SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 109, 10 May 1910, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. The criminai sessions of the Suprcna Court were opened to-day before hie Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert; Stout). The following comprise the Grand Jury : — Gerald Fitzgerald (foreman), William Edward Murrell, Harold Guy Didsbury, Gerald Thomas Hull, William Henry Rose, John Ernest Staples, William Stanley Wheeler, Charles John Hill, William Fraser, Francis Richard Russell, Albert John Oaniel, William John Bridson, Charles Alexander Lawrence, Walter Blundell, Horatio D. Nelson, Hubert Keeling, Richard Middlo- [ ton Brewer, Charles Austin Briggs, Alfred John Reid, Arthur Kennedy, John Hutchison, Walter, Smallbone, and James Charles Hodgson. HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. m charging trie Grand Jury, big Honour said he, regretted that the charge-sheet was rather a long one, nineteen persons being charged with various offences. The first charge ha would refer to was one of murder. This was a case against a man who had been acting as a bailiff. There was no doubt whatever that the accused killed the other man. Undoubtedly he inflicted the wound which proved fatal in a few minutes. To begin with, the man had no right to carry firearms in the course j>f his duties as a bailiff. Carrying weapons was no offence in New Zealand except in the case of young persons under a certain age, but it was not in accordance with custom, and was quite unnecessary in any community where there wat a state of law and order. However, it was clearly shown that the accused had fired the 6hot which killed the man. He m<ght hay* two defences. First, he might plead provocation. If he could show that hft was provoked, that might, be sufficient to reduce the charge against him from murder to one of manslaughter. The plea of self-defence — the second defence — might be sufficient to acquit the accused. These two pleas, however, wor« defences, and had nothing to do with the Grand Jury. If the jury was satisfied accused shot the man, ho would nave to be sent for trial. There were three cases which might be termed sexual cases, and one against a woman for attempting to procuring abortion, in which there was coi'roborative evidence. A change of assault and robbery was preferred against two men, who, after being arrested, were found to £>c in possession of the property allege.d to have been stolen. Then there was a case against two men who were charged with attempting to rob a man in' the back yard of an hotel. His Honour made a lengthy reference to the facts in the Wanganui arson case. The fire which had take» place was a very serious one. One of the accused said that he was in the middle of the shop lighting his pipe, when an explosion occurred. This statement, however, was discounted because the explosion was a very serious one, so much so in fact that it blew out the windows of the shop as well as those on the opposite side of the street. The accused was not blown out, and it "was afterwards found that the back door of the shop was locked, so he could not have got out that way. The shop contained before the fire a quantity of valuable watches. These and the books were subsequently found secreted in the house where the accused -Tesided. The other accused had taken away a large part of the stock to Nelson. Both accused were charged with swearing falsely when giving evidence before the correct. There was a case against an inindicate that the' case was one for enquiry. His Honour next referred to the case .of a man named Tier, who waa charged with breaking and entering, in which finger-print evidence would be given. The finger impressions exactly coincided with those of the accused. There had been no case yet, so far as he knew, in which finger-print evidence had not been proved to be absolutely, correct. There was a oas eagainst an insurance agent, charging him with forging the name of a girl to an insurance policy. His Honour also referred to the charge of theft of pianos, the fact* in which case were Teoently fully reported when the proceedings in the lower court took place. Then there was a case which was rather common in cities like London or New York, but not so in New Zealand. A so-called confidence trick had been played, with the result that 1 one person got the money, and the other party to the alleged trick the experience, which his- Honour hoped would be of benefit to him in the future. The last case on the list wat that of failure to keep proper books. None of the charges seemed to involve any legal difficulty. PRISONER SENTENCED. A Maori youth named Matthew Puhipi, alias Matthews, alias Busby, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on five separate cases' of false pretences and forgery at Neleon. Prisoner had p^viously served terms in gaol amounting to four years and six months on charges of false pretences and forgery. A SERIOUS CHARGE. Robert Anderson, a man of about 46 years of age, who described himself as a "paper agent and bottle buyer" was charged with committing a serious offence on a girl under the age of 16 years. The court was cleared during the hearing of the case. After fifteen minutes the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was remanded till Wednesday for sen-, tence. (Left Sitting.)