SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12569, 11 August 1906, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. * The criminal sessions of the Suprem Court -were resumed yesterday befor Mr Justice Chapman. ALLEGED FORGERY. Mr Harvey applied to have the cas against Hamilton, charged with, foi gery, held over until next sessions. IV important witnesses for the defenc ivere in the North Island, 100 mile from Palmcsrston North, and the Tefc graph Department said it would cos £o for a message to each. Mr Harye, added that he had experienced difli ! culty in getting the police to hand ove ' any money for the accused's defence j although the Crown Prosecutor ha< ■ eventually allowed £25. Accused bai j £8(3 on him when arrested, and desire* ! tiiat no expense should bo spaced in hi j defence. I Mr Stringer said there were reasons j which ho did not feel justified in dis closing at present, why the polic \ should not hand over all the money : Any money required for the purpose of defence would be forthcoming. j His Honour ordered the rase to stani down until the November Bcscions. ALLEGED PERJURY. Alexander McKenzio was indicted fo: i that, at CSiristchurch, on May 29th i K'OG, he did commit perjury, in thi ■ evidence which he gave on the- trial o j nn information against him for tres pa.ss on the Ch.ristchurrh racecourse, b; I falsoly swearing that ho had done m I bcokmaking since he became a billiard tmarker, two years before: that lie hac ! never made a bet with anyone on tin ' whole of the day on April 17th ; an< ; that ho had never taken money fron ! anyone on the racecourse- on that dny. ! Mr Donnelly appeared tor accused I who pleaded not jjuilry. ! Evidence was given as i:i the Lowei Court to sihow that defendant w<ll carrying on business on theChristehurol racecourse on April 17th, and acted n: a b-xf.cmaker in September, 1905, ai I Ashburton. j No evidence was called for the. do- ! fence. I In addressing tho jury, Mr Donnellj i submitted that the evidence whollj failed to provo that accused had engaged in booknialung on the occasion : in question. : After deli berating'for R>me time tlx : jury returned a' verdict of "Nol guilty," and prisoner was discharged UXXATUPvAL OFFENCE. Robert Xordberg was indicted on r charge- of committing an unn.iturn 1 of femco, and on a second count of in- ; decent assault. j Mr Harvey appeared for accused i who pleaded "Not guilty." His Honour had the Court cleared, and forbade tihe publication of any par! i of the evidence. Tho jury were absent for an hc-ui and twenty minutee, returning with s verdict of "Guilty" on .the charge oi indecent assault. His Honour said that he quite agreer Av.ith the jury, and it might be some satisfaction to them to hnoAv that certain evidence, which was not legalJj admissible, was absolutely convincing a3 to the guilt of tlhe accused. M.r Harvey a&ked h.is Honour to take into consideration the fact thait drinking has been going on when the offonco van committed, and that though tho accused had been fcurtoe-n years i? the colony, the police had nothing to say against Jus character. His Honour said that the accused had becin found guilty o«* a very disgusting offence. He did niot propose to inflict the extreme penalty, because tho victim of the assault was not severclj' hurt, and was too young to remember in after years what had oo curred. He had very seriously considtired whether he should add a flogging to the term of imprisonment, but had decided not to do so. He must, however, sentence the accused to a very long torm of impriseoiTnent. He would be sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER. Ann Foster and Harriet Foster were indicted for that, having charge of the female infant child of the said Harriet Foster, they omitted; during several months prior to June 18, to supply the said child with the necessaries of lilfe, by which omission they caused the death or the said child, thereby committing tho erimo of manslaughter. Mr Harvey appeared for accused" who pleaded not guilty. Mr H. W. Bfchop, S.M., read the depositions of tho evidence taken at tho inquest on the child. Dr. Irving stated that ho made a post-mortem examination on the body of tluo child on Juno 19th, and found that the immediate pause of doath was shock, owing to obstruction of tliß bowek. Tho _organe were sound, and the child had~suffered from no disease. It was very emaciated, and thero was no food in the stomach. It weighed cix pounds, the normal Aveighfc for a child of eighteen/months being between 25 and 30 pounds. The jiverage weight of a new born child 7 £ lbs. It could not havo received tho proper food or a sufficient quantity of it. Bad it been properly fed, there was no reason why it should not have lived. Blizabeth Miller said she saw the child in September last, and from time to time, and it waa very small and thin. The Fosters never remarked that tho child was ill. Crose-examined: Witness said the elder accused told her that the infant did not seam to take its fowl. Judging from its face, it did not seem to have been starved. Detective Cox stated that he photographed the body of tho child on the

day after the ipqueat, and the photographs. Mr Harvey addrceaed the jury, submitting that in any event there could be. no case against the younger •©• i cused, as her m-athOT had admitted that » she alone had control of the child. The mother of the illegitimate child was only a young girl when her child was born, and her mother waa a poor > woman with a large family. On" the - evidence of Mrs Miller, it was clear > that the child had alwaj-s been a weak- > ling, and had gradually gone from bad. ito worse. There waa nothing to show • that the accused had wilfully neglected : the child, but it was reasonable to «say - that their werst fault was merely • ignorance. Addressing the jury his Honour said that any person who was in charge of another, owing to the inability of the other to remove itself from that

charge, was legally responsible. By \ failure to fulfil the duties entailed by such responsiblity a perapn might become guilty of manslaughter, but mere negligence was not enough to constitute the crime: thero must be wilful, wicked negligence. A jury must bo satisfied in such a case as that before tho Court that the responsible persona did not really care whether tho child died or not. While mothers cherished their legitimate children with all possible, care, it happened sometimes that otic had to go so far as to say that the mother or an illegitimate child was really careless whether her child lived or died. In the case before them the jury must consider tho position of each accused separately. Legally the ; mot lief of a child -was responsible tor < her offspring, but n girl of the age of the younger accused would bo ignorant of how to care far it, and must naturally be dependent on come older i porswi. " The grandmother of the child would not be ignorant, for having i brouaht up chiHrrai of her own, she would know how to look after a child, I But in her case there were the other I circumstances that ehe was very poor, and 'that she had others to k?ok after. ! Uir'ler all those circumstances the jury might corns to tlie conclusion that the death of tho child was mot attributable j to any wilful negligence en tie part of I tho accused. Prom the photographs ! it was clear that the child had pined away, but before convicting the accused ; the jury must be satisfied that there ! had been tho very gross neglect neces- : &ary to tho establishment of a charge !of manslaughter. From any point of j view it was a very difficult case, and it Avas for tho jury to decide whether they must convict the accused or whether they could take the more humane view and say that there was no wicked negligence. The jury were absent for three-quar-ters of an hour, and returned with a verdict of not guilty against the | younger accused. Harriet Foster, and a .verdict of guilty against tho older accused, Ann Fester, adding a strong recommendation to mercy. j His Honour said that the younger accused would be discharged, and ho would remaud the oldeT u-r.til Monday. He was not perfectly satisfied, as to whether lie should reserve a question for the Court of Appeal. The soc* tion of the Criminal Code under which the charge was laid was peculiarly worded, and it was not made clear whetlior the responsibilities laid upon the guardian of a child wero restricted insomuch that the responsibility waa laid only upon those who undertook a charge by fKwvtraot. The matter needed consideration, and he proposed to take until Monday morning to con* 6ider it. He would then be able to say whether ho would reserve a question for the Court of Appeal. Mr Stringer suggested, that the accused should be allowed hear freedom until Monday, -and has Honour agreed to that oourse. The Court then qdjourned until 10.15 a.m. on Monday. , _________________ 1