SECOND THOUGHTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 May 1919, Page 5

SECOND THOUGHTS.

SUPREME COURT JUDGE'S VERDICT. OLD COUPLE'S CHARACTER CLEARED. Auckland, May 5. "To be imprisoned till the rising of the Court," was the sentence imposed this morning upon William and Elizabeth Reyland, 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 Anally disposed of at the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Cooper reading the judgment of Mr. Justice Hosking upon legal points raised regarding the accuseds' plea of guilty in the lower court. The old couple, who have a farm in the Paparoa district, were shown at an earlier hearing to have retained on their farm an idiot son, about 29 yearn of age, who was found by the police living in an outhouse, practically naked and in a very filthy state. It was shown, however, by evidence subsequently called that the idiot was well nourished, and was kept in the shed only at nights and in the middle of 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 seemed to have done well for him. At the hearing, some important legal questions relating to the withdrawal of pleas of guilty were raised by Mr. W. D. who appeared for the acoused. A motion was filed asking (a) that the plea be recalled 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 the committal for sentence be quashed or set aside. The judgment stated that no relief could be afforded in the form asked by paragraphs (a) and (b), and that the fact that the depositions did not support the offence charged was not sufficient grounds for quashing or setting aside the plea. "As I doubt if the evidence supported the offence charged," added his Honor, "I do not think it right that any punishment should be inflicted beyond the sentence that the 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 accused of their imbecile son took on a very different aspect in his mind from that which arose on reading the depositions in the first instance. The circumstances were peculiar, and, in the light of Dr, Beattie's evidence, I prefer the view that the accused did their best with a most difficult case, although, through ignorance and the absence of facilities, their efforts were not well directed. From this point of view, I am confirmed in the sentence I have given. At the same time, the police were quite justified in bringing the matter before the Court.