AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13452, 31 May 1907, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. THE CHARGE OF ABDUCTION. The criminal sessions of the Auckland Supreme Court were continued yesterday, before Mr. Justice .Denniston, the Hon. J. A. Tole appearing as Crown Prosecutor. The charge of criminal assault on, and abduction of, a girl under the age of 16 years, preferred against Arthur Hams, a jockey, was proceeded with. His Honor referred to the questions of law raised by the defence in the course of the trial. In reference to the point that the first count of the charge alleged an offence committed over six months ago, and, therefore, debarred criminal pi osecutioli, His Honor said the question to be interpreted was '* Wliat was the commencing of the proceedings." Mr. Tole: The information.

His Honor: I would be pleased to take] such a clear view of it, but if the information commences proceedings, the information does not allege this charge. His Honor added that the point was quite open to argument. So far as the meaning of " take" was concerned, when used in regard to abduction, there were authorities to show that going away, or leaving home voluntarily by a girl under similar circumstances to the present, did not constitute an offence. "Do you suggest that taking the girl away from her home, suppose she left voluntarily, was abduction?" asked His Honor. Mr. Tole: The present law. construes it in that way. ' His Honor: There is no doubt what the prisoner did. The evidence is clear and strong- that the girl was eager to get away. " There is not much evidence to show definitely that prisoner offered inducements to the girl to come to him. Mr. Tole said the case came under section, 209 of the Act. It was an offence for a man to take away a girl on her own suggestion; His Honor remarked that the question was one •of " taking away," and in the present state of the case, it was very difficult for him to direct the jury. A finding of the jury oil certain issues as to fact was necessary. He said lie had been accustomed to have such points'of law raised and argued by counsel. " I have to charge the jury on a point which is by- no means clear, and upon which I have not had the benefit of any argument," continued His Honor. His idea, then, wax that the charge of abduction could not be sustained on the facts and the law

In the course of summing up, His Honor referred to the letters,' produced at the trial on the previous clay, alleged to have been written by prosecutrix to. Robert Swinley, a., friend .of the accused. "The whole matter of these letters is peculiar," he ; said, "and a good deal (depends upon them." It appeared . that the girl wrote confidentially to, the man, and particularly asked that the letters be. destroyed, but he kept such letters which he considered might be of some value, and burned a large number of others. That was a very peculiar proceeding. A man might be justified in regard to his friend to continue to receive confidential letters, and keep some which were favourable to the accused, but. then he handed the letters Mot to the friend, but to , the friend's mother,. The prosecutrix had suggested that the letters had , been carefully selected to bring forward certain of' them injurious to her case, and the others had been destroyed. It would be for th© jury to> say whether or not the girl wrote the letters'which she had denied writing. The writing arid the wording were in many ways like the letters admitted by. the - girl. On the other hand there was no reason to suggest why a forgery should be made, except to- prove the 'accused's storv that she told him she was over 16 years of age. If it was a forgery, it- was done by a°clever forger. His Honor said he would like to have certain findings by the jury, and the issues placed before the jury , required an answer to the three counts charging accused with criminal assault on November 1, 1906, January 21,1907, and January 22,1907 ; and if so_, had he then reasonable cause to believe that she was of or above the age of 16? Other issues were:. Did the prisoner induce the girl to leave her father's house in the' first instance, as alleged in the indictment? and were the pencil-written letters produced at the trial written in .their present form by the prosecutrix?

After three hours' deliberation, the, jury returned a verdict of guilty on two counts of criminal assault; they "replied that accused in the two cases did not have reasonable cause to believe that she was 16 years [ of age; that he did not induce the girl to remain with him, but that the girl had written the letters produced in Court. . His Honor directed that prisoner be brought up to-day for sentence.

ALLEGED HORSE POISONING.

A young man, John Solomon Taylor, pleaded not guilty to a charge preferred against him of causing, at Frankton, on March 23, the death by poison of a gelding, belonging to Alfred John Searle. Accused was defended by Mr. H. T. Gillies.

The evidence for the prosecution went in the direction of showing that the accused (who was boarding with the informant) was asked by Searle to go to the chemist's for some drench, to be administered to a thoroughbred horse. This he got, and helped Searle to give a dose to the horse, which subsequently died under great agony. Witnesses stated ,that accused inquired . from a chemist's assistant as to what quantity of arsenic it would take to knock over a horse, and that he, purchased a four-ounce bottle of we poison. He was also stated to have told Mrs. Searle that great trouble would come on tho house. ,

Joseph Lyons, veterinary surgeon, said that poisoning indications being present, he had an analysis made of some of the con-j tents of the horse's stomach, and it was shown that death was due to arsehical poisoniug. It would be dangerous to give. 30 grains of arsenic to a.\horse, and it was found that a greater quantity than this was present in a thirtieth part of the stomach's contents. I

•J. A. Pond, colonial analyst, gave corroborative evidence. '•

The accused stated that when he went to | th? chemist's for the drench he discussed with the assistant (N. Roche) the effects of different kinds of poison. On mentioning that Searle had previously given a horse a mixture of tobacco and- milk, Roche. remarked tKat a dose of arsenic or other poison would have been equally advisable. Accused put the bottle of arsenic in his overcoat pocket, and on coming away ,to Auckland left his coat at Searlo's, intending to return to Hamilton, via Thames. The veterinary surgeon was called in on his suggestion. The arsenic was intended for the destruction of rats. The full bottle of arsenic was produced, and accused's j father said it was the same as he found in accused's overcoat. The jury retired at half-past, five, and remained out until shortly after ten o'clock, when they announced that they were unable to agree. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Tole). applied for -a new. trial, which was granted. ■ It will take place next week.