LAW COURTS

Grey River Argus, 20 September 1918, Page 4

LAW COURTS

.SUPREME COURT.

Thursday, 19th September, 1918

(Before His Honour, Mr Justice Sim.)

The- quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court were held yesterday. GRAND JURY.

The following were the Grand Jury : P. A. Jeffreys, G. H. Robinson, Geo. Kear, Thus. J. Jack, W. P. Rathburn. Chas Staffon, S. K/Waugn, A. J. Matheson, I<. J- Armstrong, E. G. Cotter, J. S. Robertson, M. J. Fogarty J. D. Hambleton, F. W. Shallcrass, J. K. Jeffries, Geo. Nazer, E. Warnes, j J. Tennent, J. Stenhouse, G. E. Perkins, E. P. Peters, E. J. Smith. Mr G. E. Perkins was chosen foreman. HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. His Honour in his charge to the Grand Jury stated that the calender on this occasion comprised two cases only, in each case the accused being charged with assault, causing bodily harm. The first case was that ot Thomas Watson, charged with assaulting James Minto. The facts as alleged were that Minto on going out of his home saw the accused who said to him, "You are the man 1 am looking for," and immediately knocked h.m down and struck him on the jaw. Another witness, Blair, saw the assault. He also said that he saw Minto and Watson at the mill that day, and Watson hit Minto. Two days after the assault, Minto was taken to the hospital and examined by Dr Usher. He remained there some days, and was subsequently discharged. These are the facts adduced in the Lower Court. -■The other case is that of John Boyle, charged with assaulting Edwin Kiley. and causing him bodily harm. . The facts as alleged are that Boyle came to Riley's hut on the evening or the Bth August and committed the as- I sault. His Honour here described what took place according to Riley's evidence, and also to the injuries received. Kiley was subsequently sent to the Grey Hospital and is still an in-patient of that institution as a result of the injuries sustained. If you are satisfied from the evidence that. Boyle did assault Riley, and that a prima facie case has been made out against him, you wiU return a truebill. COMMON JURY. .The following Common Jury were ! sworn in: — J. S. Agnew, Geo Ashby, H. J. Billett, Chas Catlin, A. Combe, P, J. Dwyer, A. Grogan, J. Jfansen, A. I King, J. Kyle, H. Limar, Wm. Mason, R. J. Meade, B. S. Michel, F. McGirr, D. J. O'Brien, 1\ M. O'Donnell, F. Petherbridge, H. A. Quinn, E. Quinn, J. L. Stewart, R. Sullivan, C. Uddstrom, A. N. West, W. Williams, A. Wisdom, R. C. Culien. Mr B. S. Michel was excused from serving by his Honour. Mr H. R. Reid was called ,but did not answer to his name. The Grand Jury returned at 10.45 a.m. with a true bill against Thomas Watson . The Grand Jury subsequently returned with a- true bill against John Boyle. His Honour here discharged the Grand Jury, with the thanks of the Country for their services. Thomas Watson, was then formally charged with committing an assault on James Minto. Mr Joyce, who appeared lor the accused in pleading for leniency, stated that tne whole- trouble arose through the children or accused and Minto's children getting inta squabbles. Counsel stated that on coming home from Sunday school one of accused's children was struck by a stone, apparently thrown by one ot ALnto's children. Accused went down tne road that afternoon and met Minto and asked him why he did not check his children. This led up to the assault. Taking into consideration that the' man is the father pf four or five children, and has previously had a good record, Counsel asked to extend probation or failing that, that the case could be met by a fine. .tiis Honour: The assault seems to have been the result of bad temper. 1 do not think accused had tne intention of seriously injuring Minto. I think it is a case that can be met with by a fine. Accused will be fined £10, and allowed one month wherein to pay, on Mr Joyce's guarantee. FOR SENTENCE. - William Cundy, who pleaded guilty in the Lower Court, to indecent assault on a boy, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with hard labour. John Boyle was then formally charged with, on the Bth August at Roa, for assaulting one, Edwin Riley with in- [ tent to cause grievous bodily harm. Mr M. Hannan appealed for accused who pleaded not guilty. . „ The following Common Jury were empannelled .— A. King, J. S. Agnew N. Williams, H. J. Billett, R. C. Cullen. P. J. Dwyer, J. Jansen, P. M. O'Donnell, H. A. Quinn, H. Limar, A. Grogan, D. J. O'Brien. Mr A. King was chosen foreman. . The following jurymen were chal- ; longed: — Geo. Ashby, Wm. Mason, and T. Petherbridge. His Honour here discharged all waiting jurors until 10 o'clock this morning. Mr James Park, Crown Prosecutor, in outlining the case for the Crown, stated that the accused came to Riley's hut and committed the assault alleged. ! Counsel -described the facts Th. full as. adduced in the Lower Court. There couid be do doubt, continued Counsel, that the assault took place, the only excuse would be that the men were drinking. This, however, coula. not be put forward in mitigation of the offence. Evidence was then given on behalt of the Crown by the chief witness, Kiley, Drs Telford and Usher, ana Constable W. Baird. John Boyle gave evidence on his own behalf. j Mr Hannan then addressed the jury i at length and stated that the whole question was one of intent. If the assault did take place ,and the ac- | ciised through the effects of drink, i was not responsible for his actions, then he cannot be convicted of assault. Counsel quoted authorities in support of his contention. He put it to the jury that even if they/ were satisfied that an assault ( took place, and they found there was no intent on the part of the accused to commit the assault, then they must return a verdict of "Not guilty." Mr. Park, Crown Prosecutor, here addressed the jury. He argued that in the case of assault the question ot "intent" did not come in at all. The question of assault was the only one that effected the case. His Honour then summed up after which the jury retired and shortly afterwarods returned with a verdict of "Not guilty." Accused was then discharged.