SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19473, 7 May 1925, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, Mat 6. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) AN INDECENT OFFENCE. Alexander Forsyth gouldsbury was charged that (1) ho did, on January 2, 1925, at East Taieri, unlawfully carnally know a girl over the age of 12 years and under 16 years, and (2) with indecently assaulting tho same girl. Mr F. B. Adams appeared for tho Crown, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr- Adams said the first charge was laid under section 216 of the Crimes Act. Counsel then explained the legal position with regard to the age of the girl. Ihe accused, ho said, was perfectly well aware of the age of the complainant, so that it would bo no defence for him to say that he had reason to believe she was over the age of 16 years. The girl was 16 years of ago on January 29, so that it would not bo an offence for him to have had carnal knowledge of her on January 50 or any later date. Complainant was the daughter of a farmer who lived close to the farm of the accused. The accused was a married man, and had a family. It appeared that the girl went to work at his house, and it was during this period that familiarity took nlaco, and this state of affairs continued up to January last. With regard to the ago of tho girl tho accused congratulated her on her sixteenth birthday. Ho also made three gifts to her. At Christmas, 1925, he gave her a gold wrist watch, at Christmas, 1924, the girl received a brooch. Both these gifts came through the post. It was the secrecy of these gifts that was significant. Accused Subsequently told tho complainant that it was he who made tho gifts. Complainant, in evidence, said she had known accused for about thro© years. He had a wife and two children. She gave birth to a child on February 7, 1925. She first had intimacy with the accused early in March, 1924 —two nights after Mrs Gouldsbury went to Dunedin to a nursing home. She first went to work at accused’s place in December, 1923. Her people lived about five minutes’ walk from the accused’s place. She did not know on February 5 that she was going to give birth to a child. To Mr Hanlon: Accused threatened to shoot her and himself it she told her mother of the relations between herself and tho accused. The Father of the complainant said that both families were on firendly terms. He remembered speaking to accused on January 27, 1924, when accused mentioned the complainant’s age and birthday. Accused knew his daughter’s birthday perfectly well. He had seen his daughter and accused together frequently, setting and attending to rabbit traps. After the child was born accused told witness to see the nurse and doctor and got them “to keep their mouths shut.” When complainant was well enough they could get a motor car and got her and the babv removed. Complainant’s mother gave evidence on similar lines. Further evidence was given for the prosecution by two brothers of the complainant and by other witnesses. Mr Adams also led evidence regarding the giftwhich tho accused made to the complainant. Detective Beer said that when he interviewed the accused with reference to tincase, Gouldsbury denied having at any time had intercourse with tho complainant He invited accused to make a statement, but he refused. Mr Hanlon said the Crown pinned its faith to Sunday, January 25, 1925, but he would produce tw,o witnesses to prove that accused was at the farm of a man named Patterson, some Jour miles way, at the time specified by tho girl. Andrew Anton Patterson said he was a farmer residing at Allanton. He knew accused and saw him at his (witness’s) place on January 25, 1925. The accused’s place was separated from witness’s by some foil s' miles. When he arrived home at 10 a.m. on the date mentioned the accused was at his (witness’s) homo. They inspected a hillside plough. On February 23 accused brought witness a cheque for £4 for the plough. Ho was perfectly certain that Gouldsbury was at his place from 10 a.m. till 4.30 p.m. on January 25. To Mr Adams: The first time accused mentioned tho case to him was on March 4. Ho said: ‘ T may want you to give evidence, as I am in trouble.” Mr Adams pointed out that on March 4 tho accused was before the court in Dunedin. Witness then said he was not too sure as to the date with regard to a hillside plough. Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury, said it was either a charge of carnal knowledge or nothing. His Honor said that was so. Mr Hanlon said the dates on which the accused could be convicted of an_ offence must have been between May 23, 1924, and January 23, 1925. The Crown was required by law to fix a date, and they did so, but by the greatest chance a transaction had taken place which proved that on this day accused was at Patterson’s farm. That all showed tho danger of relying on promiscuous evidence. These facts showed that this girl had not told the truth. With regard to the girl’s age, ho was prepared to admit the Crown’s contention that accused knew that the girl was under 16 years of age when the offences were alleged to have been committed. It was the duty of the jury to take the whole of the evidence into consideration and weigh it pro and con, and give their verdict accordingly. ... Mr Adams emphasised the serious nature of’the charge. It was also a serious thing for tho community, and therefore the jury had to weigh the matter very carefully With regard to the alibi which it hod been attempted to prove, the case did not stand or fall on a single date. It was open to the jury to amend the date. It would bo noticed' that the alibi had not previously been mentioned before that afternoon. Such an alibi had to be accepted with very, great caution indeed. . His Honor, in summing up, said the jury must devote its consideration to the fact whether accused did unlawfully carnally know the complainant. If the jury were satisfied that accused did, between May 28, 1924, and January 25, 1925, carnally know tho complainant tney would convict him on this count. It was open to the jury to convict if they were satisfied that the offence was committed on any day or date between the dates mentioned. One thmg was certain, that this girl had given birth to a child, and some man was the father of it. It could not bo denied that accused had exceptional opportunities of committing the offence. With regard to the presents, one wondered why the accused should spend seven or eight guineas on a gold watch for the complainant. With regard to the girl’s statement about objecting to accused coming into her room, his own experience of similar cases, extending over many years, was that girls not infrequently endeavoured to make out that they did not consent. The defence set up was that the story told by the complainant was a parcel of lies, and that there was nothing in it. As to the alibi, a document had been produced which fixed the date—if the evidence was accepted—as to accused being on Patterson’s farm, and that he could not have been with the girl at the time she said he was with her. The case for the Crown did not, however, rest on this date. Tho case for the prosecution, covered a long series of dates. It was for the jury to say what credence they attached to the defence put forward. Was it likely that tho girl was going to manufacture such a story, especially against one who had been kind to her and had given her presents’! The jury retired at 4.45 p.m., and returned at 5.30 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on the first count—carnal knowledge. The foreman of the jury (Mr G. Mearns) said the jury were unanimously of opinion that great clemency should bo shown tho accused owing to the girl yielding so readily to him. The jury also thought that the mother of the girl was to blame in that she did not give tho girl tho knowledge a mother was entitled to give her daughter. Prisoner was remanded for sentence until this morning. TEN YEARS’ HARD EABOUR, George Alexander Milne, who was found guilty tho previous day of an unnatural offence against a male (one charge) and indecent assault against males (four charges) came m> for sentence. Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for the prisoner, said he had received a testimonial on behalf of the prisoner from tho Mayor and councillors of Hampden, where the accused lived. Tho testimonial was signed by Mr W. Nicolson (Mayor) and six councillors. It stated that the signatories had known the prisoner for a number of years, and had always looked upon him as a decent, respectable young fellow. It came as a shock to tho residents of Hampden when it became known that he had been arrested on such charges. His parents were old and respected early settlers. He (counsel) said he could not say anything in extenuation of the crime, but he asked his Honor to deal as leniently os possible with the prisoner under tho circumstances. Mr Adams said he had nothing to add to tho police report. His Honor said the police report indicated that prisoner was looked upon as a little weak in his mind. What did that mean?

Mr White .said the accused had a severe attack of influenza during the epidemic, and he had not quite recovered from it. His Honor said that the police report showed that the practices of which he was convicted had been Voing on for some time. For the unnatural offence against males he would be sentenced to 10 years’ hard labour, and with regard to the offences of indecent assault he would be sentenced to one years’ imprisonment in respect of each, the sentences to bo concurrent. Prisonei would therefore have to serve 10 years b.