SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 32, 7 February 1910, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before Mr. Justice Cooper.) The first criminal sittings of the Supreme Court , for the district for . 1910 opened this morning. GRAND JURY. The following Grand Jury was empanelled: Messrs. Arthur Charles Daw (foreman), Charles de Nove Arnold, Andrew Murray Bell, Noel Bomford, Lionel Benjamin, Samuel Bradley, George Alfred Buttle, Benjamin Cashniore, George Alexander Coles, John Frederick Colgrove, Robert de Montalk, Francis Lawrence Gribbon, Bobert Neill, Harry Percy Oakden, Gerald Albert O'Hailoran, Burgoync Owen, Alfred Bireham Shalders, Charles Arthur Stubbs, Alfred Ernest Whittome. A CASE WITHDRAWN. In the case against Daniel Baxter for making a false declaration under "The Land Act, 1908," Mr. Moss made an application to withdraw the case. He expained that this was originally a private prosecution by a man named Maher. The information was laid in August, and the man Baxter was committed for trial in November. At that stage the prosecution was hn.nded over to the Crown, but some three weeks ago he had received an intimation from the Crown Solicitor to the effect that this was not a suitable prosecution for the Crown to take up. Such a contingency was totally unexpected. The position now was that the prosecutor, Maher, had no means to carry 'on the case. He wished to ask his Honor if the witnesses might go 'back to Opotiki. His Honor: I understand that the Crown refuses to prefer a bill of indictment. You have the option to do so if you like. Do you not present a bill? Mr. Moss: No, your Honor. His Honor: Wei, you had better wait for the return of the Grand Jury. The Crown Solicitor may at the last moment change his mind. Mr. Haddow, for the defendant, applied for costs. His Honor: I can't grant costs if no bill is preferred. He need not surrender to his recognizances. He lad not been arraigned. You can renew your application later on, however. ADMITTED TO PROBATION. Thomas Cha-plin, vrho had pleaded "guilty" in the lower court to the theft of £24 from his employer, Mr. William Davies, at the Thames, in November, came up for sentence. Mr. Prendergast, who appeared for the prisoner, said hfs was a lad only 18 year 3 of age. He had been in constant employment. After leaving Mr. Davies he went to work for Mr. McCormiok, in Turoa. He had returned the money, and the circumstances of the case pointed to the fact that hi* action was not w> nruch a criminal one as that of a person with a weak intellect. Mr. MoCorraHi;, was prepared to take him back into cufpioymont if his Honor would extend 4o him the benefits of the First Offenders' Probation Act.

His Honor said it -was not ueual to extend the benefit of hhe First Offenders' Probation Act in the ease of bo serious nn ofTnnoo as breaking, entering, nnd the.ft. But this case constituted an exception. Hp would admit the accused to probation for the period of two years upon the usual conditions, subject to his returning into the employ of Mr. McCarthy, Turoa, forthwith, and that ho pay the costs of the prosecution amounting to £2 11/9 forthwith. NO BILL. The Grand Jury threw out the bill againet Thomas James Hardyman, for theft, and the prisoner was discharged. TRUE BILLS. Up to the time of going to press the Grand Jury had returned true bills against Joseph Waddel, carnally knowing a girl under 10, and indecent assault; Henry Sinclaire, alias Cosgrove, theft .from a dwelling'; Thotnae Sparrow, 'breaking, entering and theft. JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honour, in charging the grand jury, said he was glad that the number of charges they would have to consider waa much less than was usually the case. At last session, when he had the honour to preside in Auckland, the number of charges was nearly 40, whereas on the present occasion there were 26 charges against 25 persons. There were several charges of assault against different persons. In one case a man named Oliver would probably be indicted for attempted murder, shooting with intent, and attempting to commit suicide. In all these cases the grand jury would probably have very little difficulty in returning true bills, as its duty was merely to ascertain whether there were prima facie cases to submit to the common jury. In one caee they would have to consider whether there was reasonable ground to believe that the accused intended to discharge the revolver when he pointed it, as the evidence seemed to indicate that the revolver went off in the course of a struggle. The latest was the essential point, but if they found that the pointing of the revolver caused the other to think that it would be discharged, then there was an assault. In Oliver's case, the charge was one of shooting his wife and injuring her, and immediately afterwards attempting to commit suicido. His Honor reminded the grand jury that they had nothing to do with the question of the state of the man's mind. If the defence of insanity was set up, that was a matter for the common jury. He considered that the circumstances that would be placed before them would be quite sufficient to warrant the grand jury in leaving the case to the common Jury to deal with. There were several cases of breaking and entering and theft, rone of which would give them any serious difficulty. He very much regretted to see the number of charges against men for indecent assault—one against a married woman, and a number against children. There were no less than seven charges of that class of offence against six persons. He regretted very much, that the punishments inflicted in the past did not seem to deter that class of offence. There were also three charges of abortion against women, in each of which they would probably find enough to justify them in finding true bills. There were also three charges of perjruy, one against a woman, who was charged with, having made a false declaration at the poet office, and another against a man for wilfully swearing that he had never lived with a certain woman as his wife. The grand jury would find very little difficulty in dealing with those cases. There was a charge of attempting to obtain money by false pretences, the circumstances of which were somewhat singular. The accused was charged with having attempted to sell kauri gum which he said he had ploughed off his own ground, whereas it was alleged not to be New Zealand gum at all. If they found that there was prima facie evidence that representations were made that were untrue, thets the case shotdd go to the common jury.