WAS BAGBY TO ESCORT PEARL HOME?

NZ Truth, Issue 1189, 13 September 1928, Page 9

WAS BAGBY TO ESCORT PEARL HOME?

THE Crown Prosecutor: On April 14, were you married orsingle? — Single. Deserted your wife, didn't you? — Er, j no. . -n. Left her with two young children without maintenance? — Yes, but I had sent her money whilst I was away. ' Immediately after the proceedings m the lower court, your wife discovered your whereabouts and issued a summons?— Yes. So you asked this girl twice, if not more, if you might take her home?— Yes. ■ •■ . ' ' ■'■ You say you danced with her m the "Excuse Me," which was the secondlast dance that night?— Yes. Did you ask her whether you might take her out to the back, where Bagby had been?— No. Did you pay for any part of the car you hired or for the liquor? — Yes, with the others. The witness then commenced a bout of shuffling, from one foot to the other, from one question to the next, when it came to remembering who left the car to get the liquor, where they procured it and so forth, until his honor, exasperated by the extraordinary atmosphere of mystery arid equivocation with which Wilton and McCormac enshrouded the liquor adventure, rapped out: "Who was the person who got out of the oar?" "Lazar," was the prompt reply. Lawyer Burrldge: What did you do with the liquor whilst you were ,at the dance?— -Oh, we kept it m the car. Wilton, Lazar and I drank two bottles. : Didn't Bagby have any?— Yes, one. Did you sleep m the same quarters, as Bagby that night?— Yes. Do you know anything about a bet between him and Wilton, about getting Miss Corkill out and . . . ?— No. Oh, by the way! Wasn't Bagby present while you and Wilton and Lazar were drinking? — No. H'm! Haven't you sworn previously that Wilton,- yourself and Bagby were all at the dance-hall together?— Yes. Edward Lazar, a ' dark-skinned stableman, who had much difficulty m securing ah uninterrupted passage of evidence past a seemingly large wad of chewing gum, was the next defence witness to give his testimony. I Never once did his jaws cease oscillating, and when a" question was put to him his answers were encompassed by noticeable manipulations of the mass - between his teeth,- which he hastily transferred to either cheek before he was able to reply. : • He, too, had danced with Miss Corkill m the much-debated "Excuse ■Me" number,, and seemed convinced that there was nothing unusual in.his partner's stat* of mind. Lawyer Wi If ord: Were you present when McCormac asked whether he might see Jier home? — !' was. That was m the Arcade. Do you remember what was her reply? — Yes, she said she was going home with "Wally" • Bagby. Lawyer Burridge: What time did you leave home on this particular Saturday night? — Some time after seven o'clock. You came to town and then went to Carterton, didn't you? — To Taratahi. What for?— Oh; just a ride. Nothing else?— No.

DANCING FROCK RIDDLE

Stable Boys Say Girl Appeared "Bright and Smiling"

(Continued from pagfe 7.)

But you got something else, didn't you?— We got a parcel. Who got it?— l did! (defiantly). Wmit did you get? — Three bottles of beer. . Had you far to walk from the car? — Oh, about a couple of hundred yards. Did you go anywhere near the Carterton poat office?— No, I wasn't. at Carterton. It was at Taratahi (loudly). Who paid for all this?— We put m a tarpaulin muster. His honor: A what? — A tarpaulin muster. "Oh, I see" (smiling). Did you have any drinks?— Oh, the only drink we had was 'at the back of the Ax-cade. "H'm. All right." John Victor Hoffeins, a carpenter, said he was not a personal friend of Bagby's. ■ He had ,seen Miss Corkill ascend, the steps with Bagby, but he had not observed any agitation m her manner as though she had been through a terrible experience. , ■ He considered that at the time he 1 saw them it would _ be about a quarter ~~ past eleven. His honor (quickly) : How do you fix that?— Oh, I'm just __ making a guess. • That concluded the hearing of evidence. Lawyer Wilf ord rose to his feet and delivered a telling' peroration to the jury: He said it was the most extraordinary case he had ever known m the course of his 35 years' experience as a criminal lawyer; extraordinary because the story told by the girl was a physical impossibility. ... It was the first occasion when he had been called upon to defend > a man charged with this particular offence, where, the outrage was alleged to have been committed whilst the girl was standing. It was clear that Bagby had been intimate with her, but that did not imply physical relationships effected by force. The point to be considered, then, was "Did she consent?" One had only to take the condition of the dancing frock worn by the girl on the fateful night, to decide that the prisoner should .be acquitted. . She had told them of her struggles, the fighting and screaming, her attempts to retain her virtue despite, the onslaughts of Bagby, of her fighting with her back to a concrete wall, yet the dress showed not one sign of the tussle.

