SERIOUS CHARGES.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1922, Page 6

SERIOUS CHARGES.

BTURROCK FOUND GUILTY. JURY’S SHORT RETIREMENT. SENTENCE POSTPONED. With proceedings closed to the public the Supreme Court at New Plymouth was engaged on Saturday in hearing the chargee against Arnold Onslow Sturrock, a music teacher, of committing unnatural offences. There were four separate charges and accused pleaded not guilty. He was defended by Mr. R. H. Quilliam and Mr. C. H. Weston appeared for the Crown. The offences were alleged to have occurred on various dates -between August, 1920, and December, 1921. The principal witnesses for the Crown were two Natives, each about twenty-one years of age. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. T. H. Brotheridge, E. J. Revell, J. Revell, E. Medway, B. M. McGrath, A. R. Knight, E. J. Elliott. A. J. Millman, S. H. Dabb, W. Hughes, J. Hale, S. Oliver. Mr. Millman was elected foreman.

When Sturrock entered the dock he was neatly attired in a smart serge suit and tan -boots, while a white turndown collar and black tie with white stripe completed his attire He stood calmly while the charges were being read and made his plea of not guilty. There was just an impression of a strained appearance on his countenance, which seemed to disappear for a time as the case progressed. He maintained a steady position while the Crown Prosecutor explained the case and appeared to exhibit no‘ nervousness. “The Court will be cleared during this case,” said ITis Honor Mr. Justice Chapman, and the large number of people who occupied the portion of the Court, set aside for the public filed outside. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. “It means an excursion into an unnatural and perverted sexual gratification,” said Mr. Weston in opening the case. “You will hear to-day an account of a perverted and unnatural desire on the part of the prisoner. Unfortunately these cases are not unknown in the human be>ing. Accounts of cases of this kind in the law books are fortunately uncommon, but they do exist. I merely mention this to point out that you are now dealing with some thing that is not natural.” Mr. Weston informed the jury that the fact that the acts may have,"been committed with the consent of the second party was no defence.

Outlining the evidence. Mr. Weston said that one of the Native ’boys used to live at Waitara and attended the Technical School in New Plymouth. The . other boy. also a Native, used to live at Okaiawa, but worked at a farm at Bell Block and also attended the Tech- | nical School. The two boys were com panions and were introduced to Sturrock by another -boy towards the end of 1917. This was the commencement of the acquaintance. It ripened into friendship, and some time afterwards I the boys commenced to learn to play the piano. They became very friend - | iv with the accused and one of the bo vs used to invite him to his home and there they slept in the same room. That was the* start, of things. In March, 1920, this hoy went to live with Sturrock in the latter’s apartments in Griffiths' buildings, New Plymouth. They lived together. Incidents happened two or three times a week and accused might be said to have cherished an unnatural love for the boy. With regard to the second boy his descent occurred one day in the lunch hour in the rooms, and the incident occurred later on a good many occasions. He used to stay with Sturrock occa 6ionally while the other boy was away. The offences mentioned as having occurred in August, 1920, happened after a dance at the East End. Instead of the second boy going home he also slept at Sturrock’s' rooms, so that there were the two boys and accused together. A WITNESS EXPLAINS.

The first witness who stayed at Sturroek’s rooms said that when he went home for week-ends accused often used to come to his home. On occasions Sturrock did not arrive till late on Saturday nights, sometimes arriving by motor car. He went for a trip to Christchurch with Sturrock in December of 1920, when they stayed at accused’s home, and both occupied the same room. He had protested against Sturrock’s habits, and said his (the witness) health was being affected. Sturrock said he did not understand and had the wrong idea about everything. Accused used to kiss him before leaving the studio in the morning and Sturrock also liked to kiss him after work. He suggested on one occasion that this practice of kissing should be stopped, as they were both men, but Sturrock made no reply. He left the studio on December i. On the following day at one o’clock he met Sturrock in the dining-rooms where witness usually went for meals. Sturrock sat in the next chair to witness and asked what was the matter. Witness replied nothing, but that he bad determined to leave Sturrock and that from then on they were no longer friends. Afterwards Sturrock wanted to know what had gone wrong. Witness replipd there was nothing wrong. Sturrock asked if witness’ employer had “put him wise,” to which witness replied “no.” Sturrock said: “Am Ito be arrested; is it that matter that we carry on up at the rooms?” Witness replied that it was not, and Sturrock said: "There is a cloud over me and J don’t know where I am; you must tell me what is-the matter.” He told Sturrock he was .staying with friends. The day following he intended taking away his belongings from the studio. He ao-ain met accused at the dining-rooms and afterwards they walked to the studio. He told Sturrock he ..was gojna to take his belongings away, but accused said he could not do that while he (Sturrock) was away. Witness told Sturrock he need not think that he was aointr to take any of Sturrock’s belong intrs? Accused asked if he played th:» game and went straight whether witness would still stay. He replied that it was too late, and he took his clothes away that afternoon. During one of their conversations Sturrock had suggested that they should walk around the block and try and fix matters up. To Mr Quilliam: He was twenty one on August 28 last. His memory was fairly good. He had not memorised his evidence, but just told what had happened. If the evidence was different to what he had given in the lower Court it at anyrate conveyed the same meaning. The witness denied that he and the other young man had ever ct>mrr“t«d -nv offences. . '

