SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 27, 2 February 1932, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS OPEN.

HIS HONOR'S REVIEW.

EVIDENCE WEAK IN SOME CASES.

The first session this year in Auckland of the Supreme Court opened this morning. There are 27 cases set down for trial, including several charges o>. indecent assault, one of manslaughter, ono of arson, and one of negligent driving causing death. The others are made up of charges of breaking and entering, forgery, theft, unlawfully using an instrument, and breach of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr. Justice Herdman sentenced let prisoners, each of whom had pleaded guilty in the lower Court. The following grand jury was empannelled: Messrs. J. A. C. Allum (foreman), S. Whitehead, H. S. H. Whitcombe, G. M. White, A. D. Sims, F. W. Petterd, F. Penty, H. Paykel, S. S. Oxenham, G. Nicks, C. K. Mills, A. Lane, J. Eopwood, M. G. Harvey, J. C. Gillett, W. Ball, and W. P. Aitken. His Honor's Charge. "There is little of special moment which you have to consider," said his Honor in delivering his charge. "'The list is a lengthy one—more so than usual. Substantially the bulk of the charges are not of serious crime." The Auckland Supreme Court district was large, and it was usual to have from 27 to 30 cases. He proceeded to outline the cases. In reference to certain cases in which ho said the evidence appeared to be weak, he said that where the testimony of little girls had not been corroborated there was always an element of doubt, and he cautioned the grand jury to consider very carefully before sending the persons charged to trial. In referring to a charge of attempted arson, his Honor said the evidence showed that a caretaker at a sawmill set alight to a bundle of shavings and immediately put them out again, his alleged object being to show his employers that he needed assistance in looking after the mill. "There is not much evidence to show that he committed an offence,'' said his Honor. "You may, after considering the evidence, come to the conclusion that the man was foolish, and that there was no criminal intent at all. To me the evidence appears to be very weak." BANKRUPTCY ACT. DARGAVILLE MAN CHARGED. John Edwards, of Dargaville, was charged before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury with a breach of the Bankruptcy Act. He pleaded not guilty. In outlining the case for the prosecution, counsel submitted that there weie three questions to be answered: (1) Was ho an undischarged bankrupt, T (2) Did he obtain credit for £20? (.'!) Did he inform the person from whom he obtained the credit that he was an undischarged bankrupt? Counsel poinled out that it was absolutely against the law for a person to obtain credit for over £20 if he was an undischarged bankrupt. In cross-examination, Edwards admitted that he did not inform the people concerned that he was an undischarged bankrupt. Counsel for the prosecution submitted that the three questions he had mentioned in his opening remarks had been answered in the affirmative. It was important to the commercial community that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act should be strictly observed. His Honor said the. statute was quite plain! It was admitted by the accused that ho was an undischarged bankrupt, there was evidence that the amount.of credit was over £20, and there was evidence that accused had not informed persons that he was undischarged. The jury retired at 1 p.m. to consider their verdict.