 |
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
[rape - sexual assault on child - carnal knowledge of child - aiding and abetting - women defendants in crime - law reporting] R. v. Matthews, Holden and Smith Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land Pedder C.J., 27 November 1824 Source: Hobart Town Gazette, 3 December 1824[1]
James Matthews, Lawrence Holden, and Susan Mercy Smith were then arraigned on an indictment, charging the first named prisoner as the perpetrator of, and the other two as aiders and abettors in, a rape on the body of Mary Ann Herbert. The Attorney-General, in opening his case for the prosecution, described it as one of peculiar barbarity. The defenceless form which had been defiled was that of an infant, aged but 10 years and two months, who had been left under the particular protection of the female prisoner; and she, O! degradation to her sex, had not only deserted her trust, but actually pandered to the ravisher. The Learned Gentleman at some length displayed the heinous effects of such base crimes as those imputed to the prisoners, and proceeded to call his witnesses, from whom, however, Mr.Hone, who gratuitously volunteered his inestimable services for the defence, elicited such information as proved of the highest import; and, after the evidence had been summed up, the Jury returned a verdict of Acquittal. We have thus briefly reported the above case, because we scorn to place before the young that which must prove corruptive.
[1] See also R. v. Farrell, 1824. |
|
|||||
|