AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10244, 22 May 1911, Page 5

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

QUESTION OF CORROBORATION.

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Last Nisi*. ,

At the Supreme Court yesterday, Edward Reynolds and Anmie Petersen were charged with using an instrument for an unlawful purpose on a girl of 17 years, between the 14th and 25th March. Reynolds was also charged wfotih unlawfully supplying an insforumemt, knowing it to have been intended for unlawful purposes. Mr A. L. Herdman appeared for Petersen, and Mr T. M. Wiltford for Reynolds.

Both counsel applied to have tihe cases tried iseparately, as otherwise their defence would be prejudiced. Mr T. Neave (Crown Prosecutor) opposed the application, ajid Has Honour the Chief Justice retired lor a few minutes to consult Mr Justice Chapman on the point. When Hie Honour returned to the Bench, he announced that he would" not grant the application, but if desired he would reserve the point for the Count of Appeal should it .be necessary. Both counsel availed themselves of this pearmission. Has Honour directed) the Court to be cleaned, and ordered that particular® of (the ease be not published. During the (hearing, a point arose concerning the necessity for corroboration of cthe girl'is story. Mr Herdman said the case, as stated iby the Crown, did not dis> close any evidence which corroboiiated the isibor'y of the principal witness, whb iwlas lan accomplice. There was no corroboration as .to the actual peipefoation of the deed. Counsel proceeded to ,quote authorities on this point. Mr Wilford contended, by quoting Russell and Grimes, page 2286, that it had long .been adopted as a general rule of practice that the testimony of an aocomphce ought to receive confirmation, and that unless it he corroborated in isome material part by nninipeachabie evidence, the presiding Judge ought 'to advise the jury to lacqrat the prisoner. To adjudge the defendant guilty in a paternity case was impossible under our law -without 'corroborative evidence. This -case, he maintained, could not be dealt with except by acquittal. Mr Neave. combated the point ' raised. ! His Honoiir upheld the contention, and directed the jury that it was their duty to bring in a verdict of not guilty. He had to put aside his personal feelings in this matter. He assumed the girl's story to be true, but notwithstanding that, our law was .such that in this class, of crime where the girl herself was a participant, and did the thing voluntarily, there <must be some corroboration of her .story, and he did not think it would- he isafe for the jury to bring in any other verdict than that of not ■guilty. The girl might have a civil remedy: Her parents might he able to isue for seduction, and .might call Mrs Petersen, who would he .bound to give evidence. If he was wrong, the Court of Appeal could order a new trial. His Honour was very sorry, considering the circumstances, but .as a Judge he must carry out ] the taw.

The jury acted in accordance* with the direction of .the Chief Justice, andi found it verdict- of' not guilty. Mr Weave will move for a new trial.