THE GRAYNDLER CASE
CHARGES OF HAVING ILL-TREATED
CHILDREN
ACCUSED SAYS HE FORGETS
PLEADS NERVOUS BREAKDOWN
At tho Magistrate's Court yesterday Clmrltft Grnyndler, • secretary of the Shearers' Union, appeared to answer charges of having illtrcated his three young children so as to cause them unnecessary suffering. Mr. E. Page, S.M., was on the bench. Sub-Inspector Emerson prosecuted, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary represented the defendant. Marks of Violence. Dr. Hislop said that on February 7 last he examined the boy John Grayndler, aged 11. and found him to be suffering from two large bruises on the left side of the back. Both were swollen and tonder. On vhe right side there was a superficial wound. There were several streak-like bruises just across the buttocks. . Sub-Inspector Emerson: Could those bruises have been caused by kicks?— "Yes." Witness examined the boy Charles Henry Grayndler, aged 13. on February !), and found him to have bruises on tho face nnd about the back. There was extensive bruising all along the left side, as well as an abraison on _ the lower part. There was also some discoloration in front of tho neck.
Sub-Inspeetor Emerson: Would those, bruises be consistent with the boy having been kicked ?—"Ye*." And would the marks about the neck suggest that-'a strap had been U6ed and the neck pulled ?—"Yes." Witness stated that ho examined the third child, Kathleen (aged 8 rears) at a later date, and found her also to bo extensively bruised. Some of the bruises on tho girl were tender and slightly swollen. The bruise on the head could have been caused by a blow from a man s hand. The other bruises could have been caused by kicks. To Mr. O'Lcarv: Tho bruises were quite recent. In .addition to the bruises and injuries the children were suffering from shock. They were well nourished. Tho Mniistrate: Wero the bruises 6e'vere?—Witness: "Some of them were severe and others were Slight,
First Child's Evidence. The boy John Grayndler remembered Saturday, February 7, when his fother and mother had a quarrel, as a result of which his mother left the house. After witness's mother left, defendant asked what witness said when he went to confession. Witness replied: "I only told lies eight times." That was all. On tho following day defendant askod witness if his mother was in. Witness replied in the negative. Defendant then "booted witness ilnd went away, got a butchers knife and sharpened it. Defendant then returned.and asked again what time the mother had been there, and witness said "From nine to ten." This, however, was not true. Defendant' said:. 'Yes, I thought so." Later defendant ordered tho children into their rooms, and then slapped them across their faces. Defendant kicked the boy Charlie once or twice as he went to get witness a drink. Tho father also asked Charlie if a man had been there. Charlie said that a man came and asked his mother for some money. The man followed his mother into the room. As a matter of fact no man came into the room. Defendant also hit witness's sister Kathleen across the face with n large spoon. When defendant came home he showed signs of having 'had liquor. Witness had bruises on his Tight side caused by his father kicking him. To Mr. O'Lcary: In a general way defendant had always been kind to him. Witness was surprised,at the treatment he had received. • To the Magistrate: Witness's father hit him because he said that his mother had not been home, in addition to kicking witness about three times he struck witness with a strap about mne times. Witness cried. He beat Kathleen for talking to an old woman, and Charlie was beaten because defendant thought that Charlie was not telling the truth.
Difficulty With Witness. The boy Charles Edward, aged 13 years, could not recall having been kicked or beaten on the. Friday evening. On the Saturday, when defendant came home, he gave witness a strapping. At 10 o clock on tho following morning defendant hit witness on the eye because, he said, witness had not told the truth about his 'mothor being home. The Sub-Inspector: You remember what took place regarding the strap?—"l dont want to tell any more" Tho Sub-Inspector: You must tell the truth and all you know. You've already told the police what happened, and now I want you to toll His Worship.
