then a very grievous u'long wouM have been dono this woman, Sho 6tani" before you to-day an absolutely ruintd woman—a penniless woman. Iter one chance now is to appeal, and I ask Your Worship lo inflict a fine and so give her that chance to avoid gaol." The case was an extraordinary one, added Mr. Jackson, and ho felt that the Magistrate must have given his decision with some reservations and possibly some doubts. The Magistrate had said that thero was no proof that the women had received money from men. That was a point on which ho could not have failed to have some doubt. Mrs. Griffin was only a voung wplnan, and tho Court had heard of her unhappy married life. She had come to-Welling-ton and, unfortunately had pkced herself in a position to be brought before tho Court. She w:as entitled to acliance. Every first offender, or nearly every lust offender, was given a chance, and he thought that even the police would have been quite satisfied' if the Court had indicted a fine. Mr. Jackson added that a recent case in wliicli the present Court had rent a woman to gaol for six ..months was the only occasion when a woman had been sent to gaol fur a liist offence of keeping a house, of ill-fame. Fines had been inflicted for second and oven third offences. It was a stam'U'g principle of British justice that the trst offender was given a chanco, and lie ■strongly lppenled to the Court, to p've. that oiianco to the accused in tho piesent case. Unusual Procedure, Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who represented the accused Olsen, said lie had little hope, that anything ho could say would alter tho decision or the sentence. Bin he wished to protest against tho haste with which the Court had imposed sentence 011 the women after finding them guilty.' Thero had been a long delay after the close of the trial. The.wooien had suffered much, agony of mind during tho' interval, and now, a'ter 'hoy had heeii declared iruilty, the .Vagisir.ite had passed sentence without providing : anv opnortrnity for counsel to speas 111 mitigation of the sentence. NVchance had been given to show that, whatever tliese. | women had done in Hip nnst. frie*\ds 1 were renrfv now to assist them to do t>-t-I ter in the future. 'IV position inwh.eh ! f'o accused were tilnced now was most !. difficult. An anneal 011 a noint of V.v was hopeless. The Magistrate tad fouud that the woman conducted a house of ill-fame, and lie was entitled, to decide or\ nnint. "e.Tiori! ann"nl could bp of ,no avail, since the essential witnesses had left 'the -.ountrv. me nVonce or an iirmortmt irftn" c « at the original f r inl had l>nndie.onped ttie ftcfnnpo ns far as Olson ■ was coneei •ic.,l, and since then live mow of ilia in-.i . fin'innc*"" 1 • th p C n . c ' 5 had gone. The. fate of tV v-iYion was pr>*ir n lv in th* ot Mwistr.ito. ask"l ttir> Court to tnke into coneitlernHon that OVn was a first offender. If'it had not boon for all the fuss and nublie'tv that h"d been crented his client jinvfi received the sentence that the Court had just inflicted. . Mr. Jackson said the Mawtrete Vd said, on the question of. Mrs. Grffin s financial nosition, that she had to pay £0 a week rent. He nerlpns had overlooked tV fac* that the Financial Assistance Board had paid X\ a week of tho rent. He believed that there was a ri"ht of anpeal on the Question of law. The Magistrate, on the question of facts, had found not only against the accused, but against every single witness had called, and an apneal there would have a poor chance. But on the ques- , tion of law a perfectly good apneal could lie, and he asked again that the Magistrate should give the right to take the case to a higher, Court, and at the same time save these young women froin going tO Mr.°H. E. Evans (for Mr. M. Myers, representing the accusal Elliott) said that he had been instructed, in the event of a conviction being recorded against his client,, to ask for an opportunity for Mr. Myers to bo heard that afternoon. . . ~ The Magistrate said that lie had listened with respect to what counsel had said. He had not come to his decision lightly. Nothing that had been urged would justify him, -ho believed, in revising his decision. The decision would bo entered as he had given it. The reason that accused -vere to bo subject to reforma-. (orv treatment instead of ordinary imnrisonment was that they brought at once under tho control of tlie Prisons Board. The Prisons Board would be able to deal with the accused as it thought fit. • , Tll responso to a request from counsel the Magistrate fixed security for appeal at .610 for each accused. The two young children of Mrs. Griffin and other relatives of the accused were in Court, and thero was a. painful scene before the prisoners left) in custody,