SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 272, 15 November 1909, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. (Before Mr. Justice Edwards.) A WEAK MTNID. Norman Edward Keals, who had pleaded guilty to theft from a dwelling and breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime, came up for sentence. Mr. J. R. Reed said there -were grounds for holding that the prisoner was of weak intellect. His Honor said the prisoner was moTe fit for an asylum than a gaol. He must be locked up for the benefit of eociety, but was not a criminal in the ordinary sense of the term. He would be sentenced to one year's imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. His Honor ordered that the prisoner be kept separate from other prisoners, and that he be medically examined. A GIRL'S THEFT. Nora Harriett Minnie BoTyer had pleaded guilty to the theft of a postal packet. Mr. J. R. Reed said the prisoner was under seventeen years of age, and practically only a child. His Honor: I am not going to send her to prison. Mr. Reed. Addressing the prisoner, his Honor said she had been guilty of more than one offence, and it was only consideration for her years and her sex which induced him to give her another chance. If she came up again she would be sent to gaol. The sentence of the Court was that prisoner be admitted to probation far two years. BREAKING AND ENTERING. William Scott nnd Ernest Hutchinson appeared for sentence for breaking, entering and theft. His Honor said both prisoners had previous convictions, but Hutehinscn's record waa the worse of the two, and he had been the ringleader in the present instance. Scott would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and Hutchinson to threo years with hard labour. AN UNLAWFUL OFFENCE. I>ast session, Charles Rolton, who was defended by Mr. J. R. Keed. was convicted of an offence upon a girl under the nxe of 10 years, but Mr. Reed objected to certain evidence, nnd his Honor reserved the point for the Court of Appeal. That Court hold that the evidence w.«.s admissible, and this morning Rolton CGino up for sentence. Mr. Reed said the evidence as to character was that prisoner was a young man who led a good, sober and industrious life. The constable had made a voluntary statement to that effect. He would not argue that the girl consented, as that was no defence to the charge. His Honor: She was a. child. Mr. Reed: The child presented the appearance of a greater age. His Honor: Young men do not as a rule consider a girl of that age "fair game." The prisoner is sentenced to Imprisonment with hard labour for the period of eighteen calendar months. REMANDED. Harold Ross Anderson, who appeared for sentence on three charges of false pretences, was Temnnded ior one week to give an opportunity of seeing the report of the probation officer. Wm. Cheesley, who has pleaded guilty to two charges of theft from a vessel, was remanded for sentence until tomorrow morning. CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Before Mr. Justice Cooper.) The criminal cessions opened at 11 o'clock, when the following Grand Jury was empanelled:—Meesrs. G. J. Garland (foreman), Edward B. Alexander, T. B. Arthur, S. J. Best, W. D. B. C. Brown, T. B. Clay, D. W. Duthie, J. H. Gunson, E. C. Firth, D. B. (JilfUlan, tf. Hunt, Josiah Lawry, Harry Maxfleld, John Roberts, W» Stericker, A. Tooman, T. F. Upllll, C. R. Williamson, A. C. Woolcott, and J. B. West. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, remarked that there were 38 -charges, practically 30 to be investigated, Involving a number of serious offences. Amongst the charges was .the somewhat unusual one of demanding money with menace. With regard to many of the lesser charges, the Grand Jury would have little difficulty in arriving at thq decision that there were prima facie cases to be submitted to the common jury. In the matter of assaults and robbery witii violence, there -wad in most the evidence of recognition by the per..ons assaulted. Turning to the more serious offences, his Honor expressed ver3' great regret at the number of oifancee a-gainst young children, and remarked that in the Wellington district, where the practice had been adopted of imposing evvere penalties for such crimes, there had 'been a marked diminution in the number of charges oi that cJiios, and ior the laet two years there lia-d 'been one or two sessions pass witJiout any such charges. He was aware tliat his Honor who usually presided in Auckland, like himself, was in the habit of dealing eeveTeJy with that particular class of offence. It was to be regretted bhat there were in all communities diseolute men, whose moral senses were so perverted that they indecently assaulted children. In all these cases the Grand Jury would have t-hese children before thorn. In regard to the charges of perjury, his