SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 March 1926, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING OPENED MORE BUSINESS THAN USUAL. The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court were opened in Grey--1 mouth this morning, His Honor Mr Justice Adams, presiding. The list of cases to be dealt with at this session is unusually large, and comprises the following : —One petition in divorce, two applications for discharge from bankruptcy, and one under the Mortgage Extension Act. In the criminal section, three prisoners appear for sentence, and the following will come up for trial : Samuel Arthur Lee, alleged theft; Joseph Michael Clarke and David Cousin, alleged. breaking, entering, and theft; Stanley . Laurence George Couch, alleged breaking, . entering, and theft. Rupert Dunford, dual voting; Robert Henry Cbom, inctecent assault on a female, aged nine years; Sydney James Birchley, forging and uttering a cheque, and opening a postal packet not addressed to him, having pleaded guilty to their charges, come up for sentence. The divorce suit is that' of Grace Isabel McLeod v. William James McLeod; while the applications for bankruptcy discharges are those of Henry Brailsford, Cobden, contractor; Henry Hazlehurst Smith, Greymouth, motor dealer. GRAND JURY. The following were empannelled on the Grand Jury:—Allan Smith, G. L. Schaef, P. F. Thorpy, 1. T. Bennington, F. B. Dixon, J. W. Calwell, J. S. Robertson, H. D. Mace, J. N. Walker E. R. Moss, R. E. Groom, T. B. Baty, AV. Hill, H. J. Hudd, D. Tehnent, JtL V. Arthur, J. W. Greenslade, F. B. Lawn, AV. Reid, T. Crankshaw, N. A. Gandell, and L. B. Miller. J. AV. Greenslade was chosen foreman.

His Honor said that there were three cases for the Grand Jury to consider, one of alleged theft, one of failure to account for moneys, and one of breaking, entering, and theft. In the first case a man named Couch was accused of entering the premises of Aliss Bahay Saraty and taking certain articles which were subsequently found in his possession, in the case of Samuel Arthur Lee, he was employed to deliver meat on a butcher’s round, and was authorised -to receive payments for meat sold, and in settlement of accounts. There were nine counts of failure to account for moneys so collected, appropriation for personal use being alleged. In the third case two men, Clarke and Cousin, were accused of breaking and entering certain business premises in .Greymouth and stealing money to the value of £4, and a box of cigarettes valued at 30s. When arrested, one of the accused had some packets of cigarettes in his possession, but these had not been identified. A sum of money was found on each of the accused. No one saw the accused men enter the premises. True Bills were found in the cases of Stanley Laurence George Couch ; Joseph Michael Clarke and David Cousin; and Samuel Arthur Lee, on all counts.

COMMON JURY. The following were called to the Common Jury:—Henry Addison, John Allen, F. W. Badger, A. K. Bloxage, A. T. Boddy, R. J. LasseJ, D. T. Cochrane, R. Comerford, E. G. Cotter, J. Si Crookes, T. L. Cunhlfe, John Deere, H. G. Dixon, D. Douglas, J. Earl, A. I* airhall, H. B ass, S. H. Finch, M. J. Fogarty, W. IL Ford, G. Gilbert, E. Hales, F. Haw( kins, E. Holmes, A. Hopkinson, U Hilton, F. Jdcobs, J. L. Jones, 1. Kiely, W. E. Larcombe, C. Lamb, G. Mayo, M. McDonald, F. McHugh, J. McSherry, C. G. Moss, H. L. Munson, H. Nankervis, L. Neubauer, W. Prendergast, W. C. Roche, W. Sherratt, J. A. Smith, R. Sotheran W. J. Hewitt, G. Weaver, S. B. White, E. Williams, R. J-. Williams, W. Wilson, J. D. Wingham, and G. Webster. Exemption was granted to A. Fairhall. E. J. Rundle was not present when his name was called.

THEFT FROM SHOP. Stanley George Lawrence Couch was charged that on or about the lOtb day of January, 1925, he did enter the premises of Bahay Saraty in Boundary Street and steal therefrom goods to the value of £3O, and cash to the amount of £l/1/6. The following'jury was impanelled: Henry Addison, Arthur Hopkinson, F. Jacobsen, J. D. Wingham, C. G. Moss, L. Neubauer, M. McDonald, H. G. Dixon, R. Sotheran, John Deere, M. J. Fogarty and G. Weaver. Mr. Fogarty was chosen as foreman. Accused, who was represented by Mr. W. J. Joyce, pleaded “not guilty.” Mr. F. Kitehingham, Crown Prosecutor, outline#! the case as presented in the lower Court. Bahay Saraty stated the goods produced in the suit case in Court were the goods stolen from her premises by accused. To Mr. Joyce: There was over £3 in the till, when she locked up the shop. The most valuable article stolen was a wristlet watch. Winifred Blackmun, corroborated her evidence in the lower Court. To Mr. Joyce: She watched accused in the shop from across the street, at the Imperial Hotel and could see him quite plainly. Wm. Henry Williams, an employee in the Railway, also repeated his former evidence. To Mr. Joyce: In Miss Saraty’s shop, accused was pulling things about. His behaviour was that of a man who knew what he was doing. He had earlier in the day, seen accused outside the Dominion Hotel “using language.” Constable W. H. Corcoran gave evidence as to the arrest of accused and finding the goods alleged to have been stolen, in his possession. To Mr. Joyce: On being asked what he was doing in the shop, accused said he was just seeing that “everything was alright.” He was dressed in plain clothes.

In addressing the Jury, Mr. Kitchingham stated that the Crown’s evidence had not been shaken one iota by the defence. A plea of being drunk could not be sustained, even though it was stated accused was using improper language in front of the Dominion Hotel, which would suggest he was under the influence of liquor. On the other hand he selected a shop for bis theft where he had a chance of forcing the shop, without observation, which suggests that lie knew what he was doing.c»The constable had stated that accused’s condition was not such

that, he would have felt justified in arresting him on a charge of drunkenness. Mr. Joyce, on behalf of accused, said the width of Boundary. Street was two chains. He could see both Williams and Miss Blackmun, and it did not appear that any sober man would act as the Evidence had shown accused had acted. The fact that a man was using abusive language in a public place was evidence that he was incapable. of knowing what he was doing. Summing up, His Honor stated that the accused’s plea of drunkenness was entitled to be considered, but the evidence for the prosecution had. not been disputed in any particular. The act of the man stooping to adjust a suit case did not suggest insobriety. The evidence showed he had watched the policeman go away in the distance, before breaking into the premises and taking the goods found in his possession. To accept a plea of drunkenness under such circumstances would not be justified. On the evidence given for the prosecution, there would be no difficulty in reaching a verdict. The Jury retired at 12.50 p.m. and returned at 1 o’clock with a verdict of “guilty.” His Honor reserved sentence till 2.15 p.m. to-morrow. A DIVORCE SUIT.

Grace Isabel McLeod (Alp Hannan) sought dissolution of her marriage with William James AlcLeod, on tne ground of desertion. Petitioner stated that they were married in Melbourne on Aughst 3, 1909, where they lived until the beginning of 1912, when they came to reside in New Zealand. Her husband returned on holiday to Australia, and, whilst there, enlisted for active service in the Great War. On his return from the AVar, he wrote from Australia for his wife to join him there. Early in 1922 they decided to return to New Zealand. She went first, leaving her husband to follow as soon; as their affairs were settled. He wrote her stating that it would take till the end of the year to clear up ms business, when he would follow her. He, however, did not do so, and she had neither seen him nor received any money from him since. John William Johnson, petitioner’s brother, corroborated her evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months. (Proceeding.)