SUPREME COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 2 December 1930, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

NELSON SESSION OPENED CRIMINAL BUSINESS The usual session of the Supreme Court opened this morning. The Hon. Mr Justice Reed presided. The following Grand Jury was em ; panelled: A. Allan, J. An'sticc, E. R. Booeham, N. M. Busbridge, E. J, Pahl, H. Milner, R. A. Leaper, F. J. Lock, E. A. Bradshaw, E. A. Leggatt, R. Daggur, D. R. Edwards, P. Howcroft, C. H. Griffin, H. C. Harley, G. A.. Day, P. A. Edmonds, A. H. Boyce, H. C. Fletcher, A. Robinson, T, G. Tibbie and W. Black. Mr Daggar was chosen foreman. His Honour in his address to the Grand Jury said he regretted that on this occasion there were more than the usual number of indictments to be presented for their consideration. His Honour went on to briefly outline the cases to be dealt with. Referring to the charge of alleged theft against Thomas Edward Bird, his Honour said the accused was secretary of the Golden Bay Cement Company Industrial Union of Workers at a salary of 7s 6d a week and was charged with, that on Ist December, 1928, and on divers dates between that date and. 30th November, 1929, the theft of various sums of money. His Honour went on to say that the general count was bad as it was laid down in the English Act that it was necessary to show that some specific sum of money must be alleged to have been received from some specific individual or company on some specific date requiring it to be paid to some specific person or company. This had not been shown. The indictment was bad, and it would be the duty of the jury to return no bill. It was no fault of the person drawing up the indictment that it was bad, as on tlie depositions his Honour could not see how the charge could have been laid in any other way. His Honour added that the management of the Union seemed to have been shockingly slack. No records of any sort were kept. It was not shown that if there was any deficienoy, it was due to tlie act of the accused. A Union could not expect its books to be kept in a proper manner for 7s 6d a week. He would suggest that no bill be returned in the case. The jury then retired . NO BILL No bill having been returned, Francis Thomas Edward Bird, charged with theft.' was discharged. TRUE BILLS True bills were returned in the following cases: — Frank James Lewis, alleged fraudulently stating he had posted a postal packet. William David Hood, Harry Low, George Walter Rolfe, Leslie Sealey, and Richard Cook; alleged mischief. John Charles Rumbles Topp; alleged bigamy. John Joseph Morgan; alleged attempted carnal knowledge. Gilbert Owen Ellis;. alleged theft as a servant. Donald Edward Morrison; alleged abduction and alleged carnal knowledge. ALLEGED FRAUDULENT STATEMENT Frank James Lewis was then charged with fraudulently ,-tating that lie had posted a postal packet at Gwen post office containing money. ~..--. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr C. R. Fell appeared for the Crown and Mr J. R. Kerr represented the accused. The following jury was called; J. A. Willis, H. G. McPherson, M. J. Heath, C. G. Lucas, K. J. Simpson, A. E. Brough, K. W. Exton, T. H. Hughes, A. J. Freeman, C. S. Winstanley, W, J. Biggar, H. J. Flatt (foreman). The Crown Prosecutor, in detailing the facts, said that in December of last year the accused bought a motor car on hire-purchase from the South Island Motors Company. In the early part of this year he began to get into arrears with his payments, and was pressed by the company. In April he wrote stating that he wa,s making a payment that month. No payment reached the company, which continued to press him. In June he wrote to the company that he had sent a payment of £8 10s. This never reached the company, because it was never sent. Inquiries were made and accused was asked to fill up the usual statutory form for lost letters for the Post Office, and when questioned by the postal officials accused maintained that he had posted the letter, but subsequently admitted that he had not done so. Evidence on the foregoing lines was given by J. Lee, manager of the Nelson branch of the South Island Motors Company ; Harold G. Davis, chief postmaster, Nelson; and Detective Sinclair. The detective read a written statement made by accused, who was employed 'at the Public Works camp, admitting the defence, but adding that he had no intention to commit fraud. Replying to Mr Kerr, the detective said that the accused otherwise bore a good character, and was at present employed on the Public Works. The only evidence called for the defence was that of Frederick L. Newman, who stated that he had always found accused of good character, and well respected. Counsel briefly addressed the jury. In summing up his Honour said apparently there was no dispute at all as to the facts of the case. He pointed out that the postal form which accused filled in contained a special warning against making a false statement. The jury had to decide whether accused acted fraudulently or innocently. Dealing with the evidence as to the character of the accused, his Honour said that naturally a Judge would take that into consideration when the question of a penalty was being considered. All the jury had to do was to decide whether accused was guilty or not guilty. The jury retired at 12.10 p.m. and returned at 1.5 p.m. with a verdict of "guilty, but not with criminal intent." His Honour said the meaning of the verdict was not quite plain, and he directed the jury to again retire. After a few minutes' retirement a verdict of not guilty was returned. The accused was then discharged. CHARGE OF BIGAMY, John Charles Rumbles Topp, charged; with bigamy, pleaded not guilty. Mr C. R. Fell prosecuted and Mr W. Nicholson appeared for accused. The following jury was called: H. S. Doidge, W. Chapman, H. H. Kinzett, G. F. Glover. T. Burn, R. Johnston, L. Ingham, A. McKenzie, A. Holbrook, F. P. Holland, F. N. Jones, H. R. Nesbiti Mr Glover was chosen foreman. The Crown Prosecutor, in outlining the facts, said that accused in 1915 married at Aberdeen Helen C. Wilson, and came to New Zealand. In 1923, Mrs Topp returned to England. In 1925 accused married at Nelson Ruth C. Simp--1 son. He went through the second form of marriage because he said that in June, 1924, he got a letter signed "J.," which he took to be the signature of his first wife's sister, saying that his wife had died. The letter had never been produced; he had stated that ho showed

—bp asar. ■ ■ ■"■ '■■■ ■ ■■ «i"lm—cea» " M -m it to his second wife, and it was then burnt. It was as a result of the Scottish police making inquiries as to accused's whereabouts to get maintenance for the first wife that the present proceedings arose. Evidence on the lines of that given in the lower Court proceedings was called by the prosecution. Detective Sinclair produced a number of documents and letters put in at the Magistrate's Court hearing. 1 (Proceeding) .