SUPREME COURT TRIALS

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 November 1933, Page 5

SUPREME COURT TRIALS

A FORGED RECEIPT

BORO' COUNCILLOR CONVICTED

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON. October 31

A fine of £4O, or in default three months’ imprisonment was imposed by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court, to-day, on Amos Howell, Borough Councillor, of Upper Hutt, who was found guilty of forging a receipt audited January 16, 1933, to the Upper Hutt Borough Council, purporting to be signed by T. Johnson, for £2/12/-. Accused was allowed 1 1 days in which to make payment. “I feel it difficult to think these things could have gone on without some person having knowledge of what was happening.” said His Honor. “It certainly needs further investigation. I realise that as far as you personally are concerned you have already been punished for the offence you have committed.” He said it would mean that Howell would lose his position as Councillor, and His Honor assumed that he would also be removed from the list of Justices of the Peace. In addition, Howell would no doubt, also have to face the possibilities of penalties in another Court for any offences he might have committed against the Municipal Corporations Act. “I have no doubt that this prosecution will have done a considerable amount of good throughout the country. It will have the effect,” said His Honor, “of focussing attention on the provisions affecting local government. I do not think it necessary to impose more than a fine to cover the expense to the State of the trial of both yourself and your son.” Acting in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 of the Ci imes Act, the Chief Justice discharged Amos Rae Howell, garage asisstant, of Upper Hutt, who was faced with three charges of forging receipts to the Upper Hutt Borough Council purporting to be signed by others. This case followed along the lines of the previous case against Amos Howell, father of accused, although the two were tried separately. His Honor said that when the first two offences had been committed, Howell had been only 20 years of age. It was quite plain that the youth has been working for his father; and in all that he had done with the vouchers he had acted on his father’s instructions. If he had been 'convicted, he would not have imposed more than nominal punishment, if any punishment at all. He did not wish to ask the jury for a verdict which would mean a. black mark against the accused for life. He knew the jury would, accordingly, agree with him in making an order for the discharge of the accused without asking the members for a verdict. “This has the effect of anjacquittal, although it is not actually an acquittal,” said Sir M. Myers.

AUCKLAND MURDER.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE

AUCKLAND, October' 31. At the Cunningham murder trial, the first witness for the defence was Mrs Elizabeth Phillips. She said that she had known Edwards foi 12 years. Frequently he would sit on the back steps, bury his head in his hands, and begin singing loualy. She remembered an occasion about ten years ago when he was at the foot of Sumner Street, shouting out that someone had tried to murder him. John Henry Rush said he had known Edwards for several years. Edwards used to sell tea to witness. Frequently, when he called, he would burst into song. One of his favourite songs was, “If I Could Plant a Tiny Bit of Love in a Corner of Your Heart.” Edwards was very shaky at times, and witness thought him a shell-shock case. Witness related an occasion, about five years ago, when Edwards was in Ponsonby Road. Edwards knocked his head against a post, tipped his hat off, and began to shout. Witness went over to him, and Edwards holding his hands to his head, complained about blood flowing from it when actually there was no blood.

James Robert Robertson, an auctioneer, said that he first knew Edwards in 1927. when Edwards purchased a farm of ten acres at Mt. Roskill from witness. It was not long before witness discovered that Edwards was a strange and excitable individual. At one time Edwards spoke of a new religion, and said that ho intended to go to Australia to spread the movement. At times Edwards would discuss farm matters quite rationally and at other times ho would ramble in his conversation, and it was difficult to pin him down to any one topic. Eventually, Edwards walked off the farm, without saying a word to anyone, and he went to Australia. He left the stock to look after itself.

The Court adjourned until to morrow.

A DOCTOR’S BELIEF.

AUCKLAND, November 1

When the trial of John Hubert Fidwards was resumed, two daughters ol the deceased. Mrs Cunningham, were recalled at the jury's request.

One said that the accused had fixed ideas, and sometimes seemed morbid. The other said she noticed nothing unusual about his conversation, but his manner at times was unusual for a visitor.

Medical evidence was then heard. Dr. T. G. Short said he was convinced that accused was insane, and probably had been insane for a long time. He would at times have a violent tendency to suicide or homicide. Accused had said he did not. remember his-act, and, of course, witness could not say if that was true, but he did not think the accused’ was malingering. Dr. Short, when cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor, said he knew several people in Auckland suffering from the same mental disease as accused, but he was not proposing to certify them as insane. It might be necessary some day. To His Honor: Accused, when he committed the act. did not know what he was doing. Crown Prosecutor: Was his action in going to the bathroom, and getting a razor to cut the woman’s throat not compatible with the knowledge that the blows on the head might not cause death? —Yes. The Crown Prosecutor commented

on the fact that accused wrote a note after attacking the woman, but there was no sign of blood on the writing pad, and that the weapon used (which has never been found) must have been either washed by accused, or secreted. “Isn’t that compatible with the knowledge that he knew what he had done? Witness: Yes, after the act. but not at the time.

(Proceeding)

ASSAULT ON WIFE

AUCKLAND, November 1

John Shaw Gordon, found guilty of assaulting his wife, so as to cause bodily harm, and of attempted suicide, was sentenced, to-day to three years’ reformative detention. Mr Justice Smith said he was not satisfied that accused and his wife were living happily, and he suspected there were motives for the man's action. There was no proof of insanity. though perhaps his action was queer. He was not a fit subject to be at liberty. It was difficult to impose a sentence on a man of 68, when he had never before been before the Court, but it was clear he might be a danger to his wife, and he had expressed no regret.