Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PRISONERS REPARATION.

WOMAN GREATLY WRONGED. CIVIL ACTION FOLLOWS. JURY AWARDS £950 DAMAGES. A case involving great interest came before the Supreme Court at Wanganui last week, when a claim for £lOOO damages was heard by the Chief Justice, .Sir Robert Stout, and a jury of twelve. The plaintiff. Mrs. E. M. Hop- , wood, claimed that sum from Thomas Gill for compensation for an outrage committed upon plaintiff at Utiku on the night of October 2'7, 1921. In opening the case for the plaintiff, counsel said that the evidence would show that a cruel and atrocious assault had been committed on. a decent woman while alone at her house at Utiku. The defendant was a bachelor who lived on his farm a short distance from the plaintiff’s house, but she was not very friendly with him. Plaintiff’s husband •was working at a sawmill some miles away and returned only at week ends. On the evening of the assault the defendant came over with some parcels of food. Just as he was leaving after a friendly chat he attacked the plaintiff. A desperate struggle ensued. A day or two later he came over to plain tiff and expressed his regrets for what had happened. Criminal proceedings followed, and the defendant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Counsel for defendant stated that he i would not object to plaintiff’s evidence and he would not cross-examine her. He added that his presence in Court was merely to assist the jury in coming to a proper determination as to what amount of damages should be awarded. Counsel for plaintiff, continuing his opening address, said it was for the jury only to consider the question of compensation. If the jury bore in mind the pain aud anguish she had suffered to think that anything less than £lOOO would be sufficient was ridiculous. The sum of £2OOO, or even £5OOO, would not be adequate compensation for what she had suffered.

It was agreed to read to the jury the evidence given by the plaintiff at the trial of the defendant.

Counsel for defendant, in addressing the jury, said its only duty wa-s to assess damages. The defendant Gill was guilty of a very serious crime against a good woman. He was happy to heai’ from plaintiff's husband that there were no slanders or insinuations against plaintiff’s good name in Utiku, and he was happy to say that this was due to the attitude of Gill at his trial, when, anxious to make reparation, he proclaimed the good name the plaintiff. • Nqw he would have another opportunity of making reparation. Referring to tha question of damages, counsel said that this was entirely a matter for the jury, which would award what it thought fit. The defendant had caused plaintiff a great wrong but he too had suffered. From any point of view the price of the purity of a- woman could not be measured in money. Even if she were awarded millions that money would be tainted. He asked the jury to remember .. that Gill . had already been punished, and he would come out of gaol at the end of seven years a marked man. He asked the jury not to strip him naked of all his possessions, but to give him a chance to rehabilitate himself.

His Honor said the only issue was to ascertain what damages were to be' awarded to the plaintiff. It was rather an unusual case because it was not often that after a person had been punished for a felony he was proceeded against civilly for damages arising out of the same circumstances. His Honor said that the punishment made by the Court was for a breach of the law, not for damages for the woman’s injury. The law allowed the injured person to proceed civilly for compensation, and the jury as 12 reasonable men would have to consider what sum was fair and right to award. They had not to consider punishment, -for the law had already been vindicated, but what they had to ascertain was what was a fair sum for the plaintiff in view of all the circumstances of the case.

The jury’s verdict was for £950 and costs, and judgment was given for plaintiff accordingly for this amount. Accused is reputed to be very wealthy.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19220530.2.70

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, 30 May 1922, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
717

PRISONERS REPARATION. Taranaki Daily News, 30 May 1922, Page 7

PRISONERS REPARATION. Taranaki Daily News, 30 May 1922, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert