SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23945, 12 May 1943, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

SESSIONS OPENED IN CHRISTCHURCH The Supreme Court sessions opened in Christchurch yesterday. Mr Justice Northcroft presided. In his charge to the grand Jury, his Honour said that although the list of cases to be heard was not a big one, there were several—and one in particular that might occupy the attention of the Court for some time. There were three alleged offences of a sexual nature, one of alleged violence causing actual bodily harm, and two allegedly Involving dishonesty. True bills were returned as follows: Albert Owen Humphriess, alleged carnal knowledge: Charles Saint Merat, alleged breaking, entering, and theft; John William Frederick Wright, alleged assault causing actual bodily harm; Edward Scott, alleged indecent assault on a male: Leo Fdwa'-d Morland. alleged theft; and Gordon Phillip Quinn, alleged carnal knowledge. Remanded for Sentence Albert Owen Humphriess, a labourer, aged 33 years, who was represented by Mr J. K. Moloney, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 16 years. He was remanded for sentence, bail being allowed in a sum of £IOO and one surety of £IOO. A Labourer Found Guilty A plea of not guilty was entered by Charles Saint Merat, a labourer (who was represented by Dr. A. L. Haslam), to a charge of breaking and entering the warehouse ot New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., and committing theft. Mr A. T. Donnelly, for the Crown, said that at 11.20 p.m. on April 17 the night watchman at Manning’s brand) of New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., had heard two men come into the warehouse. One left shortly afterwards. He then telephoned the police, and Sergeant C. George and a constable arrived. Accused was found in the storeroom witli a bottle of beer in each hand and four bottles in his pockets. Thcmas Gcmmell Hunter, night watenman, said that on the night of April 17 he was on duty at the warehouse. The place was in darkness, and about 11.20 p.m, he heard a door burst open. There were two men present. One went out of the building and the other into the bottle store. Ho beard one man say, "Come >n, Bill. We'd better get out of here." He had telephoned the police and accused had been arrested when in possession cf six bottles of beer. He had, no authority to be on the premises. Sergeant George said that when accused was arrested he gave as a reason for being on the premises that he wanted a drink. He said he was alone and he had pushed the door open. He showed signs of having had liquor. Dr. Haslam said accused was admittedly on the premises and had beer in his possession, but it was submitted that he was in such an advanced -state of intoxication that his recollections of what had happened were very sketchy. He had consumed so much liquor during the day that ho simply did not know what he wa- doing. Dr. Haslam suggested that the gates of the brewery had not been locked, and accused in a drunken stupor had just walked in. After retiring for 15 minutes the jurv returned a verdict of guilty. Accused was remanded for sentence, bail being allowed in one sum of £IOO and one surety of £IOO. , Plea of Not Guilty John William Frederick Wright (Mr F,. S. Bowie) pleaded not guilty to a charge of assault and causing actual bodily harm to William Lester McDonald, and not guilty to an alternative charge of assaulting William Lester McDonald. Mr Donnelly, for the Crown, said the charge arose out of a brawl at or near the Bovver Hotel on February 13, after a whippet race mooting had been held. There seemed to have been some feeling between the two men. They met, had an argument, and a fight: and after the first fight had been finished another started later in the day. The fight was apparently going against the accused, who hit McDonald with a stone and also inflicted wounds with a pocket knife. It was found later that McDonald had received an injury to his head and also two wounds apparently made by a knife. The position was that In a not very dignified brawl, the fight was going against Wright, who then resorted to the use of stone and knife. Mr Bowie said that if Wright felt that he was in danger of -cceivlng bodily injury he had every right to defend himself. McDonald in his statement had not been frank and his evidence was not on all fours with evidence he had given in the Magistrate’s Court. As to who struck the first blow was a question, but there seemed no reason why Wright should have started the fight. He did not have the grievance—McDonald was the one aggrieved. On the charge of assault with intent to commit bodily harm, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, but a verdict of guilty on the charge of assault. Mr Bowie asked his Honour to reserve drei-inn for the opinion of the Court of Appeal as to whether evidence to be tendered by one, Frank George Douglas Flint, was improperly rejected.