THE LONGHURST CASE.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2694, 25 November 1882, Page 3

THE LONGHURST CASE.

[press association telegram.] WELLINGTON, November 24.

In the Appeal Court to-day, the case of Regina v Adams was argued. This was a case reserved for the opinion of the Court of Appeal by his Honor Mr Justice Richmond. The case was as follows :—" At the sitting of the Circuit, held at Wellington in October last, James Jonathan Adams and Genevieve Elizabeth Adams, his daughter, were tried before me on an indictment, the first count whereof charged them and divers other persons, to the jurors unknown, with conspiring together falsely to charge and accuse one Geo. Longhurst, on a day named, with having carnally abused the said Genevieve Elizabeth Adams, she being a girl under the age of ten years. The indictment set forth a number of overt acts done in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy, which were shortly as follows, viz.:—(1) That Adams and the child had falsely accused Longhurst before her mother ; (2) And before divers persons unnamed ; (3) That the child had made the false charge on oath before the magistrate who committed Longhurst for trial; (4) And before the Grand Jury on the exhibition of the bill of indictment against Longhurst; (5) And again at the trial of Longhurst upon the said bill of indictment. At the time of Longhurst's trial the child was under the age of eight years. She was called to give evidence on oath at the trial. On the trial of Adams and his daughter it was objected—(l) That the child must be deemed to be, in law, incapable of entering into a conspiracy; and (2) that especially she must be deemed, in law, incapable of conspiring with her father, being in natural subjection to him. I, however, left it to the jury to say whether the child was, in point of fact, of capacity to conspire as alleged. There was no evidence as to <he capacity of the child except the evidence as to her age. There was no evidence of actual coercion by the father. There was no evidence that any third person, known or unknown, was engaged in the alleged conspiracy. The jury found both defendants guilty of conspiracy together for the purpose alleged in the first count of the indictment. I passed a nominal sentence on the child and postponed judgment on the father. The question for the opinion of the Court of Appeal is whether I ought to have directed an acquittal of both defendants, on the ground that the child was in law incapable of conspiracy as charged in the first count of the indictment." Mr E. Shaw and Mr Gully appeared for the Crown, Mr Horwood for the prisoner. % Mr Shaw asked that the case might be amended by adding the evidence given by

Genevieve Adams before the committing magistrate in the tral of George Longlnirst, and the evidence of Annie Morrison in the trial of Adams. The amendment was made accordingly. The Court took time to consider its judgment in the case, and if the decision is in favor of the Crown; the judges will sit on M[onday, at 11 a.m., in their Supreme Court jurisdiction, to hear the motion for a new trial in the same case, but if not, the new trial will be unnecessary, and the business of the Court of Appeal will be proceeded with at 10.30 a.m„ when the ease of in re Cooper will be heard.