SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 135, 8 May 1928, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

QUARTERLY SESSION OPENED. HIS HONOUR’S CHARGE. The May sittings of_ the Supreme Court were opened this morning before Mr Justice Ostler. The following grand jury was empanelled : —Messrs W. 3 F. Durward (foreman), It. A. Bagnall, H. C. Baker, A. T. Bendall, A. E. Bennett, N. Blackmore, W. B. Cameron, J. Carter. A. B. Dalziell, R. Eyro, H. B. Free, R. T. 'Jaggard, J. Lancaster, F. C. Litchfield, A. E. Mansford, D. Prouse, J. Rickman, A. Seifert, N. D. Stubbs, C. H. Whitehead and J. B. .Wilton. Addressing the grand jury. His Honour said that there were three cases requiring their attention. _ In regard to the first, a charge against a young man named Gough of breaking and entering a house with intent to commit a crime, it was a matter of grave consideration whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence to putaccused on trial. From the evidence if was clear that accused had broken and entered tho place, but the question was whether ho had any intention of committing a crime. If his intention was to kiss the girl ho had been keeping company with, then it ■was clear that he had no intention of committing a crime. To an ordinary man this -would seem to provide a reasonable explanation for his having gone to the place. It was hard to believe that he went there to steal, or to kiss the sister of the girl he wanted to see. However -wrong his actions may have been morally, there was certainly no crime that was triable in a criminal court. Both the sister and her father had given evidence that they did not think that Gough had any criminal intention, and, if the jury thought similarly, it was their duty to throw the bill out. The two other cases that required the attention of the grand jury were both sexual ones. True bills were returned in both the latter cases.

Rex v. William Alfred To Mokiria "Walden, alleged offences against a female. Rex v. Keith Drysdale, alleged offences against a female. A “NO BILL” RETURNED. “No bill” was -then''grand ■ jury’s verdict in regard to the cha'rge' against Stephen Gough fori allegedly breaking and entering by night with intent to commit a crime. CASE FROM LEVIN.

The hearing -was then proceeded with of tho charges against Drysdale. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs N. W. McLean (foreman), J. H. Dixon, F- W. Ward, G. Little, G. R. Lacey, A. H. Gardener, A. L. Ballard, H. Callaghan, R. Paris, F. I. Fairbrother, L. A. Johnston and E. Ward.

Mr Cooper appeared for accused. The court, by order of His Honour, was cleared.

In outlining the case for the Crown, Mr Cooke stated that the offences with which accused was charged allegedly took place on February 11 at Levin. Accused’s story of the happenings was very similar to the girl’s, tiie main difference being that be denied that the major offence had actually taken place. Accused could not raise any question as to consent having been given bj' the girl, for she was under the' ago of 16. Evidence was then given by the . girl concerned that she and her 17-year-old sister had gone for a motor car ride that evening with accused and another man, both of whom were strangers to them. The car was pulled ,up under some trees on a side road, and her sister and accused’s companion’ got out and went away together. ‘ Accused asked witness to get out with him, and, refusing, she was pulled out and assaulted.

To Mr Cooper, witness admitted that a charge laid by her sister against accused’s companion had been dismissed by a magistrate. The previous witness’s sister deposed that accused’s companion had made her get out of the car and go with him. From where sho was she could hear her sister crying. They later went back to Levin in the car.

The father of the younger girl deposed that, at the time of the occurrence, she was within a week of 15 years of age. Detective Russell gave evidence that he had interviewed accused arid shown him the statement made to the police by complainant. Accused had admitted the correctness of substantially everything she had said, denying, however, the major offence as alleged. Dr. Thompson, of Levin, gave evidence of having examined the girl on February 14. This concluded the evidence tendered by the Crown, and on Mr Cooper intimating that he did not propose to bring evidence, Mr Cooke addressed the jury. In so doing, he submitted that accused’s statement to the police was in itself an admission of at least indecent assault.

With regard to the first charge Mr Cooper thought that tho jury would have no hesitation in returning a verdict of not guilty, but he admitted that his task in regard to the second was harder. Accused, being under the age 'of 21, had the right to raise the defence that he had cause to believe that tho girl was 16 or over, and this, submitted counsel, ho had reasonable grounds for believing. At this stage the court adjourned for lunch.