witness who informed the police after discussing the matter with his employer, but he denied getting a promise that he personally would not be prosecuted. Mr. Quilliam: Who wrote the letter sent to Sturrock before he was arrested ? Witness. —WKicli letter? Do you know of no letter?—No. You owe Sturrock money.—Yes. At times you had quite serious quarrels ?—Yes. You dislike Sturrock very much, don’t you?—l dpn't say very much. You don’t hate him?—No. Was it under instructions that you told Sturrock there was nothing wrong? —No; not instructions. Was it under advice?—Yes. You met a number of men who informed you that if you told everything you would be protected?—No, not a number. Evidence of a similar nature was also given by a second young man. He was questioned about the separation from his wife, and he said it occurred because she left him. It was not on account of some disgraceful conduct on his part. Other evidence for the Crown con--eerned Sturrock’s visits to the home of one of the boys. Detective-Sergeant Cooney deposed that on December 19, in company with Senior-Sergt. McCrorie. he ap-ested accused at his rooms. When the warrant was read Sturrock made no reply to the charge. / THE DEFENCE. No evidence was called for the defence. In the course of his address on behalf of accused Mr. Quilliam remarked that he was handicapped by the fact that the case had been canvassed through the town ever since Sturrock was arrested. Nothing could be more unfair to an accused. Though he was not suggesting that the jury had made up their minds he did desire to point out that the. .case had 'been discussed, and opinions formed, and created the worst possible prejudice against the accused. He wanted them to cast out of their mind the wild rumors they might have heard and examine fairly and honestly the evidence which had been adduced.

As to the evidence, counsel suggested that it was entirely unsatisfactory. It was a recognised rule, though not an established law, that where the evidence against an accused person depended on the evidence of an accomplice then the greatest suspicion must be attached to that evidence. A jury should be care,ful not to convict unless they were satisfied the accomplice was speaking the truth. The two young men who gave evidence were guilty themselves on their own evidence and they should have been in the dock too. It was a very serious crime that accused was charged with, for the penalty that might be imposed was second I only to that in the case of murder. ‘ Serious consideration, however, must 'be i i given to the statements of the wit-• nesses who themselves were involved. ' They had motives for not speaking the I truth —the motive for protecting their own skins. THE SUMMING UP. Summing up, His Honor explained the position regarding corroboration. He said it was quite true that a jury often, I looked for corroboration and that endeavors were made to find corroboration. Except in certain cases, how ever, it was not an absolute legal requirement. It had been laid down in the New Zealand Court of Appeal that no matter whether a witness was a criminal if the jury believed that evidence they were entitled to accept it. Tn this'case, therefore, it was quite open jto them to accept the evidence of the [two main witnesses. It had been I suggested that there was no corroboration, but certain things which were most extraordinary could not be overlooked. The fact* that a European had condescended to sleep with grown-up Native lads gave marked support. Regarding the question of accomplices, he pointed out that unless the police could bring persons who were parties to the offence he

did not see how there would be any convictions. There was the fact that accused remained silent when first charged, and this was not the act of an ordinary man. It might 'be that he adopt- superlative caution, or perhaps that he was taken aback. If they believed the story given by the young man there was overwhelming evidence, or was it a hideous, faked invention of a young'-man of twenty-one? This was necessarily the suggestion of the defence and the jury must ask themselves what reason there was for believing the story was an invention. Just as the jury were retiring Mr. Quilliam asked that His Honor would give a particular direction as to the law on the evidence of accomplices. Counsel submitted argument to the effect that the direction had been hardly sufficient. His Honor recalled the jury and explained again that the evidence of accomplices could be accepted. If the jury thought, however, that the case depended on the line out o'borated evidence of those concerned they ought not to act on it unless they considered it entirely satisfactory. After a retirement of' about seven minutes the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. His Honor said he would take a few days to consider the question of sentence.