"ONCE TOO OFTEN—”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 424, 4 August 1928, Page 15

"ONCE TOO OFTEN—”

JUDGE WARNS PRISONER BOY’S STORY BELIEVED “Prisoner, the jury Has found you not guilty. They perhaps did not know that you were tried last February for much the same sort of offence in very similar circumstances.” In the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Reed delivered a solemn warning to Alexander Henry Martin, aged 26, an ex-law clerk, who had been found not guilty of a serious offence concerning a boy aged 15. “You were, of course, found not guilty,” his Honour continued. “You have been found not guilty to-day. But remember this, a pitcher may go to the well once too often. I strongly advise you not to carry boys about in your motor-car in future. The third jury may not be so friendly.” The defence pleajled by Mr. G. P. Finlay for the accused was that Martin had accidentally touched the boy's thigh while changing gears. Concluding his admonition of the prisoner, his Honour turned to the principal witness, and asking him to stand up, s;®d: “I think you have behaved exceedingly well in this matter. You performed a public duty in reporting such a case as this. I am sure the fact that the jury has found the prisoner not guilty does not express any view of theirs that your story is untrue. They simply think that through the lapse of time some mistakes might have been made.. “Should anyone suggest that your story is untrue youi have the assurance that the Judge who presided believed you.” “PARTICULARLY ANXIOUS” JURY. After a retirement of three and aquarter hours the jury returned for report that it had been unable to come to an agreement. His Honour said that he could not accept the statement as the statutory four hours had not yet elapsed. The foreman explained that the jury was particularly anxious to know when the boy first made the statement taken by the police. Recalled, Detective MeWhirter said he had a number of othei' serious offences to deal with, and this one had to take its turn. Five days elapsed from the time the boy complained until a statement was secured from him. Accused was not arrested for three weeks after the complaint owing to the necessity of making exhaustive inquiries. After a further brief retirement the jury returned. “The prisoner is not guilty,” said the foreman. “The jury is dissatisfied with the lapse of time between the date of the information being laid and the date of the statement taken from the boy.”