ALLEGED THEFT OF GEESE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 194, 4 August 1926, Page 3

ALLEGED THEFT OF GEESE.

GRAND JURY RETURNS “NO BILL.”

Palmerston North, Aug. 3

The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened this morning, His Honour Mr. Justice Reed presiding. Addressing the Grand Jury, His Honour observed with regret that more than the usual number ol criminal cases were on the calendar, but it was satisfactory to see that the worst class of criminal offence, sexual cases, was entirely absent. Of the cases for trial only one was of a serious nature. Most were comparatively simple, so far as the Grand Jury was concerned, and the only bill likely to necessitate some consideration was the charge against Clifford Harris Thompson, of stealing some geese, near Dannevirke,

The accused, continued His Hon our, was a man holding a responsible position. He went out hare shooting with some others on a certain property, permission having been obtained from the mother of the owner. After a number of hares had been shot some geese were killed. While this was, in the circumstances, unwarranted, it was done quite openly, in front of the house on the property and in the presence of witnesses. There was an apparent lack of that fraudulent intent which made for theft. The action partook more of larrikinism, and while reprehensible, could hardly be termed theft. After referring to the other cases, His Honour said that the most serious was against Ernest Taniwha Sutherland, a half-caste Maori, arraigned on a charge of attempted murder and arson.

“No bill” was returned against Thompson, who was accordingly discharged.

His Honour pointed out to Thompson that his actions had been discreditable. Against him were several convictions for by-law breaches and it appeared as if he was not inclined to carry out the duties he owed to the public. “1 strongly advise you to recognise your responsibilities. This particular transaction was reprehensible to a degree,” concluded His Honour.