CRIMINAL SESSIONS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 25, 29 July 1924, Page 6

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

A REGRETTABLY LONG CALENDAR

J'DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN INCREASED CRIME"

j*'i "I regret to. say that "on this occa--. ■§ «ion the criminal calendar is rather i| • longer than usual. Ido not know Zl -whether anything can be inferred from ?* that. Ido not think that it hecessart> ily means an increase in' crime.', It is '2':. probably only a coincidence that such ij a number of persons,are here this ttime ■?i for trial:" These remarks were made %'. by*Mr. Justice Reed:to the Grand Jury flj when...going -over:-the cases which were 2m sot down for the consideration o£ the j£ jury before going to trial. His Hon.if our said there were twenty-t^reo cases 3 involving "twenty-one persons,' and none i^'j of the cases presented any great clifn- «>. culty. His Honour then proceeded to 5» . outline the-cases, which, would come be2'ji fore- the jury. ,".Hia Honour remarked '.vi that the Grand Jury might agree with 2>! him that the charge of being a rogue £; and vagabond preferred against William George Hart was trumpery, and 3J; the evidence was very doubtful. _ It ** might be a case that was not worthy to M send to trial. £: „ THE SERIOUS CHARGES. • 5| .".ilis; ;H'9nour;: .remarked, after going rfi through.' the •whole list, that-he now w came to the serious charges, one of anan- *;; slaughter and the other of murder. A j"! man named M'Devitt was charged with -,jj manslaughter in connection with the ■•;< death of a 'traffic inspector at Kaiwari" ra, on the Hutt road, when traffic was J~ returning, _fro_m; the races.^ ■ Deceased was run-into and killed by* a car driven A. by accuned. The. law "provided that % anyone who had under ins control any vehicle, which, in the'absence of precauij tion or care, would endanger human «s> life, was .criminally responsible for i;ot ZX having exercised precaution or care. The 2i. ' question* would haye.to.be considered toJj gether with all - the circumstances taken «> into consideration, including the asser"Si' tions that" traffic' was"very 'congested, tj and that,visibility was ppor. The facts H- were undoubtedly, for decision by a w common jury. ■#■ "I do-not .think it-wise to-go. too ; <§ deeply into the case in connection with ;(v th^ murder charge," ;or to comment on "$ it>". remarked; His Honour. ''Shortly. ■fl Is alleged -that • accused -was living '4, with the ' wife "of 'deceased.' . Trouble £ arose between the men, and a fight occurred. Shortly afterwards, it is al7, leged, accused came along with a knife !•";♦ and stabbed deceased, who died from *i the injuries received. . Well, tho matter '£ 33 precisely one for a common jury to '£. decide."- . ■ ■ J 5 ' T3R.UE BILLS.- - ■'-' • - i* -^ TJI? GraniJ Jury found true tiUs in .* the,charges made as follow:— ~" , P? J .rl, ane ,Rms Walker, alleged sale of ™ cnattels already_subiect tp_bill of sale £ Eric Jones,,alleged breaking, entering/ * and ..theft.;,. S~ .':, . '..',' ,","', ' S Seorge .Arthjir Jenness^lalleged' theft -- and defeating justice. ' 5X -Frank M'Devitt,-. alleged-manslaughter - „ Juha Ruddleston..and E..R; Pinny al--2 leged procuring abortion.- - ~>' ■ ■• -j Joseph. William.Moore, alleged theft .^t and receiving.. . _■_ ._. , J£ Joseph Barnes, alleged murder. •~ Roy Leslie Jorgen Neilsen, alleged carnal knowledge. : . -—■^ame^eain-and-John-Bnrrbw-sraUeSed-tlieffc from, the person. - Edward Jack Gromer, alleged forgery I ,-r Frederick Courtenay, alleged theft | ;!'• ?rom person, and theft and receiving. ' y Ralfo Antonovich,- alleged'thefl^and i" receiving.

