INDECENT ASSAULT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1922, Page 8

INDECENT ASSAULT.

ELDERLY MAN CONVICTED. AN OPUNAKE CASE. A man of sixty-one years of age, James Collingwood, was tried in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday on a charge of indecently assaulting a girl aged five years at Opunake on January 18. There was an alternative charge of common assault* Collingwood pleaded not guilty to both counts. Mr. C. H. Weston appeared for the Crown, and Mr. C. 11. Croker for accused, being counsel assigned by the Crown to defend Collingwood. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. F. Jones, junr., B. M. McGrath, C. Bond, C. McLeod, A. Cathro, S. 11. Dabb, W. H. PeHew, A. R. Knight, E. J. Revell, F. J. Lobb, E. May, M. J. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was appointed foreman.

It was alleged the offence occurred on the Main South Road near Opunake. The girl was sent by her mother to play at x a neighbor’s house, and on the way met a man with a swag sitting on the roadside, opposite the recreation grounds. It was at this spot that the alleged offence took place. A woman in a nearby house happened to be looking out of the window and saw the occurrence. She went and took the girl away, and when the girl got home she made a complaint to her mother. The accused evidently got into a passing motor car and he was arrested somewhere near Oaonui later in the afternoon. He was taken back to Opunake and was identified by the girl and by the lady who saw the offence. Evidence was given on the above lines. Constable Clouston detailed the arrest of Collingwood. When charged with the offence accused said witness had made a mistake. Collingwood was subsequentlyidentified at Opunake.

The defence raised was that if Collingwood was the person who committed the offence he was so drunk that he was not capable of forming the intent to commit the crime.

Accused, in the witness box, said he had about twelve drinks that morning before leaving Opunake. He was not sure of the exact number, but he was “pretty full”. Drink had had a different effect on him since he received serious injuries in a railway accident at Fordell about five years ago. On that occasion he received severe cuts on the head and had both legs broken. After hearing the evidence of the witnesses he could only say that he did not remember anything. Cross-examined by the Crown prosecutor, Collingwood persisted that he knew nothing of the events referred to. Reviewing the case, His Honor said that the evidence of the girl and the adult witness were ample if the jury chose to act upon it. The defence was that he was temporarily insane when he committed rhe act, and if the jury thought so they should return a verdict on these grounds. There had been innumerable cases in which the question of ’ insanity arising out of drunkenness had been under discussion. If a man was charged with a crime involving intent, and it was found that he had become reduced to such a condition that he was incapable of forming an intent, then it was equivalent to a condition of insanity. When enquiring into a particular case, however, they had to consider the kind of crime. It had been laid down that drunkenness was not an excuse or a defence, but there was the exceptional rule that it mighl produce insanity. Therefore in cases of crime involving an intent, it would been’ an excuse. The point for decision by i • jury was whether Collingwood was ■ . -ole of forming an in-

tent, and they ild have to take into account his actions as related in the evidence.

After considering their verdict for half an hour the jury found Collingwood guilty of indecent assault, but urged leniency in view of the fact that he had sustained injuries to his head in the railway accident.

“Perhaps you would like to know a little more about him, gentlemen,” said His Honor, and he then asked the registrar to read Collingwood’s record. The list proved a formidable one of about eighteen previous convictions, dating from 1906 onwards, and the sentences varied from 7 days’ to three months’ imprisonment.

“It is very difficult to know what to do with a man of that sort,” commented. His Honor. “One has to consider hin injuries, but also the interests of the public. 1 suppose in every one of these cases he .iad been drunk. I shall consider it until to-morrow, but I can’t help thinking that if you had heard this before your recommendation for mercy it might have been different. However, I shall assume that you have made that recommendation.” Sentence was accordingly deferred till this morning.