SUPREME COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 27 November 1924, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

TARANAKI SESSIONS. The. Supreme Court session commenced at New Plymouth on Monday, but owing* to the serious illness of the wife of the Judge (his Honor Mr. Justice MacGregor) . necessitating his immediate return to Wellington, the court was adjourned at the end of the day until Monday, December 8. In his charge to the Grand Jury his Honor said there was a somewhat lengthy list of criminal cases for their consideration, some of the cases being of a grave nature. He thought, however, that in them they would find none of especial difficulty. THEFT OF A . CHEQUE. Pleas of guilty were entered by Alexander Robertson when he appeared to answer charges of having stolen from Masters’, Ltd., Stratford, a cheque for £53 16s lOd and the sum of £1 in money. Robertson, against whom another charge of theft is pending in Auckland, and who was also alleged to have committed bigamy while out on bail, was remanded to Auckland to be sentenced by the judge there. For the prisoner, Mr. C. H. Croker said he was sorry to say that this was one of those cases that had ai’isen through drink. Robertson was the son of- highly respectable. Wellington people, and his brother occuiped a high position in one of the hanks. The- accused had risen from the position of a junior clerk in one of the banks, and liad occupied some very responsible positions with commercial houses, in due of them oydr half a million in cash and cheques passing through his hands in the course of a. year. He had left that company of his own accord alid had been given a very good testimonial by his employers, He had never been in trouble before, and drink had been the caufe of liis .downfall. ' Mr. Choker added that while ,011 b.ail. on rem.and to Auckland Robertson had kept oh drinking, and had been appre- ' hende.d and taken into custody) his bondsmeii being released from their bond. Counsel had just learned also that the accused had-incurred a charge of bigamy against himself whilst he was on remand to Auckland. He suggested that it- 'would he “best if Robertson could be remanded to Auckland for • sentence on all his offences. > This course waxs agreed to and the prisoner was remanded in custody. . A SERIOUS CHARGE. ANOTHER TRIAL ORDERED. > - , Heaton Clyde Burgess, a chemist’s assistant, of Stratford, was charged with at Hawera, on June 26, having unlawfully used, an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. He pleaded not guilty, b u t the jury was discharged without giving a. verdict when itewas discovered that one of their number was a connection of the . accused by marriage. Burgess was re- > leased on hail and ordered to appear ; for trial on ' Alouday, December 8, to ’ which date the Court has been adjourned. Mr C. H. Weston (Crown Prosecu--1 tor) conducted tlie caSe against the . accused, for whom Air P:. O’Dea, with . Air R. It. Tyrer, appeared, The fol- . lowing jiiry was empanelled: Messrs E. W. Groodall (foreman), R. Sarten, W. Richards, W.. L. C. Bakewell, N. Knox, W. Gee, A. J. Gibbons, C. Feakins, C. K, Horsup, J. Therkleson, G. Waters and A. J. Hale. The Court was cleared. Outlining the case for the Crown, - Mr Weston said that at the Hawera - trotting meeting at Easter a young v man named Ronald Bendall had met . the girl concerned. Later the girl had . written Bendall infoi v ming: him of her 5 .condition, and later Bendall introduced 1 Burgess. The girl would say that at . first she was disinclined to undergo an operation, preferring to see her , trouble through, but eventually she ■■ agreed/ the operation, taking place in a > motor car on the road about a mile ! from Hawera. - 1 In evidence the girl said that Bendall had said the accused could perform the operation quite successfully, but she had not wanted to h© operated on. Burgess told her not to> be afraid as he had performed many such operations successfully. Witness then described the operation, which she said , Burgess performed. 5 After the' evidence was completed . and the jury had been out for half an hour it was found that a juryman was j ineligible, and a new trial was ordered.