NO BILL RETURNED

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 112, 5 February 1935, Page 11

NO BILL RETURNED

Charge of Demanding Money By Menaces

QUESTION OF EVIDENCE

A no bill was returned by the grand jury in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday at the suggestion of Mr. Justice Smith, in the case of Hubert Reginald Heath, who had been committed by justices of the peace in the Magistrate’s Court, Lower Hutt, for trial on a charge of demanding money from a woman in England by menaces. Counsel for Heath, Mr. R. Hardie Boys, objected in the lower court that certain evidence tendered by the police was inadmissible. Referring to the case in his charge to the grand jury, his Honour mentioned that an illicit relationship had existed between accused and the woman to whom he had written letters for money. The woman, who had two children by Heath after they had left Hanmer for England, later wanted to leave him and to marry another, and she desired hjs return to New Zealand. “An essential element of this case is whether there was an intention on accused’s part to steal the money," said his Honour. “Unless tho woman herself is produced to. deny that she herself promised to send the money to New Zealand, he is not demanding money with the intention of stealing it. I noticed in the papers a statement made to Scotland Yard by the woman, but that is not evidence. It seems futile to have the expense of a trial when accused has at least the colour of right, and where there is a colour of right there is no theft. I suggest that unless you get the evidence of the woman, it is futile. I suggest that this is a case in which you might properly find no bill.” The grand jury accordingly returned with a finding of no bill, and Heath was discharged.

Mr. Boys said he wished to draw his Honour’s attention to the fact that the very grounds that his Honour had advanced to the grand jury in directing them against a true bill were advanced by himself (counsel) before the justices of the peace who committed Heath for trial. Counsel had objected at the time, but his objection was merely noted and not dealt with by the justices at the time. He wished to protest against the action of the justices. His Honour intimated that he would not hear counsel’s complaint against the justices without their having had notice or being represented.