OPENED AT SUPREME COURT

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 106, 6 May 1924, Page 8

OPENED AT SUPREME COURT

THEFT AND RECEIVING

The Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court opened, in Wellington this morning before Mr. Justice Chapman. There was a list of. 13 cases set down for trial. GRAND JURY. Grand jurymen were as follow:— . 'Frank Dyer (foreman), F. Gill, D. R: Kennedy, E. H. Fountain, D Wilson, G. A. l'hear, H. S. Lean J. M'lntosh, A. H. Clerke, H. Mason, A. B. Goble, E. It. Nicholson, F. W. Moore, E. R. Dymock, AY.. jj'. Alexander, W. Brown, E. F. Hayden, tfnd G. P. Taylor. THE CHARGE. , 'In his charge to the Grand Jury hia Honour remarked thathe was pleased to say' the jury's duty on this occasion should not prove very difficult. The number of criminal charges was not large, and, most. of the cases were of a 1 fairly simple character. ■ None of the' crimes were what might be described as of the worst character. There were, it was true, several sexual charges, but they were.not in themselves of the worst type. It was impossible to avoid noticing that house-breaking and stealing from houses was becoming a very com' mon class of offence in recent years. There were-several cases of the kind on the. present calendar, but there was nothing, exceptional about them. .'The Grand-Jury was a constitutional screen between the executive- authorities and the persons, who might be charged with crimes, and the constitutional function of the Grand Jury was to see that a man was not put on his trial unless there was a prima facie case. There was one group of cases on the calendar that was of some importance. Some young men were charged with stealing motortires. The jury would hear % the cvi: dence affecting these young men, but more important would this evidence be in connection with the charge against a man who was charged with having ■■<«• ceived the goods, knowing them to have been stolen.;..' It had often been said that the receiving of stolen goods was worse than stealing them, and if the case he mentioned was made out it was a typical one of -young men stealing goods.,for which they were criminally, responsible, and another man proceeding to make a profit on them by receiving and disposing' of them. If there were no receivers there would.be fewer thieves. Unfortunately nowadays one could not pick up a newspaper without seeing in it. some case of theft by a servant, falsification of books, or something of the kind, and the calendar contained one case in which a man. was charged with theft as a servant, and forgery,in : connection therewith, ' ''■■:.' " ': ; TRUE■'BILLS.' ■ , The grand juTy returned true bills in the following: cases .:—- '."..' ' ."""'■ Miroi Urupini, alleged breaking, entering; and theft. ; : ■'"■■ .■'.;-■■ Dominic O'Connor, alleged indecent exposure. '.:'.'.•' ' -v- .•■'■'- ' ... • ' Arthur Henry, Arches, alleged carnal knowledge. ■ ■'■■;•■ ■'■.-', -' ; '.. -v Gordon William Johnston, George Ryan, and Charles Hugo Johnson, alleged theft. ■. V :i: ;.' ■./ ■'.: :' , : Frank Arnold Hill,? alleged indecent assault (two charges). ' Harry Alexander 'Murcott, ■ alleged ibreaking, entering, and theft. John Edward Fitzgerald, alleged 'receiving (two charges). . i ■',■• .Two:other cases on the list are Christopher Martis and Francis Osman Burke, alleged theft from • the person (two charges) and James Patterson, alleged receiving. '..'■''-,■ , : - ;'. .:'..■ Angus Alexander Scott, alleged assault causing actual bodily harm. Frederick Joseph Fanning, alleged fraudulently converting trust moneys to his own use. . -'■.' ;■•. ■:' ■■, . 'Reginald' Nelson White, alleged mischief. ;. ,'■" '' , " .'■ ' Reginald Hoggard, alleged theft as a servant (two charges)' and forgery and uttering' (two charges). .", ■ . ■ WINDOW SMASHING. V, :; Reginald Nelson White pleaded■ guilty lo'-conimitting mischief, in that he did wilfully destroy or damage eight plateglass windows of a value of £500, the property of Kirkcaldie and Stains, Ltd. " ; -Mr. A. M.. Cousins, for prisoner, said the case was one of most unusual features.^ 'Prisoner had nothing whatever to gain by the smashing of the windows. He was labouring under considerable /stress at, the time, as He: had- received notice "to quit his house, and could not get another. He had a young family of five, and his wife was in delicate health. On the day of the offence he received three or four drinkr, of whisky . from a friend., .At; the time he was under a prohibition order, and had kept the terms of the order. .He remembered going.into the city, but did not remember doing any damaga, or anything until he came to his seriseVi in the police cells. The ,whis% and woirry^ had apparently proved too much for him. Another child had been born since the offence, and: the ■■wife-, was in hospital, \and likely to-be there, for 60me time.- \ A term .of im/prisoninent would do little good. 'His Honour: "What is to prevent him from smashing some more windows?". .. ■ ■•■ .■ "■ - - - 'In response to a remark by Mr. Cousins, his Honour said -that it was now the practice of counsel virtually to ask the Court to let married 'criminals go, arid reserve punishment for unmarried men. He could not consider the point. He could hot decide what to do with, the prisoner at the moment, and would consider the sentence.' '■- ',':'■■■' \ ..■•■-'. ALLEGED ASSAULT. „■ Angus Alexander Scott, an able seaman belonging, to H.M.S. Chatham, who appeared in uniform, was charged ■ that ha assaulted one Frank Fleetwood so as to cause, actual bodily harm. Mr. P. S X; Macassey prosecuted, and Mr. <W Leicester represented accused, who pleaded not. guilty. ;-".;■ Mr. F. Jurner was foreman of tho jury, ■-••■..■.. The Crojvn's case was that accused was drinking with two companions on' the afternoon of 4th March last,, and at closing time went with his companions to a; boardihg-housse in Percival street Fleetwood and his companions were also in the same boarding-house, ;and were approached for liqnor,. which, they de clined to give. An. altercation occurred, and the sailors were ordered out of the house by the proprietress. They' went out and down some steps, when a fight occurred, as the result of which Fleetwood emerged with outs on the eyebrows. Both eyelids of the left eve were cut through, and the eyeball was ruptured, the fluid having drained away. Fleetwood had to have the eye removed. Scott made a statement to the police in which he stated that Fleetwood came at him with his fists and he stopped him with a beer bottle.' Fleetwood, a labourer, stated that He went to see the sailors from the board-ing-house. They offered him a drink and, he took tho bottle which tho man who handed it to him then withdrew. Witness retained his hold on the bottle and wa3 then struck on the eye with a

bottle in the hands of another sailor. Witness was half drunk at the time. Cross-examined, witness said there had been no trouble prior to the argument about the bottle offered him. He did not attack anyone with his fists. Ho could- not remember seeing Scott at- all after reaching the house, and he did not Icnow who hit him. 'Toil are a Liverpool sailor, are you not?' —"Yes." "And your two mates were Liverpool sailors."—"Yes, I think so." (Proceeding.)