Every woman, or girl, who alleged that an outrage had been committed against her, said that she had not consented, so as to make the world know that she had not parted irith her virtue. Had the girl Corkill been m a lonely road, miles away from anywhere, her story ' might have been believed, but when people were passing not more than 45 steps away ...->' If she consented, she never screamed, and if she did not consent, then all he could, say was that her dress lied for her. "Gentlemen, of the jury, the girl who values her reputation and virtue, who has" been ravaged, against her will — mauled and - badly treated — who goes back Into the hall and dances — -what a tale! "Can you think of any girl who had been outraged by a dirty blackguard going back to a, dance,, smiling and dancing for half a rp.und? / : "As pals, smiling: and. . bright; that is how she came rback ./ . . but she /thought of an astute way out of it. . „. . Her uncle went down _ ■to see if he would, marry \ her, because a wife may -not give evidence against her husband. __ "You. know of the "~ attempt to become Mrs. Wally Bagby afterwards— /it is fishy, gentlemen. , . ' ' ' "Her eyidence is utterly valueless and entirely uncorroborated, and where she could be contradicted she has been contradicted, flatly and emphatically. . . .»»' His honor, m his charge to the juryi said It. must be obvious to them that intimacy Had taken place between Bagby and the girl, or, at any rate, attempted. That was not denied by the defence. It was evident also from what Dr. Cowie had said that a certain amount of violence had been used, so that really the sole question was whether the. girl had consented to the commission of such an act. If there was any doubt m their minds, then Bagby should receive the benefit of it. It .was. their duty, however, to protect the women of this country. Certainly, m point of preponderance of witnesses, the girl's eyidence was outweighed, but the j-ury was at liberty to accept her story m preference to. all the, witnesses brought by the defence, as quality should weigh more with" them; than . quantity. They must -remember that m. such

cases there was generally very little more than that the girl made a prompt complaint and as promptly underwent a medical examination. Lawyer Wilford had said that, there was positively no corroboration, but he was wrong — there, was sufficient corroboration if they believed the girl and her mother, while the promptness with which she brought her complaint and the doctor's evidence were all consistent with her story, all of which had often been held as ample corroboration. . , The defence relied upon (1) that no one heard the outcry; (2) very little damage done to her clothes; (3) that her underclothes were still on; (4) that she was standing against the wall; (5) that after the outrage she went back and danced. In regard to the criticism that her outcry could not be heard she had said that she' was overcome 'by her struggling with Bagby and he had his hand over her mouth, whilst m respect of the condition of her dancing frock she had told them that the back of the dress was rubbed. Whilst it certainly was strange,] continued his honor, that her undergarments were still on, she had explained that by mentioning the presence of elastic. Lastly, the fact of her dancing when she returned to the hall was shown by her to be the result, of McCbrmac's pouncing upon her when she returned for her coat, which held the key to the "door of her house, before she could get away. "You should approach the evidence of the witnesses for the defence with some degree of caution — most of them are friends, some are actual stablemates of the accused .. . and thei-e is always a chance of a man going along to his friends and asking them to help him. • ' "Before you accept their evidence, you should look at it with a somewhat critical mind,; as there are some very grave discrepancies m the evidence of those witnesses. "For instance, Hoffeins- says that at 11.15 p.m. 1 Bagby and the girl came back to the hall. Hubbard says that at twenty minutes to twelve they were just going m. "Then there is the instance of the two men*, Wilton and Scott, who went out and saw Bagby and Miss Corkill on the seat. "Wilton says that 4 when they went back, Bagby and Miss Corkill followed almost immediately, whereas Scott says that they did not come back tilj twenty minutes or half an hour later .. . Four hours, after their retirement the jury advised his honor that they had failed to agree. Mr. Justice Ostler said he was sorry they had been unable to arrive at a decision and ordered a new trial to.be held at October session of the Wellington Supreme Court, pending which Bagby has been allowed his liberty on bail. x

■.