GOAL FOR ATTACKING GIRL

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 737, 9 August 1929, Page 1

GOAL FOR ATTACKING GIRL

Two Years’ Hard Labour

flappers blamed for folly

rE flapper who flaunts conventions came in for some criticism from Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court today, when Arthur Collins, charged with assault causing bodily harm, was sentenced to two years’ hard labour. "If a girl goes to a public dance and dances with a man whom she does not know she is foolish, and if she allows a strange man to escort her home she is also foolish, and if she sits down under trees at midnight she is more foolish still,” commented his Honour.

These words were provoked by a jtemuera affair on the night of March 9 when a young woman was alleged to have been assaulted by Collins, aged 26, when he escorted her home from a dance. Claiming that the jury nad not been fropeily directed in the summing-up ty his Honour, Mr. Singer made a strong appeal for reference to the Court of Appeal of “an extraordinarily important point in this class of case’’ made by counsel during the trial. The defence relied entirely on identification of accused. No suggestion had been made in cross-examina-tion that the young woman’s story was without foundation, or that her character was other than what she claimed. The young woman had been crossexamined only as to her method of identification, by which she fixed on accused three months after the affair. Identification was established from a photograph. Counsel reminded the judge that fhe sole point he made to the jury was that there was a possibility of a mistake, in which case the jury was bound to give accused the benefit of the doubt. “Perhaps.” added counsel. *‘in my inelegancy of speech I failed to make the point clear.” In directing the jury his Honour had submitted two main issues: “Was the girl telling a truth or a pack of lies, or was she wilfully perjuring herself?” His Honour interjected that the Jury had been told that there was the evidence of the man and the girl to decide between.

Mr. Singer proceeded to state that, iu addition to asking the jury to consider whether the girl was. telling the'truth, he had requested Liis Honour at the end of the trial to put a question to the jury as to the possibility of the girl having made a mistake in identifying the man. That request, however, was declined. ‘ That had already been done,” replied his Honour. “By me, but not by your Honour,” retorted Mr. Singer. His Honour declared that the point had at any rate been submitted iuferentially to the jury, which had been advised to choose between the two aets of evidence. Counsel, however, persisted in the argument that his point had not been •übmltted to the jury, who had been

invited to consider only whether the girl was telling the truth. *■ “The point had been submitted by me,” his Honour reminded counsel. Mr. Singer suggested that his Honour had not submitted the debated issue. His Honour: The best plan for you is to move in the Court of Appeal. “I ask your Honour to do it,” urged Mr. Singer. Counsel added that Collins was only a poor man and the proceedings of the Court of Appeal would be very heavy. “If 1 thought the point was worth troubling about, 1 would,” replied the judge, who told Mr. Singer that if he declined to state a case to the Court of Appeal, counsel could move. Still Mr. Singer held to his argument that the only point raised by the defence had not been submitted to the jury by the judge. “The view I take is that the jury had the full evidence before it,” stated his Honour. The jury had been informed that it would have to select between the stories of the girl and accused. His Honour added he could not remember no:.v whether he had directly submitted the question of the possibility of the girl’s having made a mistake in identification, but it had been done inferentially. He declined to state a case to the Court of Appeal. Accused had his remedy of moving in the Court of Appeal. A plea for leniency was then made by Mr. Singer, who asserted that Collins bore an unblemished character, except for a conviction for using offensive language in a restaurant while in Wellington. Prisoner had been under the influence of liquor at that time. Counsel claimed that in the present ease the girl’s character had not been assailed, but he submitted that her conduct in going under trees with her companion at midnight was really a provocation for the assault. Mr. Singer suggested that Collins should be admitted to probation. In passing sentence, his Honour commented on the foolishness of a girl dancing, going home, and sitting out at midnight with a man whom she did not know, but that did not excuse the man in dealing out such treatment when the girl had rejected overtures. The judge added that Collins had assaulted the girl in cowardly fashion, striking her in the face, breaking her glasses a.nd blackening both eyes.