; . PtEA pi; gtjiltt:."' •"■■'•' % Pavlane fioss Walker pleaded gu3ty to » the sale of- chattels already under bill * of sale;tb the Crown,.the offence taking i p¥ce;;af Auckla'nd:on..29th:;March'last.: a Mr. W. E. 'Leicester said the plea was * entered to.-save-the country.-the expense ■•■= of a prolonged trial. Prisoner had act- £ ed in good faith as far as he knew. He ■y was a man crippled.'by the 'war/- having j, left with the Main Body. His eyes :. were extremely bad, one being blind and | the other partially so. A pension was ■j cancelled as .the Department said the \i eyesight was failing before the war. He ,j had takeri up land and invested- his sav■j, ings -of about £250, and his . gratuity.jj The venture was. unsuccessful.. In : 1921 ;.! the slump caught him, and -he was in

IS an accident which put him in hospital .} for four months. .He had merely existed \\ on his section. He had done everything ;'.. he.could to make, a success, and had fi- :| nally received £75 which was the cause ; of,, the., charge. ' Several- times ho had t compiunieated- with the Advances" Del partment, but. .eventually, he. received. •» transfer papers indirectly,. and executed % r them, but the Department then refvtsed * to sanction the' transfer, declining to give ,- reasons: "Finally ho'sold-the property ■; and a crop, and left, leaving implements ;■ and. improvements, valued at. consider.i ably-more than £100, which he thought j' would satisfy the Crown.. The Crown s then forced him into bankruptcy. Out--1 sido its debt'lie only owed about £12. ■i The Crown debt, was altogether stated .'-, at over £400. Tho man's record and his :; struggle to make good were due for more •J reward than his' appearance in a crimi- • nal dock. , .....

* Several witness from Marlon gavo .j evidence as to the high character and i- honesty of the prisoner. . ."' ' ■'■; Mr.!.'P. .'.S. 'X: Macassey said prisoner f was.on a''vessel en route to England ;■ when"arrested. .Ho had £80 in his pos- * session. Tho crop was -subject to lic-n, " and was sold. Prisoner paid, other debts "t from the proceeds. • C _ His' Honour decided to grant proba- ■; iion on certainterrns. The charge was a j serious one, and the action was simply -.; stealing. The offence, was uncommon. ;• Tho £80 would go to the Crown, and 5 prisoner would have to pay the cost* of .;; the prosecution. The terms of prcba- £ tion were held over. t This afternoon his Honour decided ■ that the period of probation 'Would be f two years, prisoner io pay back the '', £75, the amount of thp -ion, and £-30 >as tho costs of the prosecution, the i latter amount to be paid within three '. months. alleged theft and obsteuc- ■;.■■■•■ ■ tion, • \ George Arthur Jenness pleaded not > guilty to the theft of a.diamond pendant valued at £65, on 26th May or 26th June, and to a charge that he did on 26th June' wilfully attempt to obstruct or defeat the-course -of justice. Prisoner .' was represented by" Mr. Hadfield, and '. 'Mr. Macassey prosecuted. Mr. M. J. [■ Hodgins was foreman of the jury. ■ ■ The evidence in this case stamped it v as somewhat unusual.; Accused, who is : a jeweller, bought' a diamond pendant, ; valued at £65, from a young woman j. named Mary Green,' riot' knowing 'hat \ the' w"dm&n had stolen' the pendant'from \ her mistress. Tho real owner of the j, pendant died afterwards, ■ and the penC tlant wa3 left to someone. Inquiries were '. ma'diS 'as'to; the; whereabouts of the pen- '; danfcj and-Mary Green-admitted having ' taken-the-pendant .and sold it, .receiving • &7' &Hd" a "gold" .gristU^ -jgaichi: - Mary

Green then wrote to accused, who was seen on 26th June-by the detectives, and it ..was, alleged denied all'knowledge of the pendant. Mr. Macassey stated in his address to the jury that on the following I day accused came to the police station and handed over the pendant. When he became cognisant of the fact that - the pendant had been dishonestly obtained he became guilty of theft, as he denied knowledge of it, and illegally retained it. In addition, he tried to put the police off the scent, as the result of which the'obatruction charge was laid. In ■ the evidence. for the prosecution a letter was put in. This was written ■by.-Mary Green to accused, and stated that she had got into serious trouble over the pendant, and asked accused if he could return it. The letter was marked, strictly confidential, and -the writer asked that it should be destroyed. No mention was made of the fact that the ring had been stolen. • . (Proceeding.) ;