SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 35, 9 February 1907, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. \ The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday before Mr. Justice Denniston, the Hon. J. A. Tole appearing on behalf of the Crown. THE WHANGAREI CASE. A verdict of "not guilty" was returned by the jury after an hour's consideration of the facts in the case of Ernest Henry "Walker, a young settler of Ruarangi, near Whangarei, who was charged with having attempted to commit rape upon a married woman. The accused was accordingly discharged. CHARGE AGAINST A YOUTH. Arthur AVells, a youth, pleaded "not guilty" to a charge of committing rape upon a girl under 16 years of age, at Kaitaia, on November 28th. Accused was defended by Mr. Singer. The complainant, aged 14, daughter of a settler living near Kaitaia, deposed that she was in the habit of riding from her home to some stores, the farthest distance being ten miles. When returning from one of these journeys she met the accused. When she had gone another half-a-mile the accused suddenly reappeared. After pulling her off the horse, he dragged her into the ti-tree, where he committed the offence. Evidence was also given by the complainant's mother. Dr. Hope, of Kaitaia, and Constable Sefton. The accused's father, who gave evidence, was censured by Honor for not taking steps to see if witnesses could not have been obtained who would have supported his son's statement as to his movements. He did not wish the accused left absolutely helpless owing to the extraordinary carelessness of his natural guardian, and he would, if Mr. Singer desired, Srant an adjournment. Constable Sefton was recalled, and stated that he had ascertained from the boy the names of persons who saw him on the road that day. He interviewed these persons, but found they were only able to speak to a time later than, the time of the' alleged assault. His Honor remarked that the constable seemed to have acted very properly, doing for the boy what his natural guardian should have done. Under the circumstances he did not think an adjournment would help the accused. A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury, and the Court adjourned shortly before 7 o'clock, sentence being .reserved until this morning. PRISONER SENTENCED TO WHIPPING. STRONG REMARKS BY THE JUDGE. When the case was called this morning Mr. Singer asked his Honor to take into I full account the jury's strong recommendation to mercy owing to the prisoner's youth. His Honor called Wells' father and ascertained that the prisoner was 15J years of age. Addressing the prisoner, j his Honor said he had been convicted on the clearest evidence of a most shocking offence, inflicting irreparable injury, physically and morally, upon, a decent and modest child. For such a crime, not so very long since, in a harsher and harder age than ours, boys younger than the accused had been hanged. Had he been older, instead of the age he was proved to be, he would have been sentenced to a very long term of imprisonment. the accused must be treated as a boy, and should not be sent to prison, unless it could not be avoided. He promised to keep him under control for a period at least as long as if he was sentenced to imprisonment. The sentence of the Court would be that the pris-, oner would be committed to Mount Eden Gaol for a- fortnight, and to receive 12 strokes with the rod. At the expiration of the imprisonment, Wells would" be committed to an industrial school, where he would remain, practically under detention, until he wa_ 21 years of age. " For many reasons I would have preferred to send you to gaol," added his Honor, " but at your age I must treat you as a boy. I have hesitated long whether to send you to gaol, but I do not think it a judicious precedent even for an offence of such atrocity by one who, in the eyes of the law, is a child." The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock on Monday morning. REMAINING BUSINESS. The following charges remain on the calendar, and the probability is that th_ criminal sittings will continue for the whole of next week. John McNamara, attempted criminal assault, Waiuku; Claude Marmont, indecent assault, Auckland; Robert Telford Wilson, rape, Thames; William Holland, robbery, Auckland; Arthur Richard Varley Goodwill, rape, Auckland; Taite te Heu Heu, Niketa Pongo and Hira te Akau, perjury Taumaranui.

The civil sittings commence on February 18th.

In the Supreme Court Criminal calendar, as published in our issue of Jan. 31, a charge (subsequently thrown out by the Grand Jury) appeared against Samuel dames Edwards, which by a clerical error was confused with a different offence charged against an accused of another name at Coromandel. Mr. Samuel Edwards, residing at Coromandel, has drawn attention to the error, and pointed out that no person bearing the name of Edwards was accused of any offence at Coromandel. Mr. Samuel Edwards is well known in mining circles, and it is improbable that anyone would associate his name with that of Samuel James Edwards appearing the criminal calendar; at the same time we regret very much if the mistake has caused him any annoyance.