SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 47, 25 February 1901, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

(Before His Honor the Chief Justice.)

The rrimina 1 sittings of the Supreme Court commenced at 10 o'clock this morning, his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) presiding. grand jury. The following Grand Jury were empannellcd:—Ed. Buchanan, Isaac Burchell, James 11. M. Carpenter, Adolphus Davis, Richard V,'. Duder, Walter J. Dufaur, Henry X. Garland, James A. Gorrie, John \V. Hall, James \V. Henton, James M. Mennie, Alexander N. MacLeod, Percy Spencer, Edwin C. Towle, and Harold Wilson Smith. Three of the above came late, under the impression that the Court commenced at 11 a.m., while another who had been summoned, Richard W. Duder, was fined £5 and costs for luon-attendance. The line was remitted on Mr Duder appearing shortly before 11 o'clock and explaining that he had mistaken the hour of. starting. Mr E. C. Towle was appointed foreman of the Grand Jury. JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury apologised for the adjournment of the Court till to-day, necessitated by his ill-health. Since the adjournment (His Honor continued) a great, event had happened, and one to which he thought she should allude. Her Gracious Majesty Queen \ ietoria, whose, long and glorious reign would ever be remembered, had passed away last month, and had been succeeded by her son, King Edward VII. It was not, necessary that he should speak of Her late Majesty. She had been well called by citizens of every degree, "The Good Queen, and her memory would ever be cherished for her goodness and illustrious example. It had been well said of Her Majesty— "Her court was pure, her life serene, A thousand claims to reverence closed „ Tn her as mother, wife and Queen. "With such an example as his mother set, and under so auspicious a commencement, we anight look forward to a long and glorious reign for Ldward "VJL Ms tact (and commonsense had already been made manifest to his subjects. His Honor then proceeded to deal with the cases to come before the Grand Jury. He regretted that he could not congratulate them upon a light calendar. Thirty-four persons had been committed for trial, and two persons had been dealt with under a recent statute which made it unnecessary for them to come before the Grand Jury. That*was a large number of cases. At only two sessions during the past five years had there been a larger number. But it was not, only the large number of persons accused of crime; the gravity of the offences must also be considered. There were no less than three charges of murder, and there were four cases of sexual offences—two of rape and two of indecent assault. There were numerous cases of theft, several of forgery and of breaking and entering, of assault, and attempts to rob. He did not think it necessary to point out the duties of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was a-n institution that, amongst the many changes ihat had been made in what were termed by many the most progressive and democratic States of the world—the United States- of America—had been maintained and preserved in all its pristine vigour. In that country it had been found that it had tended to. the maintenance of equal liberty, and to the pure administration of justice. To leave to any Government administrative, officer, however just, the grave responsibility of reviewing magistrates' decisions and deciding whether or not, an accused person should be put on his trial, had there hot been deemed in the interests of justice. He had alluded to the large number of prisoners for trial—larger relatively to population than in some districts of the colony. Most of them were cases that, if the evidence given before the jury was similar to that given before the magistrate, would call for little consideration by them. They were cases that they would no doubt at once see should be answered by~a common jurjr. In one case the accused wished ■fo! plead guilty, and acknowledged his j offence, which was one of breaking j and entering, and stealing two saws i from a shop; but as the case was] heard by a Justice of the Peace and j not by an R.M., the provisions of the j new Act did not apply. He might now allude to the more serious charges. One person was ac- ] cused of murdering his own son. j There seemed no doubt he killed his; child. The only defence suggested was as to his state of mind at, the time the act was committed. That was by our law a question entirely for the petty jury, not for the Grand Jury. If it was shown that he killed his child, then it was their duty '■ to find a true bill, leaving it to the other jury to consider whether he knew he was doing wrong at the time. In another case of a-lleged murder the accused was one of the native race. He and his wife appeared to have been at a store, and been indulging in liquor. In fact he might patise there to say that at least half of the cases before them were directly or indirectly connected with intemperance. In some cases the accused had been under the influence of liquor, and in other eases persons had been robbed while under the influence. In such cases they were aware that intoxication was not an excuse for, crime. If they came to the conclusion that the native referred to had done what the Maori boy said Ira saw him do —strike his wife's head against the stones on the beach—it would be their duty to find a true bill. In the third ease of alleged murder the accused was an unmarried woman, who was charged with killing her illegitimate child. The facts of the ease were simple. The question was whether she was aware that the child was alive at the time of birth. If the jury thought she ought to have known the child was alive, it was for them to say whether her treatment of the child afterwards was not sufficient to put her on her trial. Another indictment might be preferred in this case, viz., whether she was not guilty of concealing the child. The charges of sexual offences were always painful, in fact distressing, and when the attacks had been made on young girls they were peculiarly so. Jn one case the charge was against the father of two girls. He did not

