A PRISONER’S APPEAL.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 July 1923, Page 3

A PRISONER’S APPEAL.

( OXVICTKI) To STAND. V. KI.I.IXDTOX. July •!. Several | kii tii > iiT interest eonreruitiv till' admissiliilii y <■! certain evidence were raised in tlir ('■ >t!fl nl' Appeal yt'Sli'nli'v. with ii'lcrciii'i' to all appeal of M 11 ti -1 mi -at i>in■-i ■it l mu !<-f Si'll!'.'tin' tur indecent as-aull. Alter Tt'itfiivj. imm-i'l Ini' thn ;■)>}> Hunt. tin' com I ili .lll is-i'il I In' Hint inn. Ti n ( hi.'l .1 il - ! ice ('.'if Hiplii I I Ntnlit) IHi Mill'll, tin' ni hi > f meinhci -i nl 1 1m court lifiniv .Mr .li'.-iii i Sim I Mr .1 ii.stire Siriiinvr. Mr O. .Moe/moa rb appeared ini .Inhti i ii'ttt William • laturs Tlmmas .1 oil it-otl, till' a ppcllaiit. j aial Mr W.( ~M :i,";t i m.o. . K.( . Soli- I l imi-t.isii'ral. t. nil Mr I'. S. K. Maeassi'v. nil ln'iiall • 1 I lie ('town. Thi. appellant "as indicted Ini' at--11-inlvtc.|nlvtc.| ra |ii' a mill't other charges, !mi was I,mini uudty l>y a jury "I htiii assault only, ami lali'f mis xeni (-ni ol in t\\n Avars' imprisonment. The iili'i'iK'i' aas riiinmi ll t'd at I’ctouo, win-r.■ ill'- pi'isnner li.'nl <-:i 1 !<•< 1 at a house while IniAvkitin I; ui t. (: 1 !()('N I>S I'Olt AI’PKAT.. 'lll,, jnlln\v iii v grounds |or leave to appeal uni' mil lim-il by Air Alazene;arli. who reviewed the ease at some lei"• 1 h : |) Tliai al I hi' trial evidence was adduced mi i lie part nl' I lie Crown oT llm veimral good eliaraeter nl tlie prosecutrix and her mother 'two material nil lies',is tnr the Crown'), when no evidciifc laid been given of the general lad charaeler of the said two witl’esses. >i That tlu' learned .indue, in summing nn. referred to and emphasised this evitleme ol good eliaraeter. (.",1 .... Thai he commented adverselv to the prisoner upon the fail111'|-. of the prisoner to give evidence oil his own hehalf. i I) Tl’iit on the I rial of the said illdirt nielli, and niter the jury had heen ihdiheral imr for approximaf elv four hours, and had returned to ask if evidence as to an alleged conversation between Urn police and other persons ■ mild not lie given. ami had heen informed hv the learned indue that such , t-jilenee was iniulmi-silile, lhe Crown Proseeiitor staled the substance of the alleged eenversalione aireadv rejected as part of the evidence against the prisoner in such a way that the jury might hoar ami know the same, and that the jury did hear the same, and were ihere’iy iullueiiced to bring a verdict against th" prisoner. -('I >N V ICTIOX A! CST STAND." VTimn ihe matter was argued before Air .justice Chapman, he set out his reason in a li-nirtliy judgment, in ihe course oi wliielt he deehued to state a ease, and the application was refused. Counsel eiiiiuiteuted on the fact that the jury had taken four hours in considering the ntatler. which sltowed that there was cottsiderahle difficulty in arriving, at a decision. The Chief dustiee: Some of the jury-, teen had some difficulty, no doubt. ills | Intiiiitr intimated that the court would deliver its decision in the a florin on. When the court resumed later, the ( hief .iit-tice delivered an oral i: dement on heltall' of the court, 'tat •)' that tltev were ol opinion that the conviction must stand. The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with rests assessed at Clu Ins. The .Solicitor-General was not called upon to reply.