SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26186, 9 August 1950, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

ADDRESS TO GRAND JURY

TRUE BILLS RETURNED IN ALL CASES

“The list on this occasion is rather longer than usual, but none of the cases presents any serious difficulty,” said Mr Justice Northcroft in his address to the grand jury at the opening of the Supreme Court sessions yesterday. There wefe two cases of acts against property, one person being charged with receiving stolen property and one charge of forgery; two persons were indicted on three charges of acts of indecency against young girls; and four charges involving the improper use of motor-vehicles —one of failing to stop after an accident and three of negligent driving causing injury, resulting in death. In addition there were two charges of manslaughter. So the grand jury would see that the li£t was rather more serious than was usual in Christchurch, said his Honour.

The first case for their consideration was one against Ronald Thomas Richard Lisle, who was charged on three counts of receiving stolen property. The first was on May 4 and involved a carpet square and rugs, valued at £6O or £7O. There had been a burglary by a man, Harpur, who had pleaded guilty and been sentenced for it. According to Harpur, he delivered the goods to Lisle at the warehouse from which they were stolen. Lisle taking thqm away in his car. Lisle said he bought the goods from Harpur. The next incident was on a Saturday night when Lisle was stated to have picked up Harpur. While the latter was hanging about waiting for Lisle, who was shopping, he kicked open the door of an electric goods shop and, when Lisle came along, Harpur suggested to him that he (Harpur) could get goods from the shop. Lisle apparently was willing and the goods were taken. They were later found by the police at Lisle’s place. The next case was more serious. On the following morning, a Sunday, Harpur took suiting materials, valued at £l2OO, from a warehouse. He had Lisle’s car by arrangement, loaded the goods in it and picked up Lisle a house where some goods were said to be stored, others being stored in a shack owned by Lisle. The police relied on Harpur’s statement, but there was some corroboration in the, finding of the goods by the police. A Mrs Okeroa Priscilla Beech was charged with forgery and uttering. A man named Blackmore, who worked for the Public Works Department, had boarded with Mrs Beech. A cheque was sent to him at her house when he was no longer there. She opened* the envelope, took the cheque, for £5 odd, endorsed it with his name, and cashed it. She said he told her the money was coming and said she ~ was to have it as it was owing to But to sign another person’s name in that way was forgery. The next case was’that of a man named James Alexander Stephen, who was accused of indecent assault on a girl and unlawful carnal knowledge. If what the girls said was true, then indecent assault took place, but the difficulty was that there was no corroboration of what they said. If the cases went to the common jury it would be his Honour’s duty to warn them that it was unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of young children. The case against Arthur Hawkins was of almost a similar kind, but here again there was no corroboration of the girl’s statement. Group of Cases The first of the group of cases involving motor-vehicles was that against Mervyn Lewis Keats, who was charged with failing to stop. He had hired a motorcar for the day and at the intersection of Colombo and Armagh streets he knocked over a girl and went over her, driving on without stopping. A young man, Wallace Keith Henry, had apparently spent a day going from hotel to hotel drinking. In the evening he had been driving a friend’s car. A man’s body had been picked up later on the Main South road. Apparently he haa been hit by a car. When he was questioned by the police Henry gave an obviously untrue explanation for the damage to the car. The Crown said that the man was killed through the negligence of the accused. Also that he failed 'to stop and give assistance after the accident.

Robert Geoffrey Tapper, a young man, not experienced with cars, was charged with negligent driving causing injury. Near Kaiapoi he was driving his employer’s car and the Crown case was that he was coming out of a side road on to the main road too fast for the turn, took a wide sweep "and got beyond the bitumen, killing an old Maori who was on the gravel, apparently not having seen him at all. The Crown alleged that he was negligent in approaching the intersection too fast and in failing to keep a proper look-out. Clifford Stanley Green, a young man, was driving a heavy truck, loaded with shingle, along Waimairi road at between 30 and 30 miles an hour. At the intersection with Newnham terrace he had a collision with a girl on a bicycle. It was stated that he was on his wrong side of the road when the collision occurred. The Crown alleged that he was negligent, and he was charged with negligent driving. Charges of Manslaughter Next came two cases of manslaughter, said, his Hbnour. Both were short as to the facts and should not present much difficulty. The charge against Thomas Bennett arose from an incident on a ship at Lyttelton, members of the crew of which had been drinking in Christchurch and later in Lyttelton, where six dozen bottles of beer were picked up and the men, with some young women, went to the ship. The man killed was not of the party, but he knew the other men and was on the ship ahead of them. Apparently he had been drinking in the same hotel as the others earlier and said something offensive, the subject apparently being raised again on the ship. This resulted in a fight between the man, Morgan, and Bennett, as a result of which Morgan died. On the face of it Morgan met his death from blows by Bennett, and that constituted a case of manslaughter against Bennett. Any plea by Bennett that Morgan had forced the figljt on him could be considered by the common jury. ,

There was a charge of manslaughter also against Owen Patrick Foley. Foley and his wife were quite young. They had been married about five years and had three children. There apparently had been a quarrel between them and the atmosphere was an unhappy one on the morning Mrs Foley met her death. There had been ‘an altercation and some blows were struck by Foley. In anger Mrs Foley got up and tore a shirt Foley had bought the day before. Foley struck his wife two or three blows with his fist on the head and she went down. Foley thought she was shamming and did not take it seriously at first. Some minutes later, when she was still on the floor, he found she was unconscious and sent for a docWhen the doctor arrived she was dead, the blows apparently having caused a hemorrhage within her head. The grand jury should have no difficulty in returning a true bill. * The grand jury returned true bills in all cases.