HOSTILE WITNESS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 37, 6 May 1927, Page 11

HOSTILE WITNESS

HER MEMORY FAILS STATEMENT REPUDIATED ELDERLY MAN CHARGED Permission to treat as the principal witness in a serious case at the Supreme Court was given by His Honour Mr. Justice Herdman yesterday afternoon.

The case was one in which charges of unlawful carnal knowledge and indecent assault against a girl aged 14 3’ears 9 months, at Glenfield. on March 19, were preferred against William Jenkins, aged 65.

When called to give evidence, the principal witness —a girl, 14 years of age, said that the statement given by her to a detective was not true. Questioned by Mr. S. L. Paterson, who appeared for the prosecution, regarding various incidents referred to in the statement, witness said she could not remember. Permission to treat her as hostile was accordingly granted. “The detective did not put down what I said,” stated witness, “only just what he thought.”

Mr. Paterson: Who told you to say that? How do you know what he thought? Witness: I don’t know. At a later stage Mr. J. J. Sullivan, counsel for the accused, * objected to witness being cross-examined in regard to a conversation which had not taken place in accused’s presence.

His Honour stated that the crossexamination could proceed. “It was a most unusual case,” he said, “and would have to be cleared up if possible.” “Unfortunately there seem to be a great number of these cases in the Northern part of New Zealand,” remarked His Honour.

Detective G. A. McWhirter, in evidence, said he took statements from the girl and from accused. In each instance he read the statement aloud before it was signed. Accused, who elected to give evidence, repudiated his statement, which admitted indecent behaviour toward the girl. He said he had been unable to read the statement as he had not his glasses with him at the time. The detective did not read the statement at the time, but he adopted such a friendly attitude toward him he thought it would be all right. Now that he knew the contents of the documents, he would say it was a concoction. Evidence as to the good character borne by the accused was given by J. A. Beale, barrister and solicitor.

An objection to a question put by Mr. Sullivan regarding the possibilities of any immoral tendencies on the part of the accused, was raised by Mr. Paterson.

His Honour said that the objection must be upheld. Mr. Sullivan: The question can be asked.

His Honour: You say so. I say not. Addressing the jury, his Honour stated that the Crown Prosecutor had quite properly abandoned the charge of carnal knowledge. There was not sufficient evidence to establish that point, and the case now revolved itself into a question of attempted carnal knowledge. Written statements by the persons concerned had now been repudiated, and allegations made against the truthfulness of the police officer who took the statement. If such was the case, the officer concerned would not only be guilty of perjury, but also of perverting the course of justice. The seriousness of the case would no doubt be appreciated by the jury, said his Honour, and there would be no need to imnress upon them the necessity of giving the case their earnest attention. At the request of the jury, Detective McWhirter was recalled. He said that the complaint was made to the police by accused’s wife. The complaint did not concern accused, but another man. The charge against accused was the result of a conversation with the girl.