Imprisoned and Flogged Wrongfully.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4230, 22 July 1882, Page 2

Imprisoned and Flogged Wrongfully.

An extraordinary case was commenced in tbe Besident Magistrate's Court, Wellington, on Tuesday. Jaa. Jonathan Adams, G-enevieTe Adams, and Elizabeth Adams were charged with—" that they did, in or about the months of February, March, and April, 1880, combine, confederate, and agree to get the latter to charge one George William Longhurst, of Wellington aforesaid, with carnally knowing and abusing the said Geoeviere Elizabeth Adams, being then a girl under the age of ten years." Mr E. Shaw and Mr Gully prosecuted; Mr Ollivier defended. The case was that George. Longhurst, who was tried for rape on a girl of tender years, in 1880,, was put on his trial at the instigation of the defendants and others, who, the prosecution alleged, had sworn falsely concerning the subject matter of the trial, and upon such evidence was convicted and sentenced to 14 years penal Servitude with two whippings with the oato'-nine«tails. The evidence on which the prosecution relied was lengthy, because the subject matter "of the case extended over a period from the end of the year 1879 up to within a month ago. The evidence might be sub divided into heads—first the evidence showing, from the admission of the two defendants, the father and the little girl, that Longhurst whs falsely accused, and seoondly the medical and other evidence to show that Lonchurst could not have committed the crime imputed to him. Upon the first head the prosecution purposed to call Mrs Humphrey, the mother of George Longhurst, who would detail the family history of herself and the Adamses, and of her Unfortunate second husband, Humphrey, up to the time of the alleged offence. This witness would show that her husband had left her, and was living

in the house occupied by Adams and tha little girl, that he had left her owing to his drunken conduct, and to her refusal to supply him with money for hi 3 profligate habita. The evidence showed that the little girl had contracted a disease from which Humphrey and long* hurst were also suffering at that time. The evidence would further show that on the day of the alleged offence Humphrey left his wife's house, threatening both herself and her son. The prisoner Adams, who was a son of her half sister, had been brought from Melbourne here on money lent by Mrs Longhurst at Adams' request. She bad previously treated the Adams' with uniform kindness, and assisted them in every way, and they were occupying rent free a house belonging to her and her son I George, which would belong to the latter absolutely on his attaining his majority a month or so afterwards. Her son] in fact, had recently given Adams notice that he would have to leave the cottage, as he would want it on his coming of age. About the same time—that is, in the months of December, 1879, and January, 1880,— Adam!) applied to her son to obtain a loan, which was refused. It was material to notice at this time all these parties were residing in a house in Wellington—the three adults in the house were all embittered, not only at Mrs Longhurst, but at her son, who was going to take possession of his cottage. On Sunday afternoon, the sth February, George Longhurst visited the house in which prisoners resided, afe.d part of the time he was in a small back in the rear of the premises, fa comftnon. with the little girl and with other children.' On the following day some con^g^ition took place between the little girl'and her mother, but no complaint was made till some days after the Sunday afternoon when the offence was alleged to have taken place. Then Mr and Mrs Adams informed, not George, but his mother, that her son had been tampering with the girl, and they offered to square the matter and keep it out of the Court for a consideration. On the Wednesday after the alleged assault, the girl was examined by Dr Collins, who would swear, and who had always been ready to swear, that no such offence as that charged could have been committed on the girl. Knowing that this evidence would be hostile to the prosecution, the prisoners never mentioned a word about it, and tuus an important and material witness was excluded from the hearing of tbn case. He did not implicate blame to the learned gentleman (Mr Izard) who conducted the case for the Crown for not calling this witness, as it never seemed to have come to his knowledge that Dr Collins had examined the child. The result of this examination showed that the girl was suffering from a complaint common to both Humphrey and Longhurst. which, however, must have - been caught some time previously. Tbe Adams family agsin went to Mr Willjam Longhurst, and threatened to give information to the police if he still refilled to buy them off. They fulfilled their threat, and at an examination by Drs-Driver and Gillon on the Saturday following, the. child was shown to be suffering from injuries of such a nature that the jury could not but find Longhurst guilty of the offence charged. The theory of,.the preN sent prosecution was that these injuries had been inflicted not by Longhurst on Sunday, the evidence of Dr Collins completely disproving this, but had been manufactured: by Adams and his wife between- Wednesday and the following Saturday for,the purpose of deceiving the medical examiners on the last named day. That was the wretched theory to which the prosecution were driven. It seemed too horrible an idea ever to have crossed a father's or a mother's mind, but unless Dr Collins was perjuring himself, they could come to no other conclusion. —Annie Morrinson, a little girl, was 'called, and said she lived in the Tinakore Eoad with her father, a contractor. She . met Jenny Adams(the little girl alleged to have been assaulted, and now charged as one of the conspirators) after George Longhurst had been convicted, when Jenny said it was not George Longhurst but George Humphrey who had "done it,' 1 but that she had been told to say it was Longhurst. She was quite sure about this, and remembered it distinctly.— Cross-examined: She could not recollect what month it was when this conversation took place, nor whether it was. summer or winter, dry or wet.—George Laurin, fishmonger, was examined, and deposed to having heard Adams make a statement to the effect that he would allow hia little girl to make a statement, which would clear Longhurst for £400. Adams afterwards told witness that he had re-consi-dered the matter, and that all he had told witness on the twenty-fifth of May, the date on which the conversation, is alleged to have taken place, was false, and that if his little girl made any other statement than what she had already made in evidence, it would be lies. Witness thereupon rejoined that if the little girlwould have to perjure herself to dear Longhurst, Adams had better have nothing to do with it.—The two defendants, James Jonathan Adams, and Genevieve Elizabeth Adams, were then formally committed to take their trial. The charge against Mrs Elizabeth Adama will not be proceeded with.