LAW-CLERK CHARGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 423, 3 August 1928, Page 13

LAW-CLERK CHARGED

BOY’S STORY OF MOTOR DRIVE ALLEGATION OF ASSAULT A law clerk, Alexander Henry Martin, aged 26, in the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr. Justice Reed and a jury, faced a serious charge, concerning a boy of 15. For the Crown, Mr. V. R. Meredith said it would be shown that the accused took a boy for a drive in his car on April 27 and, after making certain remarks about girls, assaulted him. It was a singular thing that the boy was an unusually alert and particularly good type of boy, and one well able to look after himself. The accused had struck the kind of boy that was not to be interfered with. The complainant, a boy of 15, gave evidence that he was sent on a message to the Auckland Grammar School. Half-way up Mountain Road the accused drove up in a big car and offered witness a lift, but was told he had only a short way to walk. Accused said “Never mind, I’ll run you up.” Reaching the school gates, accused said: “Are you going back to town? I’ll run you back.” Accused later met witness down a by-road, and instead of turning toward town drove off to Newmarket, suddenly recollecting that he had to view a house. After traversing various by-roads at a slow pace they reached Epsom. Martin then referred to a big paddock in the locality and asked whether he took any girls there at night. Witness said “No.” Accused then made improper suggestions about girls. Witness was then assaulted. He told the accused to stop his nonsense. When they returned to Parnell witness got out, took the number of the car, and determined from the registration department the owner’s name and address. To Mr.' Meredith witness said he had never previously known the accused. From the witness-box Martin said that his purpose in going out past the school was to take a key to a house which some people were going to inspect at Gillies Avenue. The incident of alleged assault occurred when witness was changing gears, his hand corning into contact with the boy’s leg. When the boy remonstrated witness explained that the incident was purely accidental, saying “I want you to understand there was nothing meant in that.” Expert evidence regarding the proximity of the gear-lever to the seat was called by Mr. G. P. Finlay for the accused. The witness stated that in changing gears it would be possible to strike the inside of a passenger’s leg. TWO DEMONSTRATIONS At this stage the jury went outside to inspect the car. The complainant went also and a demonstration was arranged. Returning, the jury asked that the accused be permitted to demonstrate with the boy beside him. His Honour granted the request. On resuming their places the jury wanted to know why so much time had elapsed between the alleged incident and the time the accused was interviewed. Detective McWliirter explained that the usual course had been followed of making full inquiries before taking action. Addressing the jury Mr. Findlay said that the question to be decided was whether the incident was the product of criminal intent. Summing up his Honour warned the jury agaii\st regarding the case as trivial. Interference with boys was very serious and detrimental to the boys’ character. There could he little doubt that improper suggestions had been made by the accused. The evidence showed certain discrepancies between the stories of the complainant and that of the accused. It did not seem reasonable that the boy should make allegations of so serious a nature against one who had been kind enough to give him a ride. The jury retired at 12.50. (Proceeding.)