EXTRA EDITION. SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 28, 3 February 1908, Page 8

EXTRA EDITION. SUPREME COURT.

CRIMENAI SITTINGS. TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS. The criminal sittings of the S girerne Court commenced to-day before his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. THE GRAND JURY. The following composed the grand jury:— Edward C. E. Mills, Walter Bruton, John J. Reich, James Kellow, David Jones, James Jamicfon, Sydney Ross Dix, James P. Brandon, Alfred Lindsay, Fredk. C Crnase, Alexander J. Kerr, Ernest G. Pilcher, Thomas R. Archibald, Ernest Beagleholo, John Crabtrcc, Fred. Win. Petherick, Matthew G. Young, Andrew Irvine, William F. Barraud, Chaa T. Price, Arthur S. Chapman, Godfrey T. George, Norman Dalston. Mr. Edward C. E. Mills was chosen foreman. HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. In charging the 'grand jury, his Honour said- ho was happy to be in a position to congratulate them on the fact that the- bills which they would have to consider represented, comparatively speaking, a satisfactory state of affairs in this district. The crimes alleged were neither numerous nor exceptionally serious in their nature. On the contrary, it seemed to him that 'the list of some thirteen cases was comparatively small J7i a large and important district like this, where tho population was constantly increasing, and where in ordinary circumstances one might expect an increase in the volume of crime. The cases that they would have to consider were possibly, with one or two exceptions, of a most ordinary kind — such as those who were accuslumetl to sit on grand juries inevitably had to consider from session to session. His Honour then drew attention to the salient features of the cases. There was, he said, v, case against two men of robbing a man whose body had since been found in the harbour. It was alleged that when this man was alive he was drinking about the town, and had a large amount of money on him. He was a deaf and dumb, man. He was seen in the com pany of the accused men, whose conduct was suspicious. Afterwards the accused wore. found to be in possession of money to a large amount. In addition to that there would be the evidence of some admissions.' or boasting by one or other of the accused. It woiild be for the grand jury to say whether that nrade oiit n sufficient case to be further considered by the ordinary jury. Referring to the charge of murder against Sheridan, his Honour said that, according to Sheridan's own statement, ho and the, deceased were going about the town, "and, to some extent, were drinking together. From his statement, and indeed according to some other evidence, accused was "helping to shield deceased from other people, who, presumably, wanted to rob • him. He took deceased into a yard in the city occupied by a builder, and they sat down together in the presence of the men working on the building. The deceassd tried to get away, and assaulted accused. The latter, presumably, might have gone away" and left the other man; but, according to the evidence, ho 1 struck deceased a blow, w.hich apparently caused the death of the man, for very" 1 shortly afterward the man was found to be dead. The grand jury would have to pay particular attention to this case, because me. Crown would present two iridictments for the same offence. There were several, alternative ways of stating an offence, which might be powder, or iyhjch might be manslaughter. One way adopted by iho prosecution was to make a charge of murder, and leave it to tho grand jury or petty jury to reduce the charge to manslaughter, if the evidence justified that course. But it had apparently been thought desirable by the Crown to present this case in two in 1 dictments. That was obviously a convenient course. They would have to consider whether the case made out was ono of murder or one of .manslaughter. So far as the crime of' murder was concerned .that meant ., tha .wilful murder of £\nothor man, and involved the intent to '.actually causo death. The crime of ijianslaughter was, constituted where there need not be an intention to cause death. But it was sufficient to make out a case of manslaughter to show that the, accused 'had caused the death of deceased by some unlawful act, not necessarily intending to kill him. If this was an ass uilt in the ordinary sensethat was, an unlawful striking of a blow against this drunken, or semi-drunken man, and that blow caused his death, though it was not intended to cause his death, the fact that the death was brought about by an unlawful assault, constituted the crime of manslaughter. Of course, there might be some circumstances justifying or excusing the act of striking. Jf upon L he whole of cie facts, it was' perfectly obvious from the narration of what occurred that the accused was only doing something %yhich he was, practically speaking, obliged to do to ward off a blow, or something of that sort, then the jury migh*. decide that here was no unlawful assault at all But, if they found that under ordinary circumstances an assault was committed, which led to the death of the deceased, then the jury must treat that as a case of manslaughter. If the grand jury found thai the blow was struck with the intention of causing the man's death, then' presumably it was struck with malice, which" was <i necessary ingredient of the crime of minder. TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned in, the following cases:— Frederick Cooper, breaking and entering and v theft (two charges); John Moffett and Charles Mack (alias Osborne), theft from a dwelling ; James, alias John Mills, alias Henderson, and Arthur James Thomas, aLias Year, alias Gatfhwaite, theft from the person ; Patrick Brady, robbory and violence; Phyllis Ferraro, assaujt with intent to do grievous bodily harm. (Left sitting.)