think it necessary in the interests of public morality to deal with what one might term the disgusting details of the case, further than to say that it was for the Grand Jury to consider whether Hie girls' story was to be bclteved. Either way it was a very painful case. Then there was another charge of a man committing r3pe on a woman after giving her chloroform. There was no doubt chloroform had been used, and if they believed the evidence it was certainly sufficient to put the accused on his trial. In another case a man was charged with having raped a child under ten, and given her a loathsome disease. Such eases as these were a blot on our civilisation. His Honor in conclusion briefly reviewed a number of the minor eases on the calendar. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills in the following cases:—John .lames Dover, breaking and entering, Auckland- "Donald .McLean, forgery and uttering. Waihi; Pio Moses, forgery and uttering1, and escaping from lawful custody. Dargaville; George Harris. attempted theft, Auckland; James Thomas, theft from the person, Thames; Ke'hu Roha, breaking and entering, and theft, Te Awamutu; William Baker, theft and receiving stolen j property, Kwikau Materoa Farakai, theft from a dwelling; Alfred Evans and Charles West, theft from the person; Joseph Meynell, indecent assault; Ualph Ormston, assault, causing actual bodily harm; James Thomas, forgery and 'uttering; Karnka Kerepa, theft and receiving stolen goods. _____ FORO E lIY. "*""""""" ~ A man named Donald McLean pleaded guilty to forging and uttering at Waihi a document purporting to be a request for the payment ot money, also to obtaining £2 in money from' Andrew Young .Ross by false pretences. Mr. O'Meagher, who appeared for the accused, asked for lenient treatment, stating that, accused had unfortunately given way to drink while in a weak state, and had committed the offence charged without realising how serious it was. Several witnesses deposed to knowing accused as an industrious, steady man. Constable Whelan stated that accused had been working on a contract for the last four months, during which time he had borne a good character. His Honor said accused could not come under the First Offenders Act, having already been fined 7/ for theft and 5/ for threatening language. Drink had apparently been the cause of his fall, but he would be given a chance to make amends, in view of the good character he had borne, in the past. A conviction would be recorded, and he would be ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within twelve months. If he kept away from the drink and looked after himself he would hear no more of the charge against him. Pio Moses, a Maori lad, pleaded guilty to forging and uttering a cheque at Kaihu, and obtaining £37 18/ in cheques and 10/ in money from William Adams by false pretences. To a further charge of escaping from custody at Dargaville prisoner also pleaded guilty. Mr. George Brown acted as interpreter. His Honor said the probation officer's report was unfavourable, but in view of prisoner's youth and the fact that he had pleaded guilty, a light sentence would be inflicted, in the hope that prisoner might take it as a warning. He would be sentenced to nine months' hard labour. BREAKING AND ENTERING. Kehu Roha, a Maori boy, pleaded guilty to two charges of breaking and entering the shop of Robert Green, at Otorohanga, and stealing 8/ in money on the first occasion, and some cigarettes and 1/6 in money on the second. The probation officer's report being favourable. His Honor admitted the boy to twelve months' probation. A man named John James Dover pleaded guilty to breaking into the shop of James Lovett, Albert-street, and stealing therefrom several carpenters' tools. Prisoner urged that he had been awaiting trial for three months. His Honor pointed out that there were six previous convictions for theft. Tfe would take into consideration the plea of guilty, but breaking into a shop was a serious thing. Prisoner would be sentenced to 18 months' hard labour. | A RACKCOUnSB INCIDENT, i A man named James Thomas plead•ed not guilty to having, at Parawai i racecourse, on December 20th last, i stolen a purse and key from John j Powdrell. The Crown Prosecutor i (Hon. J. A. Tole.) appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J. R. Reed for the defence. The evidence showed | that Powdrell, who was a bushman, i was jostled while at the races by some men, among* whom was the acI cused. A young man named Deeble deposed to seeing accused put his hand in Powdrell's pocket and take out what looked like a purse. Detective MeMahon said he saw accused .bust- | ling round in the crowd, with his j hands going in the direction of peoI pie's pockets.. From/ a complaint ' made by Powdrell he arrested the ncj cused. ' There wns no sign of the purse. Mr. Reed addressed the jury, after which His Honor summed up ! briefly, and adversely to the prisoner. | After about three minutes' retirei merit the jury brought in a verdict lof guilty. Prisoner admitted two previous convictions for larceny and vagrancy in Victoria. Mr. Tole said accused was a well-known pickpocket 'from Australia, who had been travelling from the Bluff to Auckland, visit- : ing all the racecourses. His Honor : imposed a sentence of two years' hard i labour.