KELBURN RAID APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 253, 13 July 1918, Page 8

KELBURN RAID APPEAL

MRS. GRIFFIN'S CASE JUDGMENT RESERVED UNTIL MONDAY When His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking resumed his seat on the Bench in thti Supremo Court yesterday the hearing Wfi3 continued for the fourth day of ■ the appeal by Airs. Mary Griffin against a decision of Mr. S. Ji. M'Carthy, S.M,' who convicted her of keeping a house of ill-fame and sentenced her to twelve months' reformative treatment. All ttiH evidence in the case van concluded tho previous day, and yesterday counsel addressed the Court. Before beginning his address Mr. P. W. Jackson referred to Sirs. GritfinV age, on which question wjme evidence hail been given. Ho (counsel) was informed by Mr. M'Carthy (Mrs. Griffin's father) that his first child, which died, was christened Mary; his second child was Sirs'. Griffin, and she was christened Bridget Mary, and wns always known as Alarv. She was two years younger than the other child. His Honour: That shows how carelul one must be even with a birth certificate. Of course it is a minor point. Mr. Jackson, continuing, said that since Mr. O'Leiu'y had appeared with him far Mrs. Griftin and examined Miss Olsen, ha hoped that His Honour would allow Mr. U'Leary to address the Court. His 'Honour: I have never heard oi two counsel summing up. Mr. Macassey objected to'Jlr. OXeary addressing tho Court. His Honour: It is not for the Crown to object. This is a criminal case, and it is a matter for the Court to decido. If the Court likes to hear two coiuwel ■it can do so. Mr. Jackson, passing to his main address, contended that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charge laid against her; also that tho prosecution had wholly failed to prove, gain or profit, and having failed to prove that appellant could not be convicted Ol keeping a house of ill-fame. On the general appeal that, the judgment was aeainst the weight of evidence he would refer to the evidence given in (he Lower Court and to the ovidenco given brforo His Honour. His Honour: You need not trouble, about the evidence in the Court below, but the evidence I have heard. Ih.o question before me is this: On the evidence I have heard in this Court, acting as a jury, what would be my decieionf Air. Jackson then proceeded to deal with the evidence given by Constable Trickle-bank, and contended that it should be discredited because of certain discrepancies and improbabilities. Up to April S the evidence of tho constable was unsupported. He referred to tho conflict of evidence given by Constable Tricklebank and Constable Cattanach, who made their observations at the house together. Their evidence as it stood was very unsatisfactory. He thon dealt at some length with the evidence for the defence. , Mr. Macassey, in his address, refcrrec to the surrounding circumstances, and contended that a certain letter written by Miss Olsen to Mrs. Griffin wns sigui- ' fiMiit." In this letter Hiss Olsen eaid that sho was bringing a certain officer to the house, and he was to sleep with the lodger. His Honour: Why should I accept the letter written by the girl as incriminating the man ? that does not in any way impugn the evidence of the man. Mr. Macassey then ret'erred to ConRtablo Tricklob'ank's evidence, and also to that given by Constable Cattonach, and pointed out that the men had to perform an unpleasant duty, but they had done so honestly nnd to the best or their i ability. His Honour: I can well believe that. : Mr. Macassey again referred to Trickle--1 bank's evidence, and contended that the 1 evidence was not contradicted except as to acts of immorality. He dealt with tho evidence of what took place on April 5, and pointed out that the defence agreed that the evidence was practically correct. Why should tho Oonrt be asked to disbelieve certain parts of the evidence? His Honour: Because, the evidenco respecting Marion Elliott was disproved with the strongest medical evidenco. Mr. Jlncassey: I cannot help that. ' His Honour: I cannot help it wither, nnd you have got to get over that, Continuing, Mr. Macnasey showed that , in several points the evidence given by ' thn constivblos wns corroborated \>y witj nesses for the defence. He asked His J Honour to consider whether all the evi- ' dencn of the police was to be discredited. That evidence was agreed to be correct * in detail; it was only in respect to compromising positions and acts of lmmnrnl--1 ity that there wns a conflict. He dealt ' with the evidence of independent wit- ' nesses to show the conduct of tho house. One of the neighbours said to Mrs. 1 Griffin that she would make a complaint I regarding the conduct of the houße. This f witness stated that there were singing, loud talking, music, and swearing. His Honour:. This witness was m the I neighbourhood for twenty-one days, nnd unless her evidence is narrowly exarain--3 ed it would appear that her observations were over a long period. e Mr. Maeaesev referred, to tho evidence r of another witness which confirmed the •* statements of the witness he had re--3 ferred to. He again referred to the let- ' t.ers which were found in the house, and 0 contended that fhey indicated the char- ' actor of the house. * Mr. Jackson referred to the admissi- :" bility of the lottors. His Honour: These letters came in through cross-examination. Mr Macassey contended that the letters taken as a whole reflected on the oharacter of the recipients. With rctpect to gain, he maintained that if the evidence of the independent witnesses wera to be believed and the police evidence— : " His Honour: Tho evidence of the three independent μ-itnesses could not identify the men who visited the house. ® Mr. Macassey said it was proved that the house was visited by soldiers, sailors, and civilians. That liquor was consumed j in tho houso to a large extent— f His Honour: WTiat do you mean by "a , largo extent"? »' ' Mr. Macassey: The police evidence ' e showed thnt threo dozen bottles of beer 1 and a large quantity of whisky were .' tiilrpn into the honpe. y His Honour: Yea. This was a period '■ of about four months, and five or six j persons visits! tho house two and three times a week. How much does that n work out at? Mr. Macassey: I havo not worked that J" out. j His Honour: It wns your duty to have worked it out since you have brought it forward. Mr. Macassey: One independent ivit- ?' ness said that she .frequently heard ' drawing of corks. v 11 h Honour: The drawing, of corks [. might have boon the corks in lemonade « bottles. This shows the amount of f i imagination that can be imparted into fi evidence of this kind when stated in such terms. It was very loose evidenco. j Air. Macassey, referring to the qnast _ tion of gain, said that if tho police evi- '.'. dence wore believed thore was a reasonjf able inference that these women were not visited so frequently by these men without the women receiving some gain. It was impossible to bring direct evin deuce on tho point. His Honour: It could have been proved by the mode of living of tho women. If „ they had been riding about in motor- ' cars, drinking champagne, nnd jiving in ' r such a way, there would havo been ma- |. terial for inference. But you havo no(j thing of the kind in this case. Mr. Macassey then dealt with Mrs. Griffin's financial resources, and pointed out that there was no evidence that the i money was sent by Mr. M'Carthy to Mrs. ,r Griffin. There was no proof of it, a.Ia I hough he would not. question the evidence given by Mr. M'Uirthy. When Mr. Macassey concluded. His Honour stated that ho would like to rend over the evidence, also tho judgj. ment of the Magistrate. Ho did not desire to.keep the parties in suspense, but he did not think he could decide the B. matter before Monday. Judgment will - therefore bo given on Monday morning, if _____^___