A STRANGE CASE

Taihape Daily Times, 7 May 1919, Page 5

A STRANGE CASE

PARENTS AND IDIOT SON.

AUCKLAND,

“To be imprisoned till the rising of the Court.” was the sentence imposed this morning upon William and Elizabeth Roy]and, an elderly couple who pleaded guilty some months ago to a charge of failing to supply the necessaries of life to their idiot son. The case was finally disposed of at the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Cooper reading the judgment of M,r Justice Hosking upon the legal points raised regarding the aceuseds’plea of guilty in the lower Court.

The old couple, who have a farm in the Paparoa district, were shown at the earlier hearing to have retained on their farm an. idiot son of about twenty-nine years of age, who was found by the police to be living in an outhouse, practically naked, and in a very filthy state. It was shown, however, that the idiot was well nourished, and was kept in a shed only at nights and in the middle of the summer.

Dr. Beattie, superintendent of the Auckland Mental Hospital, stated that the boy had not a shred of intelligence. and was indescribably filthy in his habits. Under the circumstances, the accused scorned to have done well for him.

At the hearing some important legal questions relating to the withdrawal of the plea of guilty were raised by Mr W. D. Anderson, who appeared for accused. A motion was filed asking, (a) That the pica be cancelled, and the accused be allowed to record a plea of not guilty; (b) that the Court grant the accused leave to withdraw the plea in order that they might plead not guilty; or (c.) that committal for sentence be quashed or set aside. The judgment stated that no rebel could be afforded in the. form asked foi by paragraphs (al and (b), and that the fact that the depositions did not support the offence charged was not a sufficient ground for quashing or setting aside the plea.

“As I doubt if the evidence supported the offence charged,” added His Honour, “I do not think it right that any punishment should be inflicted beyond the sentence that accused be imprisoned until the rising of the court. I wish to add that after hearing the evidence of Dr. Beattie, the evidence contained in the depositions as to the treatment "by the accused of thoii imbecile son took on a very different aspect in my mind from that which arose on reading the depositions. In tho first instance the circumstances were peculiar, and in the light of Di\ Beattie’s evidence I prefer to view that accused did their best with a. most difficult case, although through ignorance and absence of facilities their efforts were not well directed. Prom this point of view I am confirmed in the propriety of the sentence I have given. At the same time, the police wore quite justified in bringing the matter before the court. 5 '