VICTIM OF VILE FAMILY PLOT?

NZ Truth, Issue 1198, 15 November 1928, Page 9

VICTIM OF VILE FAMILY PLOT?

Shameful Silence

Did A Farmer's Wife Threaten To Proceed On Shocking Charges If Her Husband Failed To Give Her His Farm Property?

. Jury Finds Verdict In Favor Of Accused, Describing Evidence As "A Concocted Tale" Though Not f Hearing The Defence

AMAZING DISCLOSURES IN SENSATIONAL TRIAL

Happiness shunned the home of the Johnsons. Forbears the atmosphere of the farm house at . Netherton, near Paeroa, had been charged .with tension and bitter rancour. Husband and wife bickered and fought, and as each of their eleven children grew up to years of understanding they were drawn into the votfex of domestic misery. And then ame the climax which brought the shattered foundations of family life crumbling m ruins about their cars. Mary Florence, their seventeen-year-old daughter, became a mother and she pointed the accusing finger at her own father, John Horace James Johnson, denouncing him as the man responsible for her plight

MORS revolting still was the prosecution of her own brother, Claude,

on a grave charge and his plea of guilty — not to the offence of being the father of his sister's child, but to that on which his father was tried on four separate charges. The brother is now under sentence of three years' Borstal treatment.

But what of the father who stood his trial on two occasions? The jury disagreed m August last, but at the Auckland Supreme Court last week he was acquitted, the jury not bothering to hear the defence following the judge's direction.

Then there was the amazing suggestion that the charges were a family plot. In any case the jury described the Crown story as given by family witnesses, "a concocted tale." Not for many years has a criminal case yielded such sensational evidence

Sinister Aspect

aa was heard from, the witness box of the Supreme Court last week. The story of the Crown was almost incredible, but it was supported by four sons of Johnson, and the girl herself, each of them damning their father's name m a series of vile allegations as amazing as they were Jiorrible. The most sinister aspect of the trial was the suggestion throughout that Johnson's wife was the dread figure behind the scenes, and it was significant that Judge Smith took 'it upon himself to warn the jury, before the defence was called upon, that it would be most dangerous to convict on the evidence that had been tendered by the Crown.

"We find the accused not guilty, your honor," stated the foreman of the jury which never left the box, "and we wish to say that we consider the evidence a concocte.d, tale."

Johnson was discharged without being called upon to answer the dreadful allegations of his own children. Lawyer Hubble, who prosecuted for the Crown, made it clear at the outset that the case was a weak one, and intimated that much of the evidence he would have to call would be m certain respects unsatisfactoryIt fell to the lot of Lawyer J. J. Sullivan, who appeared for Johnson, to rip the Crown case to shreds, which he did very effectively during a gruelling cross-examination of the witnesses.

The judge said he did not propose to prohibit the publication of the evidence but would leave it to the discretion of the press.

The story of the tragedy m the Johnson home is one of great domestic bitterness, between husband and wife.

For years they had quarrelled and fought and the conditions m the home were as bad as could be conceived.

There are eleven children living and one of the regrettable features of the case wap the participation of the young children m the unhappy state of affairs that existed m the home.

Mary, the girl. Who figured so prominently m the whole sorry business, is a fine stamp of girl physically, but mentally her condition was described by the Crown Prosecutor as being "not absolutely normal."

This was fairly evident during her long ordeal m the witness-box. She displayed great hesitancy when

answering questions, and she seemed incapable of grasping the purport of them until they were put m -the simplest of language.

It was m 1926 that her father was alleged to have committed his

first offence against her.

The misconduct, said the girl, had taken place m her own bed, m which the baby was also sleeping, and also m the kitchen.

She had not told her mother, said Mary, because she was afraid of getting a hiding from her father. When Lawyer Hubble came to the crucial point and endeavored to ascertain what her father's behavior had been towards her the girl hung her head and there were long periods of silence before she answered.

Slowly and gently counsel persisted with his questions and then, at last, when asked who was the father of her baby she looked up sharply, glanced quickly at the figure m- the dock and then her words cut through the silence of the court. :

"My father is l-esponsible," she said,

But it was not until Lawyer Sullivan rose to cross-examine the girl that the real drama unfolded.

. Mary admitted to counsel that her parents had fought and quarrelled considerably.

In October of last year they had had a stand-up fight and her mother left the house, but returned again later.

Some time aftei'wards, said the, girl, the police called, and asked her about her father's conduct towards her.

She admitted that she had made no complaint about him on the three occasions the police called to see her, and that it was not until their fourth visit that she did complain.

Lawyer Sullivan then carried his cross-exa ! mination to the events on the morning of her father's arrest.

She admitted that there had been a bitter quarrel and a fight between her father and mother and her brother Claude.

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.)

Prompted gently by .counsel the. girl told a hair-raising 'story m the answers she gave to the questions asked of her. On the morning he was arrested,

remember your- brother Claude saying that he would go down and see the old man and tell him the whole thing was a ruse to" get him off the farm. That was after the lower court proceedings at Paeroa. Now don't you remember your brother saying that?

her father, she said, asked two of

the boys to go .down to the cowshed, but something happened and they did not go.

Mary had no recollection of her brother saying anything of the sort.

When her father . returned to the house for /breakfast Claude was there.

Counsel: That was about the same time that your brother Lester said he would tell your mother about Claude.

Lawyer Sullivan: Yes, and did he not give Claude ten minutes to get off the place? — Yes.

