DISTRICT COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3014, 22 February 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21.

(Before Judge Kenny.) After our reporter left yesterday the following case was beard : —

INDECENT ASSAULT. David Power was indicted for indelutly assaulting Sarah Ann Virgo on muary the Ist, at Te Aute. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Cotterill prosecuted, and Mr Lee j fended. Mr Siaden was chosen foreman of the

Sarah Ann Virgo deposed that on the day in question she was living at Te A.ute with her step-father. Mr T. Tucker, Jbout a mile and a half from the • townehip. The nearest house was about half a mile away. On January the Ist her step-father left the house just as it was [getting duck. She was in the house with her step-sister, Emily Tucker. The Prisoner came to the house after her step■tber had left and knocked. Witness's step-sister opened the door. The prisoner etood inside the doorway, and told him to go out as she did not want him there. After a pause he said he [would take a seat whether he was wanted or not. He then came in and took a seat. He wanted witness to sing. but she would not. He then wanted 'her to go and hear him play the piano at the hotel, but she refused. She then went with her stepsister to the station, asking the prisoner to come out of the house, which he did,

witness locking the door. She went up in the direction of Mr Cable's house, but -■' met bim on the road. The prisoner used

bad language to her on the road up. they met Cable they turned back Bund went home, the prisoner going in the Kjirection of the hotel. On returning home she went to bed. Her step-sister W went to bed with her. Between nine and \ ten o'clock the prisoner returned and broke the door open. !she Baw him come t in. He came straight up to witness's ■ bed. Witness jumped out to wake her up. Her brother was 11 years old. While she went to wake him, the prisoner put out the candle. He then assaulted her. 3he bad a struggle with him, and pushed him down to the fireplace. He wanted her to say good-bye, and shake hands with him, but she would not. The Prisoner then went away. Her father came home about 10 o'clock, and she then made a comploint to him. By Mr Lee : Witness did not say at that she sat on the bed after r return. She might have done bo while :io was sewing. After starting for Cable's iii:> did not make any appointment to ■■;*«:t the prisoner later on in the evening. . j had never been intimate with the prisoner. Witness was 14 years old last December. Her stepfather kept her. She did not leave Te Aute because they kept a disorderly house. Her mother left home, but she never heard that she went away with any man. She could not sing, nor had she ever gone to the hotel to try

to sing. Emily Tucker, a child eight years of "*tfge, ga ve evidence, and contradicted much tbat the former witness had said. Thomas Tucker, step-father to the first witness, deposed to the girl having complained to him. Constable Strudwick deposed tbat from information received on January the 3rd he went in search of the prisoner, and found him at Waipawa. He then seemed excited, and said to witness, " 1 want to see you." Witness then said, "Yes, and I want to see you." He took the prisoner to Tucker, who identified him as being the man his daughters had pointed out, Wb,9B ebwgea tbe.prieoaer

made a remark reflecting on the girl's character.

By Mr Lee: Witness had beard reflections passed on the girl's character in the district,

This closed the case for the CrovvD

Patrick Maroney, hotelkeeper at Paki Paki, deposed that the Tucker family bore a bad reputation. He had frequently heard remarks to that effect passed during the last two years. His Honor said a great responsibility rested upon the jury in this case, for if the prisoner was found guilty of offence he was liable to a long term of imprisonment and a flogging besides. All they had to do was to say whether the alleged crime had been proved to their satisfaction. The evidence of the girl Tucker was diametically opposed to that of her step-sister and her own evidence at Waipawa. She also said that the night on which the offence was supposed to have been committed was moonlight, whereas the almanac showed that it was not so. There were other grave discrepancies in the evidence. They would have to look at the probabilities of the case. It seemed unlikely that an utter stranger would enter the house and behave as he did without some encouragement.

After retiring for five minutes the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

The jury were then thanked for their services, and the Court rose.