Honor reminded the Grand Jury ■that the intent to mislead the Court wn« the essence of the offence. In respect to the charge of cattle stealing from a syndicate, his Honor pointed out that the person charged was a member of the syndicate, .but under certain circumstances it 'was possible for theft fo> be committed by a partner. There were two charges against girls for infanticide, and it was necessary, to sustain auch a charge, that the jury must be satisfied the child had lived. In one case that depended entirely upon the doctor's evidence. They must also consider whether it was the intention of the girl to kill the child if it had lived. In the event of not finding a true bill on the graver charge, there was still the other of concealment of ibirth to be considered. The other charge against a. girl was quite in a different position, as the child was .born alive. With regard to the charge of murder at Dargaville, hie Honor pointed out that the onus of proving insanity as a defence rested upon accused. The other charge of murder was against an old Maori named Hohepa, in connection, with the 'burning of a child in the North about a year ago. Two others had already 'been convicted of manslaughter in connection with that affair, but the present prisoner had been in the Mental Hospital, and had now recovered sufficiently that he was being brought up for trial. -The essence of this question, as to the man's responsibility at the time the offence was committed, was one fox the common jury.

A JUROR FIXED. A. W. Donald, summoned to serve on the Grand Jury, was fined £5 for nonattendance, subject to his being able to afford a satisfactory explanation of hl3 absence. TRUE BILLS. Up to the time of going to press true bills had been brought in against William Duncan and Mark Graven Richards, assault causing actual bodily harm; Mark Craven Richards, assault with intent to commit an unnatural offence; Richard John Yeoman, indecent assault (nine charges) ; Edward Myers, theft from the person, receiving, and false pretences; Hirini Peta, carnal knowledge and abduction; Wharo Wairoa, assault causing actual bodily harm. ALLEGED ASSAULT. William Duncan and Mark Craven Richards were indicted for that they did, on October 10t, at Navesville, Thames each and severally assault one Vincent Duimovich, and his wife, Ellen Duimovich, doing them actual bodily harm. The prisoners pleaded "not guilty." The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., prosecuted for the Crown. Mr. Prendergast appeared for the prisoners. Mr. Tole said that the circumstances were that on the night of tho 16th October, at Neavesville, the two prisoners, whilst partially under the influence of liquor, caled at a wkare occupied by Duimovich and his wife, who were elderly people, the husband being an eld age pensioner, nearly eighty year 3of age. The prisoners demanded food, and when the old man said he had none to givo them they assaulted him and subsequently assaulted his wife, doing both of them bodily haTm. The old man's shoulder was dislocated, and some days afterwards he had to go into hospital for over three weeks, and his wife for one week. Evidence in support of the chaTge tras given by Vincent Dinnovich. In cross-examination he admitted, that he had a bad memory. There was a third man with the two prisoners at the door. This man struck him in the eye, and cleared away. The two accused went into the hou"se, and one of them gave him half a pint of beer. It was not true that he and his wife and the two -men had several drinks together. It tras not true that one of the men went out for more beer. One of the men put witness to bed and gave him more ix-er. His sight was defective. Mr. Tole: You were not drunk that night? Witness: No; I wish I -was. I only had two half-pints. Ellen Dunivich, wife of the la?t witness, also gave evidence. (Proceeding.) CHRISTOHURCH CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. The Supreme Court Criminal sittings ■were opened this morning. Mr. Justice Denniston, charging the grand jury, said the calendar was not long, and, with the exception of two cases, was not very serious. Even including the eight cases sent up for sentence, he thought the calendar was creditable to the law-abid-ing propensities of the district. There was only one serious case, and it not of a very difficult character. It was against Arthur J. W. Roberts, that he murdered Alice Ethel Newman. The case was of such a nature ac to give the grand jury little trouble, the evidence establishing the facts that Roberts fired shots. WELLINGTON. (By Telegraph.— Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court opened to-day. The small number of cases set down for hearing was commented upon by his Honor. On a charge of forgery, Thomas Aubne, alias Storey, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.