In answer to the sub-inspector's questions, witness said that ho wrote a Maori name on a piece of paper and showed it to defendant, who then hit witness with the strap. : The Sub-Inspector: What else did he do with the strap?—" That was all he did with it." What was that?-"He put it away. The Magistrate: I think, Sub-Inspector, that you aro entitled to put the.statement to the boy. I can understand his position, but we must have tho facts. Sub-Inspector Emerson: Did you say this: "He placed the strap round my neck, pulled me-' up by it to his shoulder, walked u, few steps, and then dropped me, He then struck me across the nose with' his open hand. . . ." ? Did you .make that statement to Sergeant M'Lean?—"l don't remember." To Mr. O'Leary: Witness had not seen his father in such a state before. To the Magistrate: Defendant beat witness only about once in a blue moon. ■ The little girl Kathleen then gave evidence, and in answer to the Sub-Inspec-tor's questions gave a decided "No," followed by a shako of the head. She first of all denied making a statement to the polico and signing her name to the statement, but when confronted with her signature and the statement she admitted h was hers and that tho statement was correct. When Bhe was in Court before she hnd a black eye which' was the result of a blow delivered by her father. To the Magistrate: Her father had not hit her before. Her mother beat her when there was need for it. Sergeant M'Lean said that on February 8 he arrested defendant on a chargeof assaulting his son John. Defendant said he did not give the children, anything more than they deserved. He further said that his wife had made a start and he would see it through. -Two of the children were taken to the Mount Cook police station and there examined in the presence of a cousin of defendant. Witness described the bruises which tho children had.
The Defence. Counsel for defendant said that , tho usual linn of defence in such cases was that the defendant was exercising parenlnl control and chastising th« children. In thin case, however, titch was not tho position. During; the past four years defendant had held the position of secretary to the Shearers' Union and had been'busily engaged in visiting districts and addressing meetings throughout the . Dominion. Ho was overworked and had refused to lake a holiday. Gradually his nervous system became ■undermined nnd apparently when lit heal the children his mental condition was such that lie was not responsible for his actions. He had no recollection of what had happened. Medical evidence would bo called to prom Grnvndlcr's condition and the evidence of those clo«Wy associated with him in his work would show tho finuiT that defendant was not normal at tho time ho committed the acts. Tho heatiii" of the children was admitted, but Clrayndler was no' mentally responsible for the act. Evidence as to Nervous Breakdown. Dr. Fnulke said that he first suf de-, fendnnt at the Terrace Gaol on I'YHni.iry , fi Defendant appeared to be sulienng from the after-effects of influenza. Ha was mentally confused and in some respects appeared to have lost his memory. Witness directed his removal to a prv vate hospital, where ho remained till February 23 under witness's observation. His nervous condition was in many respects abnormal. Defendant did not re-
collect what happened on the Friday, but did not attempt to deny the allegations. In witness's opinion defendant was far from being himself on the Friday. Defendant could not be held mentally responsible for what had happened, lie had delusions about his wife and a Maori.- Defendant required a complete rest.
Sub-Inspector Emenon: Do you think h» could have committed all these acts without remembering nnything about it? —Witness: As far as I can ascertain, the defendant was riuite truthful, and could not give any clear account o[ what happened. In my opinion the defendant did not realise that he was beating the children—he was not aware that he was doing the children an injury. James George Bruce, secretary of the AV'atemde Workers' Union', had known defendant for tho past Ifi or 17 years. During tho week prior to the assault defendant appeared to be .suffering from influenza and' was "cranky" and irritable. His demeanour was abnormal.
Percv Tucker Hobinson, secretary of the M'anawatu Flaxmillers' Union, who knew defendant, said that he ' was present when defendant mldres-ed a meeting near Shannon. After the' meeting defendant put his hand to his head and said, "My God, my head is nearly bursting." During a discussion in the office defendant's conduct was peculiar. Michael Gordon Tcmploton, shearer,, who had known defendant for the last IS years/stated that'ho had also noticed a difference in defendant's conduct lately. Witness suggested to the president of the union that Grayndler should bo relieved from his duties for • Hi-Vs months. Defendant then gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement. He had no recollection of having beaten the children, but he believed their statements. Ho had searched his mind andJiad failed to recollect what had happened. He had reared eight children and was fond of them nil, To Sub-Inspector Emerson: He had not had any serious home trouble prior to the beating of tho children. His condition had been brought about by overwork during the oast five years. He refused to accept a holiday till ho had completcd his work. , To the Magistrate: Since leaving the hospital he had been staying at the Whitehall boarding-house. His wife had always been n good one and a good mother to the children. Decision was reserved till Friday morning.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200226.2.68
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 130, 26 February 1920, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,686THE GRAYNDLER CASE Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 130, 26 February 1920, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.