“SOMEWHAT FORMIDABLE”

Evening Star, Issue 22638, 3 May 1937, Page 11

“SOMEWHAT FORMIDABLE”

CASES ON CRIMINAL CALENDAR EIGHT PERSONS FOR TRIAL SUPREME COURT SESSION OPENED The “ somewhat formidable ” list of cases for trial at the ,criminal session of the Supreme Court was commented on by Mr Justice Kennedy in his charge to the grand jury this morning. “ I am sorry to tel! you that the list of charges disclosed by the criminal calendar is a long one for this district, said His Honour. The charges included manslaughter, negligently driving a motor vehicle thereby causing death, being in charge of a motor vehicle in a state of intoxication and by an act or omission causing bodily harm, indecent assault on a girl under the age of 16 years, attempted indecent assault on a male, abortion and disposing of the dead body of a child with intent to conceal the delivery, and theft. Having regard to the nature of the charges, that was a somewhat formidable list for this city. The charge ■ of manslaughter arose out of an occurrence when a Ham. left the rails, struck a pedestrian, and killed him. Manslaughter was the killing of a human being by the omission, without lawful excuse, to perform some legal duty. Everyone who had under his control anything which in . the absence of precaution or care might endanger or kill life was under a real obligation to take reasonable precaution and reasonable care to prevent such danger. A motorman being in charge of a tram was under a legal duty to exercise that reasonable care which the ordinary careful driver of a tram would exercise. If from the want of such care a person was killed, then the crime of manslaughter was committed, unless there were circumstances which appeared as a sufficient excuse. The evidence ■ might shpw that the tramcar, usually operated and controlled, gathered speed and left the rails, causing death. It was alleged in another case that a car driven by the accused came into collision with a lorry which was practically stationary at Milton. It would be alleged that the driver. of the car was in a state of intoxication, a state arising from the consumption of alcohol when the judgment and powers were so affected that the ordinary power to drive safely was appreciably lessened. There was an alternative charge of negligent driving. ■ Then there was a charge of negligently driving a motor car, thereby causing death. That charge arose out of an occurrence in one of the streets of Dunedin, when an old lady was killed. Speed and the question of lookout might be involved. A group of charges was preferred against a woman. Two were of using an instrument unlawfully with intent to procure miscarriage. The remaining charge concerned the body of a child of which a woman was said to have been unlawfully delivered, and was of disposing of the dead body of the child with intent to conceal the fact of its delivery. The evidence was not nilusual, except that it might show that the child was an eight months’ old child, which, in the ordinary course of events, might bo expected to go on living. It might appear from the evidence that the body was not forthcoming and that it was disposed of in such a manner that the delivery was concealed. In that case an offence was constituted. The evidence would be that a woman was confined in another woman’s house and was in her charge, and that the body had not yet .been found. He apprehended that after hearing the evidence the grand) jury would readily conclude that on each charge a true bill should be found. He did not need to outline the evidence on the charge of indecent exposure and the alternative charge, nor on the charge of indecent assault on a young girl. With their experience the grand jury should have no difficulty with those charges. There was a charge against an •elderly man of attempted indecent assault on a male, with some lesser charges.. Although there might be requisite intent, the grand jury had to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that the offence was attempted. Some acts amounted to no more than preparation to commit an offence, in which case there still remained an opportunity a f withdrawing or desisting without coming within the province of criminal law. The grand jury would carefully scrutinise th? evidence and

seo whether there was sufficient evidence that the offence was attempted. THE GRAND JURY. The grand jury was:—Messrs A. H. Allen (foreman), G. A. M'Gregor, C. K. (Houston, M. W. Johnson, W. E. BEarnshaw, P. Rouse, R. S. Glendining, C. P. Latimer, C. F. Roberts, W. C, Craik, G. B. Ogilvie, G. Chance, D, Lister, D. R. Anderson, J. P. Gregory, J. A. Haggitt, J. E. Wheeler, L. J. Ballard, D. F. Barry, T. J. Howe. A. M'Huteheon, J. Geerin, C. J. Racklcy. At the time the court adjourned, the grand jury, which had been out for over two hours, had returned true bills in only two of the eight cases on the calendar. INDECENT EXPOSURE ALLEGED. Milton Jaines Hall 'pleaded not guilty to charges of on February 6, at Balclutha, committing an indecent act with intent to insult and offend certain females, and indecent exposure. He was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson, instructed by Mr J. T. Walker (Balclutha).' Outlining the charges, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said the whole occurrence took place within view of the Balclutha traffic bridge. The Crown invited a conviction on only one charge. A statement in which accused admitted exposure under a sudden impulse was read. In it accused said he would plead guilty, and save the girls the ordeal of attending the court. The hearing of evidence was proceeding when , the court adjourned till the afternoon. .