The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate, Sat 15 Dec 1917 1
PARRAMATTA SESSIONS.
———◦———
Tuesday, December 11.
(Before Judge Hamilton.)
———
Mr TS Crawford, ex-MLA, was Crown Prosecutor; Mr LW Broughton (CPS and Chamber Magistrate) was deputy clerk of the peace; and Mr DD Henderson, JP, was deputy sheriff.
…
A SERIOUS CHARGE.
Edward Hardy, [54], was charged with an [indecent] assault [on, Oswald James Hill McLeod Howell, 8 years of age], of a certain character at Yarranderie [sic–Yerranderie] on 29th October. Mr EK Bowden for the accused, who challenged no jurors.
Mr Bowden commented upon the absence of corroborative evidence of the boy’s testimony.
The accused denied having committed the offence.
The accused said to the Crown Prosecutor that he had led a fairly good life. He, however, had been before the police court at Junee for stealing. Was fined £3, or a month. In 1915 was up at court at Adelong for stealing. Served two months’ imprisonment with hard labor for that.
The Judge said that it seemed to him that it would be dangerous to convict.
Here a juryman asked a question about a plan of the premises which had been put in in evidence; and the boy’s aunt was put back into the box and examined about the portion of different parts of the premises.
The Judge said that he was not sure that he ought not to take the case from the jury; but, at any rate, some points of law would have to be pointed out by him to the jury that would have to be most carefully considered. He invited the jury to confer in the box.
The jury expressed a wish to hear the addresses of the legal men (Mr Bowden and the Crown Prosecutor).
The Judge invited Mr Bowden to be brief, and said that he might point out that he intended to tell the jury that the only facts that they could regard as corroborative of the boy’s tale (not on oath) were that his aunt saw him coming out of No. 12 room and had heard him say before that, “All right! What for?”
His Honor summed up very strongly, showing to the jury the very great risk that was run—so peculiar were the legal restrictions in relation to testimony not given on oath—in convicting upon scant evidence on oath corroborating the child’s tale. It would be dangerous for the jury to speculate too widely as to the question that was put by the accused to the child in the parlour when the little lad replied, “All right! What for?” The legislature had in its wisdom made the law so that it was a most dangerous thing to convict an accused on so little corroborative evidence implicating the accused in the offence with which he was charged.
The jury without leaving the box—and after only a few minutes’ delay—gave a verdict of not guilty.
The accused Hardy was discharged.
1 The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Sat 15 Dec 1917, p. 10.