A CRIMINAL BLOT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 29, 4 February 1907, Page 7

A CRIMINAL BLOT.

"DEPLORABLE STATE OF IM- '""' MORALITY." SEVERE JUDICIAL COMMENTS. Some instructive comments on tho records of crime for the Wellington district which make unpkasant reading were made by Mr. Justice Cooper, in charging the grand jury at tho criminal sittings of the Supreme Court this morning. Thore was, said his Honour, a very heavy list of cases for investigation ; ho regretted to say that the number of persons charged, and the character o€ many of the offences was exceptional There were twenty-five charges against thirty persons, and involved in thoso charges were practically all the moro serious olfences known in the criminal law. There were oflences against tho person charged against seventeen different persons, there being in some cases several charges against the satno person. Of those offences against tho person sexual offences Were in considerable number. There were chargeu against two Chinamen of having orimU nal intercourse with girls within tho prohibited age, and there were threo charges of indecent assault against other prisoners, and one charge of rape,, one charge of murder, a charge of manslaughter against two persons, two charges of assault and robbery, a charga of shooting with intent to do bodilyt harm, four charges of breaking anal entering and theft, and three cases ot theft. Under tho heading of general charges there were two against three* persons of using rooms for betting pur> goses. Dealing with the sexual offences first, his Honour remarked that it was a blot upon our civilisation that there neve* is a sitting of the Criminal Court with' out one or more of these charges being; included in the list, and in the majority of cases the offences were against , young girls. In the two cases in which the Chinamen were charged, the factu which would be laid before them, would, he had no doubt, disclose a deplorable state of immorality — immorality not only on the part of the two persons alleged to have committed tho offences, but on the part of the two> girls on whom the offences were committed. The jury was aware that th<u law put girls under the age of sixteen under the aegis of its protection, to protect them against themselves, and although a girl might freely and volur> tarily consent — >nay, might, as it mighfo probably be shown in this case — offer herself — the man was liable to be proceeded against for a criminal offence iil that girl was under tho age of sixteen* and he had ho reasonable ground foil believing that she was over that aga. His Honour then reviewed the circum* stances of the case before the court.. The jury had to enquire, first, whether the act was committed, and, secondly, whether in each case the girl was undott the age of sixteen years, and if prima facie evidence was laid before them to establish those two facts, it was their duty to return a true bill. , There was also a charge against a lad, who appeaTcd to be about sixteen 01; seventeen years of age, of committing 1 assault upon a young girl. His Honou;" briefly referred to the details of this chargo. It was not necaseary, he said, continuing' his remarks, to place the girl on oath. The law now permitted a girt' of tender years, or any person under tho age of twelve, years, if not sufficiently educated, to giro evidence upon "promise," and not upon oath. In such a casn the form would be — "I promise to apea& the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." In the case of a charge of Tape against a man named Burke, tho evidence disclosed an extreme amount of injury done, which, of course, must b* established to s>ome extent. It was sufficient for him to say that if the circunv* stances which weie disclosed in the depositions were proved, the jury would; have no difficulty 4n establishing a truer bill. There were, continued bis HonouT',l charge, t-no charges of indecent assaulb against a man named Condon, in whicb the circumstances' were very extraordinary. If the evidence in the first cas.v (assault <>n a girl ovbt sixteen) was eimilar to that produced before the Magistrate, they would have no difficulty iv finding a. true bill. Thero. was a second charge of indecently assaulting anothes 1 girl, the 6ieler of the first grrl, aud tho circumstances, which would, no doubt,, be proved, were of a very extraordinary nature. His Honour reviewed those cir. cumstances. There was another case oi 1 indecent assault against an elderly man named Ridd. The peculiar feature of thtt case was that the gill hereelf, before th« Magistrate, stated that no indecency of any kind was commited upon heT, although the charge against the man waft) first made in consequence of a complaints made by the girl. After dealing with some unmentionablft cases against a lad of sixteen, His Hon-> our referred to the case of Meihana Ropoana. charged with murder at Masterton, That, he said, was a case in which tha old man who was killed was oi! drunken habits, and on 21st December last, at Mas tort on, was under the influence of liquor. The Maori now charged' went up a right-of-way, and some altercation apparently took place between deceased and the Maori. It did not appear whether the Maori struck or pushed thti man but at any rate the man fell upon the hard footpath and fractured the base of his skull He was taken to the hospital, and died within a. few hours. If tho evidence satisfied tho jury that thfi Maori did intend to cause the death of tho nersou killed, then, of course they would find a bill for murder. If the evidence satisfied them that he caused him some bodily harm, and was reckless .vhether death ensued or not, and in fact, death did ensue, the iury would bo equally justified in finding a true bill for murder. But if the case, was this— thaft tho Maori, who 6eemed to have been perfectly sober, was interfered with by the man, and pushed or even struck him, without any intention cither of killing him or doing him actual bodily harm,, and in consequence of that blow or push the man sustained his death, the requisites which wore necessary to justify them in finding a true bill for murder did not exist. It was necessary to establish malice to sustain an indictment fox murder. In such a case it would bo their duty to bring in a bill for manslaughter. In his Honour's opinion, tin* depositions did not disclose a case of murder. They did in his opinion disclose a case of manslaughter. Thore was a charge against Sydney George Ingrain, that he did aid and abet, a man who had already been convicted, upon his own confession, in certain frauds, upon tho Wellington Benevolent Trustees. This man, Purvis, had tho right to obtain various goods from certain contractors on behalf of tho trustees, and the modus operandi of his fraud appearod to be that he obtained from Te Aro House certain invoices for goods which wore never supplied to tho tnißtees. It was suggested that these wore bogus invoices, and that Purvis satisfied tho trustees they wore genuine, and received from them*- three separate cheques for £33 12s, £22 12s, and £81 3s lid. These cheques wore paid into Purvis's private account at the bank. These invoices were said to bo in fngram's handwriting. Apparently tho evldcnco would show that Ingram did not benefit in these transactions, but that by some Dersuasion jm JJho jo&::t £f jie

was led to create these bogus invoices. 'He was a man in a responsible position in Te Aro r House, and it would be shown that apparently it was not his duty to make ont the invoices, though it was his duty to receive the money. Apparently he created these bogus invoices to enable Purvis to receive the moneys he did from the trustees. The point for the grand jury to consider was whether there was ptima facie evidence that this man in his position at Te Aro House allowed himself to be used by Purvis to facilitate commission of. this fraud. There would arise, too, the question whether Ingram, prima facie, must not be held to have known that the acts he committed were for the purpose of enabling Purvis to commit his fraud. Jf the jury considered the case was one that required further investigation it would return a True Bill. There were cases against men for keeping rooms for betting purposes (Arthur Law, and Scott and MartindaQe). All the Grand Jury had to enquire into was, whether accused opened these rooni3 and kepi these rooms tor the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto. [BY THJEQBAPH. — PHBS9 ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, This Day. •Mr. Justice Denniston, in charging the grand jury at the Supreme Court today, said the calendar was an ordinary one, except for a large number of sexual cases — which consisted of nearly one- j third of the total of twenty-two cases.