THE LONGHURST SENTENCE AND PETITION.

Kumara Times, Issue 2039, 12 March 1883, Page 2

THE LONGHURST SENTENCE AND PETITION.

The following petition in reference to the sentence of George Longhurst for alleged rape has been forwarded to W. Barnett, Esq., Mayor of Kumara, for signature by persons, male or female, over eighteen years of age : To His Excellency Sir William Francis Drummond Jervois, &c. May it please your Excellency— We, the undersigned, being residents of different places throughout this colony, humbly petition that your Excellency will grant earnest attention to the following facts: In the month of February, 1880, a charge of rape was brought against a young man named George Longhurst by a girl named Genevieve Adams, then aged years. Before the Magistrates she swore that on Sunday evening, the 15 day of February, Longhurst had had violent connection with her in an outbuilding distant from the surrounding houses only some 10 or 12 feet; that she screamed out but no oneheard her, although it wa3 proved that at least fifteen people were inside the radius of 15 feet from the spot where she alleged the occurrence took place. On trial Longhurst was convicted, the girl's being the only direct evidence of the crime, and he was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude and two floggings. After the sentence considerable doubt was felt asjo the propriety of the verdict, from the extraordinary nature of the child's story and the want of any corroborative evidence, and this doubt was greatly strengthened when it was found that the child's father repeatedly endeavoured to negotiate with Longhurst's parents for his release, saying that for a sum of £4OO he would prove Longhurst's innocence, and that the charge made by his daughter was false. In addition to this, the little girl admitted to three of her school-fellows that it "was not George Longhurst who had done it," meaning the crime, " but she had been told to say so." Curiously enough it next transpired that the doctor (Dr. Collins) who had first examined the child after the alleged rape had not been called by the Crown, or police, although the police knew of his having examined the girl! and having told the child's father and mother, after a careful inspection, that the child never could have been raped. Evidence was also forthcoming to show that on the evening of the supposed offence, Sunday, the 15th of February, George Longhurst did not retui-n to the premises until two-and-a-half hours after the time fixed by the child's parents. Upon those facts an information was laid, charging the father, Adams, and the child with conspiring to make a false charge agaiust Longhurst. The hearing was before the Resident Magistrate, and the prisoners were then, as well as at a subsequent trial, defended by Mr Ollivier, a leading counsel specially retained by the Crown,, and paid by your Excellency's Government, with a view, as we submit, of sustaining the former verdict, if possible. The accused were committed for trial, which took place at the Supreme Court, Wellington, in September last, before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond. After two days' patient investigation of a great mass of evidence on both sides, the learned Judge very carefully charged the jury, that before they could find the accused guilty they must be thoroughly satisfied upon the evidence that George Longhurst was innocent of the crime that had been imputed to him. The jury retired, and in a short time brought in a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. The younger prisoner was at once sentenced, and the elder piisoner was sent back for sentence. Judge Richmond invited the .opinion of the Court of Appeal as to whether in law the younger prisoner was old enough to conspire with anyone. Upon this point, which as far as the father's moral guilt is concerned is purely technical, the Appellate Court decided that she was too young to be criminally responsible, and as the father could not conspire

■without a legal coconspirator, he must be discharged from custody. Before the institution of the charge for conspiracy, we are informed that MiEdward Shaw, who acted as leading counsel for the prosecution, had several interviews with the Minister of Justice, Mr Dick, who assured him that if the result of the trial for conspiracy was a conviction, or even if such evidence was produced as would raise an honest doubt as to Longhurst's guilt, he, as a prisoner, would be entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and would be discharged. Notwithstanding the conviction and the absolutely unshaken verdict of fact that Longhurst is an innocent man, by reason of the barest technicality and refinement of our law, which allows a child's sworn testimony to cast a man into gaol beneath the lash, yet holds her harmless for her false oatb, Longhurst's aplication for release has been after three months' consideration, refused. We cannot think that your Excellency has been properly apprised of the outstanding injustice that is day by day being wrought, and which would relegate back to gaol for years of physical and mental torture, the convict whose innocence was established. "We ask from your Excellency the clemency of the Crown, and feel confident that your consideration of the plain facts of this unhappy case will instantly open the door for Longhurst's release. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray, &o. T. Dwax, Chairman ; W. M'Keever, Hon. Secretary.