“DISTRESSING CASE”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20093, 13 November 1939, Page 2

“DISTRESSING CASE”

COAST MAORI’S CRIME. 18 MONTHS’ GAOL FOLLOWED BY PROBATION Referring to the ease as a distressing one, Mr. Justice Blair, in the Supreme Court to-day sentenced James Manuel, aged 29, a farm hand, to 18 months' imprisonment, to be followed by four years probation, after he had been found guilty of carnal knowledge of a girl of 15 years in March last. One of the r onditions of probation was that the prisoner should not live within 20 miles of the girl or her younger sister.

Making a plea on the prisoner's behalf, Mr. A. A. Whitehead said that the jury acquitted the prisoner on three charges and found him guilty on one. Concerning an alleged offence on February 19 which was associated with the birth of the child, the jury had found the prisoner not guilty. If the prisoner was not guilty on that occasion some other person must have been. His Honour’s Comment

His Honour said that the jury could not have found him guilty on that charge because there was no direct evidence, and it could not be adduced from that that someone else was guilty. Mr. Whitehead, continuing, said that the man was in charge of a unit under the native development scheme. The registrar had sent a letter from the supervisor saying that during the 21 years he had been engaged the prisoner had shown himself to be a very satisfactory worker, showing perseverance and fortitude.

, The Crown prosecutor, Mr. F. W. Nolan, in answer to His Honour, said that the prisoner had previously had a clear record.

Very Grave Feature

Ilis Honour said that the prisoner was living with/ the mother of the children and was more or less their step-father. An ordinary person should have been just as jealous of the sanctity of the children as if he had been their father. The case was very distressing and when a grown man was taking advantage of a girl like that it was a very grave feature. However, he took into consideration that he was an industrious man. He thought it his duty to arrange that he would have no further opportunity, not only with that particular girl but also her younger sister. The prisoner was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by four years’ probation, one of the conditions of probation being that the prisoner was not to live within 20 miles of the girl or her younger sister.