SUPREME COURT

Evening Star, Issue 25472, 1 May 1945, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSION OPENED A LIGHT LIST The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court opened this morning before Mr Justice Kennedy. The criminal listcomprised only two cases for trial. THE GRAND JURY. . The following; were sworn in as a grand jury:—Leonard James Tobin Ireland (foreman), John Elvidge, Donald McGregor lleid, John Francis Fraser, William Gordon Kindley, Gordon Alexander Russell, Walter Palmer (Birchall, Winston Riehard Brinsley, George Abercrombie, Tliomas Lamb, Arthur Gill, Thomas Fraser, James Reuton, Leonard Wilson Napier, Robert Stevenson Allan, William Anderson, Douglas George Adam, Charles Fielctwick. Phillip' Frances Harre, Archibald William Legg, Arthur James Sim McEwan, John Harold Meek, and Henry Arnold Middleton. HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. In his charge to the grand jury 1 ; His Honour said that the list placed before it for its consideration was a light one, but this was not to be taken as an indication that there had been little crime in the district within the past three months. All knew that homes had been broken into and thefts had taken place, but offenders responsible had pleaded guilty before the lower court and had been dealt with. There were two cases fur trial, said His Honour—one relating to an occurrence at Roxburgh, as a result of which a man was charged on three informations: (!) That, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, lie discharged a shotgun at another man; (2) that he committed assault causing actual bodily harm; and (3) assault by threatening to shoot. His Honour then proceeded to outline the circumstances surrounding the occurrence. Jn regard to the second case, involving the_ theft of a safe from a dwelling house in St. Clair, -with the alternative charge of receiving the safe and its contents, the evidence would he that the owner had left a gold watch, a necklace, and some papers in the safe while he was away on active service. The papers had been found scattered about St. Clair and the safe in a gully. As the result of an admission by the accused, the necklace and watch had been recovered.

The grand jury returned a true bill on the third charge against Maxtniliau Harlewich—that at Roxburgh on March 3 he assaulted James George Williamson by threatening to shoot him, being then in possession of a loaded shotgun and able to shoot therewith. On the other two charges the grand jury returned "no bill." In the case of (Robert Wark Johnston, charged with the theft of a safe and other articles, a true bill was returned. VIOLENT STRUGGLE.

The charge against Maxmilian Harlewich, for whom Mr C. H. Stevens appeared, was then proceeded with.

In addressing the jury, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said that the occurrence giving rise, to the charge against the accused took place at Roxburgh in the early hours of the morning. The accused and the man Williamson were married to .sisters. On the night of March 2 a social had been held in an adjacent hall, where, it was said, a certain amount of drinking bad taken place. At the close of that social there had been an understanding that a further party should be held, and the accused and his wife were invited to attend it. When they did not arrive, however, Williamson and somn other men repaired to accused's home, and found accused preparing to retire. What followed might be described a& disgraceful. . Apparently the accused was not prepared to go to the party, aud some wrestling occurred between him and Williamson. This had been described as being, at the outset, more or less friendly and jocular; later it had not been so jocular, and there was further rough play when the paties moved from the bedroom to the kitchen. Accused then seized a chair and attempted to hit Williamson with it. Williamson took accused by force into the bedroom again, after which the accused went out and procured from a nearby building a doublebarrelled shotgun, loaded in both chambers. Two shots were fired, and it was found that Williamson had leceived a wound near the left eye. Whether this was caused by the shot from the gun or from a piece of mortar from the building could not be said; no X-ray had been taken, said counsel.

It was clear, Mr Adams proceeded, that thero had been a prolonged and somewhat violent struggle between the two men. He did not propose to say for one moment that there was any justification' for Williamson's actions that night. He had invaded another man's- house when that man and his wife wore preparing to retire, and at a time when they were entitled to the peace of their home. He must have realised quite early that he was not welcome, and he had no right whatever to be in the home against the will of the accused. He (counsel) emphasised this because the evidence would show that the accused himself had been very severely handled, and that he had'had to receive medical attention. Williamson' had no justification -whatever, in law or iu common sense, for his action,. If it had been a matter of common- assault it migut have been Williamson, and not the accused, who would have been charged, but the matter did not stop there; the accused had had recourse to the use of a lethal weapon, in circumstances which were unjustifiable, and he had no right to shoot. It was upon that circumstance that the Crown case rested, said counsel, who explained the law concerning assault and trespass, and read statements made by the accused and Williamson to the police. The evidence of James George Williamson . was being taken when the court adjourned for luncheon.