SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 52, 12 February 1934, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

SITTING IN NAPIER

His Honour’s Charge

THREE TRUE BILLS RETURNED

The first quarterly session for 1934 of the Napier Supreme Court began at 10.30 o’clock this morning, when His Honour Mr Justice Reed addressed the Grand Jury summoned to decide whether or not true bills should be

returned in regard to the criminal charges. The cnarges were as follow: — Rex v. Joseph John Blennerhasset. — Alleged breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime.

Rex v. Hector William Lean (Mr Rogers).—Alleged sheep stealing. Rex v. Vera Neithe (Mr Averill). — Alleged assault causing actual bodily harm.

The following were empanellled as Grand Jurors: Messrs P. Ashcroft (foreman), A. A. Hastings, L. A. Krogh, A. J. Fitzpatrick. C. 1). Cox, L. H. Deighton, A. 0. Ballot, T. A. Moody, G, A. Peake, E. T. Rees, J. H. Ringland, S. P. Spiller, J. T. Pjngland, H. D. Stevenson, A. W. Pirie, J. Mowbray Bruce, J. McLennan, C. D. Anderson, H R. J. Dockery. G. BMenzies, H. S. Cottrell, J. O, Thomson, and W. G- Hay.

His Honour first mentioned the charge of assault against Vera Neithe, stating that it was apparent that the accused and her husband had not been living happily together. The Crown submitted that during an altercation the accused assaulted her husband with a knife and various articles were thrown about, “including the family clock,” added His Honour. The case seemed to present no difficulties and His Honour did not think that the jury would have any trouble in deciding whether or not a true bill should be returned.

In regard to the charge of sheepstealing against Lean, 13 sheep had been found in the possession of the accused. Their earmarks were those of a neighbour called Burling, which were of similar design to those of Lean. The evidence showed that a fence in Burling’s property had been tampered with. The accused had .stated that he had found the sheep straying on the road and was keeping them until someone claimed them. His Honour thought that the circumstances showed a clear case for trial by a common jury as to whether the accused had stolen the

sheep. The question of the mentality of Blennerhassett, who was charged with breaking and entering, was no concern of the Grand Jury, continued His Honour. There was prim a facie evidence of a crime having been committed. It might be that the Crown would enter a “non prosequi” and apply for the accused to be sent to a mental home, but that was no concern of the Grand Jury, whose duty was to decide whether or not a true bill should be returned.

The jury returned true bills in al cases.

The Ctown Prosecutor, Mr. H. B. Lusk, told his Honour that he intended to enter a stay of proceedings in regard to Blennerhassett, on the grounds that the accused was at present a patient m a mental hospital. Mr. Izusk said be had received a certificate from the medical superintendent of the Porirua Hospital, stating that Blennerhassett was suffering from a severe organic brain disease and that his prospects of recovery were nil. It was doubtful whether he could have been, responsible for the charge made against him. His Honour accordingly stood the case over sine die. SHEEP-STEALING CHARGE. The first criminal case to be tried was the charge against Hector William Lean, who pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing from Frederick Henry Alfred Burling 13 sheep, valued at £l6 5/-. Mr. H. B. Lusk conducted the case for the Crown and Mr. L. A. Rogers appeared for the accused. The jury was as follows:—Messrs J. Wray (foreman) C. H. Holder, D. M. Bate, 0. S. Findlay, H. R. Houghton, W. R. Holder, C, J. Stewart. F. 8. Hellyer, A. Simkins, J. B. Creagh, J. F. Custance and J. Craig. The Crown Prosecutor made a brief resume of the case against Lean, stating that the accused was a farmer near Patoka. Two of his neighbours were F. W. Burling and his son H. Burling. Towards the end of last year H. Burling was grazing some hoggets and last October he found that he had lost three. He also found that a fence had some loose wires. In November he lost another lot of sheep and again found a fence along the road line had been tampered with. On November 15, the police visited the accused’s property, where 13 sheep were found bearing Burling’s earmark. The earmarks of one sheep had been altered to that of Lean. An important point was that Lean knew what Burling’s earmark was, having been shown it some months earlier. In a statement to the police the accused said he found the sheep on the road and did not know to whom they belonged. He also said he was satisfied that Burling’s earmark on one of the sheep had been altered with bis (accused’s) punch but he denied having done it himself or knowing who had done it. Tho Crown Prosecutor then called witnesses who testified on the lines of the evidence given at the lower Court hearing. THE CROWN WITNESSES. The first witness was Henry Ernest Allan, stock inspector for the Hastings district, who gave evidence regarding the earmarks of the accused, Burling, senior, and Burling, junior. The duty of a farmer who found stray sheep would be to impound them. If the finder knew to whom the sheep belonged his duty would be io let the neighbour know. Frederick Henry Alfred Burling, a farmer, of Patoka, told how he had lost sheep and how his fences on the roadline had been tampered with He traced sheep tracks from the fence down the road through a gate leading into the accused’s property. He later accompanied the police to the accused’s property and found 13 sheep belonging to himself. Mr. Rogers questioned witness regarding the earmarks. In witness's opinion, it would be practically impos sible for his earmark to have been altered to Lean’s without using tinproper punch. Frederick William Burling, the father of the previous witness, recalled how he h.ad illustrated his son's ear-

mark to Lean some months before the alleged sheep-stealing. Witness denied to Mr. Rogers that ho had been unfriendly to his neighbours during past years. Detective-Sergeant Janies Bickerdike recalled visiting the accused's farm in company with Detective H. F. Coddmgten and telling accused that Burling hau complained of losing sheep. Accused stated that about three weeks previously he was driving some sheep along tile road when he picked up 13 hoggets and placed them in one of his paddocks. Witness examined the sheep in question and saw that 12 had Burling's earmark and one accused's earmark, which looked as if it had been put on over Burling's earmark. Accused made a statement regarding tho finding ul the sbeep on the road He said that he had intended to return 1 hem as soon as lie discovered to whom they belonged. He realised that he had done wrong in placing them in his paddocks without knowing who owned them. The case was still proceeding yvhen the “Tribune* -went te press.