SUPREME COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 303, 19 June 1912, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. JUDGE AND JURY DIFFER. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened at New Plymouth yesterday morning, before his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. Charles Blundell Lumsden, junr., -who ihad already been arraigned at the last session, and who then pleaded not guilty, was charged with indecnt assault. Mr. G. H. Weston appeared for the Crown, and Mr. J. E. Wilson on behalf of th» accused. The following jury was empanelled.— James McGhee, M. D. Julian, George Knight, William Healey, Robert Kilpatrick, Win. T. Hookham, Robert Herd, J. H. Revel], Wm. Coombs, Alfred Chard, W. H. Boulton and George Cosbrook. Mr. Healey was chosen foreman of the jury. The Court was crowded during the hearing of the ease. In his opening remarks, Mr. Weston said that the alleged offence arose out of two charges of indecently assaulting a young woman, and also of simply assaulting her. Their duties would be lightened by reason of an .admission made to Sergeant Dart when he was served with the summons. Accused then said: "Indecent assault is a bit too strong." The alleged victim lives on a farm with two brothers. The offence was alleged to have taken place at Tataraimaka, on or about November 22, 1911.

Evidence was given by the brothers of the girl alleged to have been assaulted. The woman, the alleged victim of the assault, next stepped into the box. She stated that since the alleged occurrence she had been married. Witness described the nature of the alleged assault, which she said took place after her brother had left the shed. It took place, she alleged; while she was about to take the milk to the stand. She had to pass Lumsden, who, however, barred the way. When she protested, he threatened to "do" for her. She succeeded in releasing herself from prisoner's grasp, and ran to the house, the accused making for a waggon. She told her brother that the man who drove away in the waggon had insulted her. Her brother said the man was Lumsden. The following day she went into New Plymouth and laid an information with the police. To Mr. Wilson: It was dark when Lumsden came to the shed. Her eyesight was weak, and she was of a nervous disposition. Before that day she had never spoken to Lumsden. She had never ridden in a waggon driven by the prisoner. She was in the shed for about 20 or 25 minutes after Lumsden came in. Her brother left the shed about ten minutes before the alleged occurrence. When Lumsden came in, he was d'ressed in his ordinary working clothes. She did not remember that one of his garments had a great tear in it. Through all her struggles she retained hold of the milk bucket, not spilling any of its contents. Senior-Sergeant Dart, who in November last was stationed at New Plymouth, said that on November 27 last he served a summons on defendant. On handing the summons to Lumsden, and in charging him with the offence, the accused interrupted him, stilting: "Indecent assault is a bit strong." Other conversation also took place, Lumsden stating .that he never assaulted her, but he made a certain admission as to having questioned her. In opening his case, Mr. Wilson said the evidence would show that the whole charge had arisen out of an unfortunate accident to Lumsden the morning of the alleged offence, combined with the fact that in the evening he came across a girl who was short-sighted, and of a considerably excitable temperament. The accused called at the farm to see one of the boys, to arrange with Mm .'-.bout the paddocking of a mare. That should dispose of the suggestion that he went to the place with a sinister motive. Lumsden gave evidence on his own behalf, and said he was 23 years old. He knew the alleged victim of the assault, she having ridden with him on his waggon for several miles some months previous to the night he visited the farm. Earlier in the day one of his garments was severely torn while he was unloading cheese at the Moturoa Freezing Works, necessitating him wearing his overcoat. In the evening he called at the farm in question to see -one of the boys about fetching his horse up to a certain paddock. As he was not in, defendant waited in the cowshed, pending his arrival. When he entered, the cowshed, ho took off his overcoat, because it was wet. When the girl. finished milking he was standing in the way of the path

whicli led out of the cowshed, although | in not such a manner as to prevent the J girl getting out. He had forgotten the I rent in his garment. When she finished milking the girl walked before him, and '• sto2)ped and said, "I can't stand! that." Accused replied, "What have I done? You can't stand what?" Immediately afterwards she screamed, and this drew his attention to the tear in his clothing. The girl continued to scream, andl he put his hand over her mouth for about three seconds, asking her why she was screaming, aa people would think something was wrong. Regarding his interview with Senior-Sergeant Dart, the accused said he had no distinct recollection of what he said. He was not prepared to deny the sergeant's evidence. His Honor questioned the prisoner as to what he meant when he told the sergeant that it was a bit stiff, and regarding his admission in regard to a certain question. Accused replied that he could not tell the jury why he asked the question. His Honor: What she says about you putting your arms around her neck is quite untrue? Accused: Quite untrue.

His Honor also questioned him on other points. On resumption after luncheon, Mr. Wilson said that certain witnesses for the defence had failed to put in an appearance, nor did he know where they could be found. He would, therefore, have to close his case without their evidence. Mr. Wilson then addressed the jury at some length, holding that the accused was entitled to any doubt on the subject, and he should not be convicted on the evidence of the girl. For tiie Crown, Mr. Weston pointed out that it was a somewhat remarkable case, in that the evidence for the Crown and the evidence for the prisoner were practically not In dispute. There was practically no variance between the story told by the prisoner and that of the prosecutrix and her witnesses. Summing up, His Honor said that it was of the utmost possible necessity to the welfare of a community that women and childrpn should be protected, especially where they were living in the country and going about ordinary occupations in the ordinary way upon places where they were employed. In ridiculing the suggestion that the girl was in such a state that she did not know what was occurring, His Honor said that, curiously enough, the evidence of the girl was admitted in all details, except in regard to those particulars necessary to show that a full offence had been committed. He warned the jury not to attach the slightest importance to the suggestion that certain witnesses, who had failed to appear, would have been able to substantiate accused's version of the affair. If they were to be relied upon, why had the, , defence failed to procure their attendance during the interval, one of them being only as far away as the Moturoa freezing works? The jury retired at 2.50 p.m., and at twenty minutes to four the foreman announced that they were unanimously of the opinion that the prisoner was not guilty.

JUDGE'S STRONG COMMENT. In view of his strong summing up in favor of the Crown, His Honor expressed considerable surprise at the verdict returned by the jury. To the prisoner he remarked: "Yon are a very fortunate man, indeed, but I would' recommend you not to trust to your luck again." Continuing. His Honor addressed the jury as follows: "How you can reconcile your verdict to your consciences after my direction is best known to yourselves. However, you have discharged your duty according to your views, though I fail to understand it. You are discharged." The prisoner was accordingly acquitted.