And then a big row started? — Yes,

Mary was rather confused, but she did not remember her brother saying it.

Further questioned , Mary admitted that her father and Claude had a big row, which developed into a fight.

The judge then had a few questions to ask the girl.

Counsel: And, Claude picked up a poker, did he not? — Yes.

"How old were you when your father first misbehaved' towards you?" asked his honor.

And your mother picked up . something, too?

The girl agreed that her .mother had picked up a shovel and that both her mother and Claude attacked her father who was struck on the face by the poker.

"When I was twelve" was the reply. The Judge: Twelve, are you sure?— Yes.

And how often did it happen after the first occasion, every year? — No answer.

Lawyer Sullivan: And your mother threatened that if he did not get off the place she would put him up on this serious charge? — Yes.

Has anybody else asked you when it first happened? — Again no answer.

The Judge: Very well

When counsel put it to the girl she admitted that her mother had said to her father: "Before j r ou go you make over the farm to me and clear out to Australia or America otherwise I'll put you up."

After she- had contradicted and denied former statements of hers m the previous proceedings, Mary stepped down from the witness-box and there was a slight wait while Claude Johnson, now serving a sentence for an offence against his sister, was brought up from the prisoners' 1 room to give his evidence.

Counsel: And what did your father say? Did he not say: "Go to and that he had no reason to leave the country for anybody?"

He told the court, when asked about the family motor-car, that he remembered it being bought m 1926. He and his father went to a football match m It and when they returned home it was dark. He went to bed straight away. His mother was out at a neighbor's house.

Mary had to think quite a lot before she could answer the question, but she agreed that what counsel said was correct.

She also admitted that after the row her mother rang up the police and they came up and arrested her father.

Lawyer Sullivan: Now, after your father had been taken away, don't you

"My sister, Mary, was at home m bed," said Johnson. "I heard some-

thing that night. It was my father going into Mary's room and I heard him 'say something to her.

"My mother came home and saw my father come out of the girl's room. She asked him what he was doing m the room at that time of night, and he said he had been looking for something with which to clean his pipe."

Questioned about his offence against his sister, Johnson, junr., said there was only the one occasion, and that was on May 11.

Lawyer Hubble then questioned him about an alleged incident m which his father was supposed t* be involved with his daughter m the kitchen.

Johnson said he came into the kitchen and saw them together.

Lawyer Hubble? — What did you do? — I went out again.

I Started A Fight

"Why did' you do that without saying anything? — I was so shocked to think my father would do such a 'thing.

When cross-examined by Lawyer Sullivan the young man made some surprising admissions.

He admitted that his mother and father had fought and squabbled for years.

Counsel: Now I put it to -you that m all their quarrels your sister Mary was never the cause of them, and that all the trouble was over the car. — Some of the trouble.

But your sister was never brought into the quarrels? — No.

Now, between February and your father's arrest m May you were not working on the farm, were you? — -Not all the time.

And yet you and your mother advertised for share-milkers without your father's knowledge or consent? — Yes.

Now you remember the morning your father was arrested ?— Yes.

He was milking that morning, and he asked your brothers, Lester and Ernie, to *do something, and they did not do it? — He. might have.

Did you not tell the boys not to do it?-^No, I did not. .

When your father came m to breakfast you had words with him. Your father thought you were loafing on 'the farm, and, m fact, gave you ten minutes to, get off the place? — Yes.

You had words together? — He called me a certain name and I called hint the same.

And you started a fight?

Johnson told counsel all about the fight. He was struggling with his father and he admitted having struck him between the eyes with the poker and drawing blood.

He also agreed with counsel that his mother had joined m the fight and hit her husband over the head with the shovel.

His mother, he said, did not join m until his father tried to choke him.

And had not his brother John a stick m his hand? counsel also wanted to know; but Johnson could not say.

He did not hear his mother tell his father after the row that he had better make the farm over to her and that she would "put- him up."

Counsel also secured admissions from him that were contradictory to former statements.

Two younger brothers, neither of them yet m their teens, also supplied revolting details to the court as to

Confessed Perjury

what 'they allegedly saw going on between their father and sister.

A statement made to the police by Johnson at the time of his arrest was handed m. The statement was an emphatic denial of the charges.

A constable who had known

Johnson m the district for many

years told the court m reply to

questions that as far as he

had

known the man, Johnson had al-

ways seemed to be respectable and decent.

As soon as the Crown case closed, Lawyer Sullivan suggested to the judge that there was no case whatever to go to the jury.

Lawyer Hubble agreed that the case was weak. ■ > '

His honor said he would leave it to the jury.

"In the first place, gentlemen," the judge remarked, "this is a most serious charge. It is also a story, so far as it has been presented to you, of domestic unhappiness. The evidence of the principal' witnesses is the evidence of confessed perjurers — the girl herself and the young man Claude.

"I can direct you straight out that it would be quite unsafe to convict this man on the evidence. The evidence of the young children was given m such a way to suggest that it was worked up. I warn you -it would be unsafe to convict m the circumstances.

"There has been the suggestion that the case has been brought as a result of this domestic trouble and the threats of this woman.

"In those circumstances, seeing that the woman who is said to have made those threats had charge of the children, it is my duty to warn you that it would be unsafe to convict no matter what the truth of the matter may be."

Without leaving the box, the brought m a verdict of not guilty.

"And we wish' to say," said the foreman, "that we consider it a concocted tale."

Johnson was immediately discha: