SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 May 1921, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.

JURY FAILS TO AGREE. .. . NEW TRIAL ORDERED. On the resumption of the sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday morning, before Mr. Justice Reed, hearing was continued on the charges against Stuart J. D. Russell, of attempted unlawful carnal knowledge, and alleged indecent assault on a little girl. The case was conducted by Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown Prosecutor), and Mr. A. A. Bennett defended. The case for the Crown was concluded the previous day, and yesterday the defence was heard. Mr. Bennett submitted that there was no evidence before the jury to support the first count, namely that of attempted carnal knowledge. In reply to His Honor, the Crown Prosecutor quoted authorities in support of his contention that the evidence as led constitued proof of an attempt to carnally know, as defined by law. His Honor said he did not think there could he any suggestion that accused had any intention of doing more than an indecent act. He did not think the jury would be justified in assuming any intention of actual sexual relationship taking place between the parties. He thought it might be taken that there was no evidence to go before the jury on that count. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Bennett, continuing, s&id that this left only the charge of indecent assault to be answered. Accused admitted frankly being in the shed, but denied absolutely that he touched the little girl at all. Counsel remarked on the improbability of the offence being committed under all the circumstances —the time of the day, a public dressing shed, with the likelihood of people coming in and out, and the disparity between the ages of the parties. The jury should he r-ditdant to commit the accused on the evidence of a little girl, and he pointed out there must be more than .-imply an assumption that an indecent act was committed; it must be affirmatively proved. Various features were traversed by counsel, who concluded by remarking that the Crown case, other than the evidence of the little girl, had proved nothing. Accused gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement. He said he got into the alleyway of the ladies’ dressing shed instead of going round the other side, as he had intended. He got to the door, and saw a little girl dressing; she told him that the men’s shed was on rhe other side, and he replied “Right Oh ( .‘\ The girt’s statement that he made an improper suggestion was untrue. It was not correct to say that he hurried away, as be walked at a moderate pace away frotn the sheds, and over the bridge. When he got out towards the road he saw a motor car

and was given a lift along the road. He brok<* into a run in order to catch the car. He denied the charges laid against

him. Under cross-examination, .accused admitted having been in the shed on another occasion, but at the time it was not used as a dressing room. It was in August, out of the bathing season, and there was no one about at the time, and he went into the shed to have a look at the life-saving reel that he saw there. That was his only reason for going in on that occasion. He had on One occasion been into the alley-way leading to the entrance to the ladies’ shed. He denied that on the occasion of the alleged offence he had disappeared from the beach because he realised his guilt. He felt ashamed of finding himself in the ladies’ shed, but it never occurred to him to remain and explain his position. He had bathed at the East End again on the morning following the alleged offence, and in the afternoon had been to Ngamotu and bathed at the beach there. ( ADDRESSES TO JURY. In addressing the jury. Mr. Bennett said the Crown had not discharged the onus of proof laid on them. He pointed out that Ruesell’s evidence was not shaken by cross-examination. Counsel attacked the credibility of the girl’s story, and characterised the ease for the prosecution as a tangled skein of contradictory evidence. The Crown Prosecutor, in his address, said that there were several points in the case which if taken separately might be capable of an innocent explanation, but the question was, considering the facts as a whole, if there was not a corroboration of the girl\s story. His Honor, in summing up, pointed out that he had already ruled there was no evidence to place before the jury on the first charge, therefore they had only to consider the alleged indecent assault. They had been asked whether they would brand accused as a sexual criminal on the evidence of a girl of eight years, but sentiment should not enter into the case; they had a to perform. DATE OF RE TRIAL. After four hours’ retirement the jury returned and announced they were unable to agree. In reply to His Honor, the foreman said he did not think there was any possibility of an agreement being reached and the jury were dismissed. • The Crown Prosecutor applied for a new trial and this was granted, the date for hearing being fixed for Monday, the 23rd inst. Bail was allowed accused as on the existing terms, his own recognisance of £lOO, and one surety of £lOO. CASES SETTLED. When His Honor was going through the civil list the following cases were struck out, counsel in the respective actions announcing that settlements had been reached: Charles Stone v. F. A. Lightwark (claim for £655 for alleged breach of contract)'; Lily E. Cross and others v. 0. Cross (claim for possession of lands); George B. Purdue' v, Etta C. Branley and others (claim for performance of agreement or £l6O damages); Alice Cane and others v. Albert T. Burke (claim for £6OO for breach of agreement); G. M. Fraser v. George Brown (claim for possession of tenement, £25 mesne profits and £lO general damages).