ALLEGED INDECENT EXPOSURE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3715, 10 November 1927, Page 2

ALLEGED INDECENT EXPOSURE.

SKATING RINK PROPRIETOR BEFORE COURT.

Two charges of having committed indecent acts in the Town Hall at Foxton on July 26, and August 9 respectively, were preferred against a young man, Charles Adams, in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North on Tuesday. Accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. His Honour, Mr. Justice Ostler, was on the bench. Mr. F. H. Cooke prosecuted, and accused was represented by Mr. H. R. Cooper, and Mr. .Vi. B. Bergin. The Court was cleared during the hearing of evidence. The accused, said Crown Prosecutor, was a touring skating-rink proprietor and on each occasion the offence was committed in the presence of young girls. The jury empanelled were Messrs R. A. Fuller (foreman), E. H. Jacobs, H. Graham, A. J. Lund, J. Smith, A. M. Brown, J. Mitchell, H. Jackson, A. Mason, C. A. Peters, Robert Jamieson and G.i Morrison.

Several school girls told the Court that on August 9, while going to purchase sweets at a lollie shop in the vestibule of the Town Hall they picked up a key which they thought might belong to the ,skate-boxes at the theatre. They consequently went to investigate and saw accused conducting himself on the stage in an improper manner. That was not the first occasion on which they 'had observed Adams acting in such a manner. Mr. Cooper objected to evidence; being given of what had happened previously as it was not relevant. His Honour: The jury have to judge whether accused’s action was intentional. Surely such evidence is quite in order and necessary. Mr. Cooper asked that the objection be noted. Some of the witnesses further testified that accused had exposed himself at a window of the house at which he was staying. Constable Bell told the Court that when he interviewed Adams at the Town Hall in connection with the matter, accused denied the allegations. He admitted having obeyed a call from nature and while returning adjusting his clothing, realised that there were some girls in the shall. Hei immediately drew back out, of sight. He didn’t expect to see anyone in the hall except a male employee and the gilds had no right to be there. In answer to further questions by Mr. Cooke, witness said that to reach the stage where the girls saw him, accused would have to pas's from the lavatory through three or four small dressing rooms.

Accused, from the witness box, corroborated the statement he gave the Police, again denying the offences alleged. Mr. Cooke: How, then, do yoo account for the story of the little girls who say they s'aw you at the window of your bedroom?

Accused: I can’t account for it. i Mr. Cooke: How, then, do you ferent occasions, you remember. The girls passed the house separately and were not together. Accused: I can’t understand it. Horace John Reid, caretaker of the Foxton Town Hall, submitted that the visibility inside the hall was so poor that no one standing near the entrance could discern details of anything on the stage. Win. Trueman, town clerk, Foxton, also gave evidence as to the lighting of the hall. •Wm. Joseph Kenzie, an employee of accused, who was in the hall when the girls entered, said he saw nothing of what was alleged to have taken place. He was not looking to the stage, being busy preparing for that evening’s carnival. The visibility was not good. Ethel Adams, wife of accused, said she had implicit faith in her husband’s conduct at all times and never had'.she heard any complaints. She was always with him helping to run the skating business. After addresses by both counsels His Honour remarked that it may have occurred to the jury that it would be incredible for a married man to be guilty of such foolish conduct as exposing himself. Those who had studied criminology, however, knew that there was a type of sexual pervert who got some form of mental gratification out of such

acts. Cases of the sort were continually cropping up in the Court. It might be suggested as a form of insanity, but whether that was so or not it was conduct not to be tolerated and was declared a criminal offence. If a man exposed himself deliberately then intent must be presumed. In the present ease the jury had to be satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt and it was especially necessary to see that no man was found guilty of an action that was merely negligence or an accident. Accused had admitted that he was standing at the stage door in an improper condition, and it was light enough inside the hall for Kenzie (the employee) to carry on his work. It was also‘light enough for accused to see at the other end of the hall, a girl who, it had to be remembered was in the deep shadow of the dress circle. The only question was whether the exposure was accidental or deliberate. If the former, then accused was not guilty, if the latter, then it was their duty to convict. In addition to the direct evidence, the Crown had brought forward the other instances at the dwelling where Adams stayed. His Honour reminded the jury that children as ' a rule were acute observers.

The juryj retired for an hour and a quarter, returning with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.