A SERIOUS CRIME.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 February 1922, Page 2

A SERIOUS CRIME.

E. CLARKE FOUND GUILTY. TEN YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT. TRIAL IN SUPREME COURT. For the second occasion during tfie present sessions the Supreme Court at New Plymouth was engaged yesterday in the hearing of a charge concerning an alleged unnatural offence, the accused being Ernest Edward Clarke, who was arrested in December. It was alleged the occurrence took place on November 19. The court was cleared for the hearing. Mr. C. H. Weston conducted the prosecution and Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for Clarke, who pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. M. B. Cleary, T. Sargison, W. Barnitt, F. D. McKay, E. 8. Mailman, T. Sampfeon, L. H. Jury, T. Langley, W. 11. Hardgreave, H. E. Salway, F. Davey, Nuttall. Mr. Langley was elected foreman. The Crown Prosecutor opened the case by giving the legal definition of crimes under the category of unnatural offences. He reminded the.jury that whether or not the second party consented to an offence of the kind was quite immaterial. In this case a boy used to pass the office where accused was employed as accountant. One day he was invited inside by Clarke (who had been standing at the door) to play cards. The boy went inside. They did not play cards, however, but after talking to the boy Clarke gave him a shilling and he went away. The next time the boy went to the office an offence was committed, and Clarke gave him money. Acts occurred seven or eight times, the boy receiving money on each occasion. The time used to be either after five o’clock; when the office was closed, or on Saturday afternoons, and on one occasion at night- time. There would be evidence showing the behaviour of accused after suspicion- had rested on him. Clarke’s employer asked him about the rumors going round, and accused replied that he was innocent. He disappeared that day, however, and was missing for several days, being later found in some premises at Moturoa. The jury would have to consider whether the conduct of accused under the circumstances was consistent with guilt or innocence. The principal witness was a boj ' of eleven years, who detailed events mentioned by the Crown Prosecutor. Accused had promised to teach him typewriting. Medical evidence was heard as to- the condition of the boy in December, Dr. Wade deposing to making an examination. A companion of the boy stated that he had seen him go into the office with Clarke. The father of the boy related the state of the latter’s health.

In reply to Mr. Quilliam he said he had nothing to do with ah anonymous letter which was sent to Clarke.

ACCUSED DISAPPEARS. Accused’s employer, J. S. S. Medley, said he spoke to Clarke in ■ December about rumors which were going round, and advised him to see a solicitor. Clarke replied that he was innocent. Witness attended a meeting that afternoon, and when it was over he found Clarke had disappeared. He did not see him again until the Magistrate’s Court proceedings. The depositions of S. W. Peddie, brothef-in-law of accused, were read to the jury. The witness was unable to attend," Owing to illness. The evidence as given in the Lower Court stated that on December 9 Clarke was found in a whare at the back of Peddie’s premises. When asked to open the door Clarke wanted to know if there were any police about. He wanted Clarke to give himself yip, but when he got to Gane Street he would not go any further. John Pellew, brother-in-law of accused, said he was present at the whare, and corroborated the statements made by Clarke when asked to open the door. Later accused said he hid himself because he was afraid of the exposure owing to the rumors concerning him which were going about. He said they were not true. Witness then asked if this was the case why Clarke did npt face the music. Clarue replied that he intended doing so. Witness, in company with Peddie, then accompanied Clarke along the street. When they got between Morley and Gane Streets, however, he would not go any further, and they left him. During the conversation accused had asked witness if he thought he should commit suicide. Witness told Clarke there' was no need for this if he was innocent.

To Mr. Quilliam: Clarke did not admit his guilt in words, but witness thought that his actions and suggestion of suicide inferred this.

Senior-Sergeant McCrorie said that accused was brought to the police station by his brother. Witness informed accused that there was a warrant out for his arrest, and of the. nature of the charge. Clarke was very excited, but made no reply. To Mr. Quilliam: Rumors were going about for days before the warrant was taken out. » Detective-Sergeant Cooney gave evidence as to making a visit to the office where Clarke was employed. He gave a description of the rooms. In reply to Mr. Quilliam the detective said there was nothing to indicate any connection between the charge against Clarke and the case against the prisoner’ Sturrbck, who was arrested about the same time. THE DEFENCE. In opening the case for the defence Mr. Quilliam said the jury would know that some sensation was caused in New Plymouth by the arrest of Clarke, and it gave rise to a number of rumors which made the position out to be a very bad one. Naturally they had heard the discussed, but he asked them to lorj- t, all the rumors and to judge the case p.aeiy on the evidence.

The accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, presented a collected appearance*. He detailed how he became acquainted with the boy. He had been suffering fro.a j a' kind of dry eczema on the back, armsand legs. He had to use a sulphur and lard treatment, and got the boy to rub the ointment on his back. He paid the boy for this. He had never told the boy he would teach him typewriting, nor had the subject been discussed. Since his arrest the prison doctor had prescribed for the eczema. Dealing with his movements on Guy Fawkes night, when one of the acts was supposed to have been committed, Clarke said that on rhat night he was at home until seven o’clock, when he went out with his children to a bonfire, and returned home about. 9.30. He was not in town that night. On November 19 (the date mentioned in the indictment) he left the office at 12 o’clock and caught a car about a quarter past twelve to his home at Moturoa. He stayed there all the afteriv m with the exception of ten minutes, when he went across to a neighboring shop. He caught the car that arrived in town about 4.15. He left the car at the railway station and took a ticket for Waitara, departifig by the 4.20 train. He returned by the mail train. ‘‘‘Somewhere at

the end of November last,” said Clarke, “I received "an anonymous letter, in ‘ which the writer asked, ma io meet him,, on a certain night at eight o’clock near the Terminus Hotel, and to bring £lOO wfth me so as to save further trouble. The letter was signed 'Beware’. I treated the whole matter as a joke. I thought my sporting friends may have been trying to have a joke with me, and see if I would turn up or not.” Continuing, he said it was after this that the rumors about him started. Explaining his disappearance from the office, Clarke stated that on December 6 Medley mentioned the rumors that were going about. He went to see a solicitor, but found he was out. Witness returned and soon after a friend of his came into the office and then mentioned the same rumor.

“I then became demented,” witness continued, “and wandered away. I haven’t very much recollection of what happened to me. Eventually I struggled along to my brother’s place. He took me in and gave me food, a bath and dry clothing. I for my solicitor, who informed me that there was a warrant out for my arrest. I then went to the police station, where I saw Senior-Sergeant McCrorie.” Clarke stoutly denied that he had committed the offences with which he was charged. In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, Clarke said he had been troubled with the eczema since, about September. He detailed his conversation with the boy, when he asked the latter to rub his back. The boy said he would do so if witness made it worth his while. Witness did not tell the boy not to tell his parents. They parted quire good friends; there was no impropriety whatever. After his employer had spoken to him one of his friends came into the office and mentioned the rumor. Witness replied that he had a good explanation, the truth, and his friend replied that he was glad to hear it. The Crown Prosecutor asked accused why he had not made his explanation earlier, and he replied that he was advised by his solicitor. Dr. H. A. McCleland, practitioner at New Plymouth and also prison surgeon, said he examined Clarke shortly after his admission as the accused was complaining of an irritation of the skin. It was a kind of heat rash extending over the body, and witness prescribed for it. Corroborative evidence as to Clarke’s movements on Guy Fawke’s Day was given by .Thomas Duffin. He said Clarke was present at a bonfire on witness’ property on November 5. VERDICT AND SENTENCE. Summing up, His Honor said it had been suggested that accused’s association with the boy was an innocent one. Not until brought before the court, however, had accused chosen to explain, and it might be asked why the explanation., was concealed to the last moment. On the other hand was the story the invention of an eleven-year-old boy against a man from whom he parted the best of friends? There were other that would have to be considered, accused’s action ’’before he was arrested. It might have been, of course, that accused was bewildered, but there were the facts of the running away, his concealment for a certain time, and the talk of suicide. The jury retired at 4.18 p.m. and returned at 4.58 p.m. with a verdict of guilty. When asked if he had anything to saywhy. the -sentence of the court should not be passed upon him; the prisoner made no response.

His HonOr, addressing the prisoner, said he. had been found guilty of a very hideous crime, and His Honor quite understood that tfie jury could only find him guilty, as all the' evidence had been amply ■ corroborated.. All His Honor could do was to mark his sense of the gravity of the crime and *the danger to the community if such a crime were tolerated. Fortunately it was only on rare occasions that he had to pass a severe sentence. The prisoner woujd be sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment' with hard labor. His Honor then thanked the jury for their services.