WELLINGTON CONSPIRACY. CASE.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2663, 19 October 1882, Page 3

WELLINGTON CONSPIRACY. CASE.

[PKKSS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.] AUCKLAND, October 18.

At to-day’s sitting of the Supreme Court in Banco, his Honor Mr Justice Biohmond delivered his decision in the matter of the application for a rule nisi in the conspiracy case. Mr Ollivier appeared for the defendant, Mr Adams and Mr S, Shaw, with whom was Mr Gully, attended on the other side. His Honor said—ln this case I have determined to grant a rale nisi for a new trial of James Jonathan Adams, and it is desirable that I should state my reasons, but os briefly as possible. The strength of the case against Ada s lay in his alleged offers to make his child contradict her testimony against Longhurst if he was well paid for doing so. I assume for the present purpose that the jury were right in giving credit to the witnesses who swore to tho making of such offers, but it is not by any means a necessary inference from their statements that tbe child’s original story was falsehood. It is true that in a case of this class the credit to be given to the child depends largely on tho character of the parents. Whatever discredits the father throws doubt on the testimony of the child, who is in subjection to him ; but to support the present conviction it is not enough to throw doubt upon the testimony given by the child on Longhnrst’a trial. It is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that her testimony was false. This has not in my judgment been done. That tho father offered to make tho girl contradict herself, if in truth he did so offer, is no proof that her original story was untrue. The fact, if fact it be, does more than raise a doubt. It is insufficient to create a moral conviction that the charge was a false one, for it is by no means improbable, and I might say quite as likely under all the circumstances of the case, that Adams was bargaining for the retraction of a true charge. Regarded from a technical point of view the verdict is satisfactory. Tho conduct of tho father is not evidence against tho child, bub if tho child has been improperly convicted, so also has the father. As to the evidence of Dr. Oollinr, tho appv rent absence of bruises at the time ho examined the child may be accounted for by the state in which the child then wa?, and it is not inconsistent with the perpetration of such offence as was charged against Longhurst. Tbe alleged suppression of the evidence of Dr. Oollias on the trial of Longhurst is a circumstance of no weight whatever against Adams. The prosecution was in reality instituted and conducted throughout by the police. Tho first information respecting tbe case was given to the police by Dr. Qillon, unprompted by Adams, It was moreover proved that on the day of Longhnrst’a arrest Adams stated in tho presence of Mrs Humphreys that the child had been examined by Drs. Gillon and Coll ne. The fact that Dr. Collins bed made an examination was also known to Henry Longhurst, and was by him mentioned when giving his evidence r.s a witness for the defence of his brother. There is also evidence to show that Mrs Humphreys was aware of tho fact at the time of the trial. The general medical testimony is of a purely negative character. It may show that tho medical witnesses on the trial of Longhurst spoke too positively, but cannot prove that those witnesses were in point or fact mistaken. Dr. Collins does not undertake to esy that the child was not actually suffering from gonorrhoea. All the medical testimony is consistent with tho supposition that the child’s story was substantially true, if not eiiournsrautially accurate. At tho utmost the medical testimony does no more than remove a supposed confirmation of the child’s statsmep.t, leaving that statement unrebutted. The only evidence directly tending to prove that the statement was false was that of the little girl Ann Morrison. According to this witness Genevieve Adame once said in her presence in tho course of conversation with two children named Bradncck, who cannot be found or identified, “It was not George Longhurst, but it was Humphreys made her soy so.” The witness does not know what the other children wore talking about. The conversation, if it occurred at all, must have taken place in tho early part of the year 1833 after the **rre«t of Longhurst. The witness is not yet quite thirteen years old. The person referred teas 11 Humphreys” was understood by the witness to be George Humphreys, the husband of Mrs Humphreys, the accusation against Adams being that he put a false story in the mouth of bis child. It is obvious that this testimony affords little support to tho charge. On the whole there is sufficient prinia faoie reason for dissatisfaction with the verdict of “ guilty,” on the ground that it is net j ustifiod by the evidence. But the rule will only bt to show cause against a new trial in the ease of the father. As regarded tbe child I ait unwilling to renew what appears tome something very like a solemn mockery of justice I am unwilling that an infant, who at tb< time of this offence, or supposed offence, wai under tho age of eight years should agaii stand at the bar of this Court to answer to i charge of conspiring with her father. Ii her interest there is no real necessity £o] the step. As regards the alleged mis direction or non direction by myself, it i of course certain that I did not direct thi jury, as I ought to have done, that the iufan defendant was incapable of conspiring wild her own father for the purpose alleged in th first count. Such a direction would have pu an end to the case. This may be made i ground of the rule. Tho affidavit of Mr Adams is, I think, inadmissible. The rule i to be made returnable on a day which wil allow of the ease being argued before sem of the Judges who are about to attend th Court of Appeal. Buis nisi granted fur noi trial of the defendant, James J. Adrian Argument fixed to taka plioo on Nc i wfenber 13ch. vMr OlUvior (who wai present on bohtlf c Adams) —Is it possible to fix a day, you Honor.

Hia Honor —Have you any suggestion, to make as to the day, Mr OUlvier ? Mr Oiliviar —I apprehend it will be a day immediately preceding the Court of Appeal. Hi. Honor —That ia quite true. Mr Ollivier—lf tho first day wore fixed, with the understanding tnat this should bo taken before tho Court of Appeal work, tho Court might be formally opened and then adjourned. Hi* Honor —There might perhaps bo no

harm in that. It is quite true there ia a great deal of “fighting olf” juet at the very bo ginning. There i. a very full attendance of the Bar, but nobody ready. Let it be, then, on Monday, the 13th November,