SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24567, 16 May 1945, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

TUESDAY (Before his Honour .Mr Justice Northcroft.) Woman Found Nat Gouty Madelane Constant Back was charged that on December 22, 1944, with Intent to do grievous bodily harm to Joseph Henry Oack, she did' do actual bodily harm, and further, that she did assault Oack and cause actual bodily ham. Mr A. W. Brown appeared for the Crown and accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr A. C. Brassdngton, with him Mr K. A. Gough. In summing up, his Honour said he could see no evidence that there Was intent to do grievous bodUy injury. Whatever did occur was not premeditated. The jury, he thought, coulcT quite safely .ignore the first count. The second count was phrased differently. The question was, did the woman accused assault her husband? There might have been an assault and any person assaulted was entitled to repel force by force. There was not a clear picture of what actually happened, and it seemed that only half the truth had been told. There was an evident desire on the part of the husband to protect his wife and accept the blame. This was not a matter between husband and wife, but one where public interest was concerned. . The man came home drunk, was reproached, became sick, and was ministered to by his wife. More beer was drunk. Then late at night the accused arrived at the Police Station, well dressed, with fur coat, a good sum of money, and the key of the house in which she had locked her husband. The question was whether accused did more than was necessary in selfrdefence; It might be that Mrs Dack was so terrified that she would not be able to decide what force should be used. It was quite evident the husband in his evidence was protecting the Wife and all the truth had not been told. V A' verdict of not ' guilty oh each count was returned. False Pretences and Forgery Faithful Charles Melkle (Mr.J. A. Johnstone) was charged on two counts, the first that on February 12,1945, with intent to defraud, he received a cheque for £BO from Herbert Nimmo Samuels, by falsely representing that a mptor-car was’ his own property and that he had a right to sell iC He was also charged that he made a false document for a change of ownership by signing the name 6. W. Papps, knowing. it to be false, and with the intention that it should be acted upon as though genuine, thereby committing forgery. , > „ ■ In opening the case for the Crown, Mr Brown Said Melkle faced charges of false pretences and forgery. A man named Papps owned a motor-car and desired- to sell it Accused had negotiated the sale for £9O, £BS In cash and a post-dated cheque for £65. It was arranged mat there should be no change of ownership i until the cheque had, been met. On erk rangement Papps/parted with the car. to. accused; He then telegraphed Papps to hold the cheque and he Issued, a new one. Both cheques were dishonoured. After various letters and telegrams had been exchanged, Melkle sold the car to a man named Samuels for £BO. a .<*eque 0181 was cashed by accused. Meikle had .represented that he was the owner. The case for the CrOwn woUld Show , accused knew the statements to be false. On the charge of forgery it would be shown that he had forged the name of Papps to a certificate of registration. Papps had not signed the papers authorising the transfer, and the representations were false to the knowledge of the accused. His Honour said the facta were without. ! dispute. In the false pretences charge • Samuels, was sure that it was MeUdas I car. Melkle had sold a; car whlrti he had not paid for, he had admitted to the police that he had represented himself ’ as owner of the car. he said' £25 In cash • had been paid, and he produced the butt r of a cheque book which showed am entry , of £6s—a post-dated cheque that had ; not been honoured. If he had signed : Papps’s name without Pangs s authority t It was forgery. He, had stated i that he owed nothing on it and that he 1 h *A verdict *ol*guilty was returned on each count, and. Melkle was remanded for sentence.