SUPREME COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21637, 5 February 1934, Page 11

SUPREME COURT

LIGHT CRIMINAL CALENDAR CHARGES AGAINST FOUR PERSONS Four cases for trial figured on. the calendar for. the quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, commenced this morning before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy. GRAND JURY, The following grand jury was empanelled :—Thomas Somerville (foreman), David S. Buchanan, Ralph Malcolm, Charles E. West, Thomas Harland, David M. • Fastier, John L. Hobbs, George W. Bowron, Henry H. Henderson, David R. Hastie, Ernest E. Arnold, Cecil C. Cox, John Jacobs, Vernon Smith, James T. Martin, James R. Steven, Archibald Campbell, George S. Hislop, Richard P. Bell, Arthur K. Fisher, Robert E. Davidson,_ Douglas M. Spedding, and Cyril Lattimer. HIS HONOUR’S CHARGE. “ I am pleased to be able to inform you that on this occasion your labours will be light,” said His Honour in addressing the grand jury. “The criminal calendar confirms that observation. There has been comparatively little serious crime in this district since the last criminal sittings of the court. I do not recollect since I have been presiding in this city_ any sitting at which there has been evidence of less crime.” His Honour pointed out that the charges laid involved four persons, the crimes • alleged being carnal knowledge, theft, forgery, and the using of obscene language in a public place. The evidence in the last-mentioned case was no more serious than such cases usually were. The case might well have been dealt with by a magistrate, said His Honour, had not the accused person availed himself of his right of trial by jury. The evidence to oe laid before the grand jury in the other cases would be easily followed. His Honour went on to outline the nature of the evidence, and in conclusion pointed out to the grand jury that it was not their function to try the cases but to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the accused persons being placed upon trial. True bills were returned in all cases.

UNUSUAL CHARGE OF FORGERY. James Charles M‘Arthur pleaded not guilty to a charge that, on or about November 11, 1933, at Balchitha, he forged the endorsement of S. Miles on a cheque on the National Bank of New Zealand with the intention that the endorsement should be acted upon as if it were genuine. Mr C. J. L. White (instructed by Messrs Stewart and Kelly, Balclutba) appeared for the accused. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said the case was a simple one, hut it possessed some unusual features. A man named Miles was employed in a garage at Balclutha by Mr O’Fee and received from his employer a cheque for £3 as wages. Miles put the cheque in the pocket of a coat, which was left hanging in the garage on a Saturday night. When Miles returned on the Sunday night he found the cheque missing. He informed his employer of the theft, and on the Monday morning payment of the cheque was stopped. The cheque was stolen by a boy, who took it to the shop of the accused, purchased a 2oz tin of tobacco, and received the change. The accused endorsed the cheque in the name of S. Miles without having any authority to do so. When the cheque was presented at the bank it was not paid, and the accused found himself in possession of a cheque which was the property of Mr Miles, and was also the loser of the tobacco and of the money given to the boy as change. The accused then went to the police, who subsequently arrested the boy, who was dealt with for theft. The police then realised that the accused was guilty of an offence in forging the name. A statement was made by the accused, in the course of which he admitted endorsing the cheque, which the boy stated Miles had given him. The Crown Prosecutor went on to say that, while the offence of forgery was extremely serious, it was realised that in the circumstances of this particular case there was not nearly the same degree of gravity as one usually associates with the crime of forgery. It was a matter of importance to safeguard the commercial community from forgery in the endorsement of cheques. A cheque was made payable to order of an individual as a protection against theft of the cheque. Evidence was given by Wm. R. O’Fee, who said he paid Miles a cheque for £3, which was afterwards stolen. Payment of the cheque was stopped at the bank. Iff answer to Mr White, witness said he had always found M‘Arthur an honest and reliable man. A boy fourteen years of age said he stole the cheque from the garage and bought tobacco from M‘Arthur, from whom he received change. Air M'Arthur had no idea he had stolen the chenne. He said the tobacco was for Mr Allies.

Evidence was also given by Donald C. M’Lean, bank clerk. Constable Boyle, and Stanley A. J. Miles, motor mechanic. Mr White intimated that no evidence would be called for the defence. Mr Adams said he did not propose to address the jury. Mr White, in addressing the jury, said the person usually charged with forgery had defrauded someone, but in this case the accused himself wasthe one who was actually defrauded. There was no intention on the part or M’Arthur to defraud anyone. The conduct of the accused throughout was consistent with innocence. No criminal intention had been shown. Accused went to the police himself, and as a result the boy was arrested for theft. Before convicting the accused the jury must be satisfied that he had some criminal intent in taking authority, when he had none whatever, to endorse _ the cheque. Counsel claimed that the jury should consider what was the state of mind of the accused at the time. _ it was contended that M’Arthur had implied authority to endorse the cheque. Counsel pointed out that the charge would never have been laid had not the accused himself gone to the police, and his doing so was hardly the action ot a man who had guilty intent. The bov had said he was buying the tobacco for Mr Miles, and accused actually said he would endorse the cheque himself, believing he had the implied authority of Miles to do so. The accused took the cheque to the police, and made no secret of what he had done. They were dealing with a man who had built up a reputation for honesty, and who. counsel contended, honestly considered he had implied authority to endorse the cheque. , .. His Honour having summed up, the jury retired at 12.28. The jury returned after the luncheon adjournment at 2.20 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. M’Arthur was discharged.