SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10896, 10 May 1921, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS OPEN GRAND JURY RETURNS TRUE BILLS IN ALL CASES. HIS HONOUR’S ADDRESS. The second quarterly criminal sessions of 1921 opened at the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr Justice Hosting. The Grand Jury empanelled comprised the following:—Norval Frederick Marley, Francis William Mountjoy, Lionel Bridge, William E. Jackson, Robert A. Armstrong, Thomas Archibald, Eric A. Algar, William McDonnell, Arthur Young, William Pearce, William Cable, Bertram Yeats, Robert Newton S'wanson, Richard Francis Herbert Swan, Edwin Erneet Stoupe, John William Stable, William Drummond Stewart, Erneet Edwin Stone banks, John Morton Wilson, Ernest Batchelor, Arthur William Press. Mr Arthur Young was chosen as foreman. HIS HONOUR EXPLAINS. His Honour detailed to the Grand Jury the modern changes in criminal law, and reminded them that the motives for punishing convicted offenders was to deprive them of the opportunity to repeat the offence; to instil into their minds the fear of again offending ; and to promote the desire not to offend again. He referred to the operations of the Crimes Act, 1886, in its relation to first offenders, and to the success that attended the operation of the Amending Act of 1903. The legislation of the last session had made further important amendments, under which all offences, short of murder and offences liable to capital punishment, now came within the purview of the probation clauses of the Act. The period had now been extended from three to five years. Habitual criminals had now an opportunity to appeal for the revision of their sentence. There were two casea of manslaughter, arising out of alleged careless driving of motor-cars. This offence was not punishable by death, but by imprisonment, according to its nature. The question was: Did the accused exercise reasonable care? The law was clear, and the general rule was to define the duty of the person responsible for the motor-car, and as to whether he observed it. His Honour reviewed the precautions necessary in regard to speed and warnings, driving at night, and in crowded thoroughfares. In the first oase, did the accused keep a proper look-out, and did he give proper warning before he ran over the boy ? In the other, on the Hutt road, at did accused carry sufficient light? Has Honour reviewed the law in regard to lights. Contributory negligence did not excuse a culprit. In the forgery charge, notes had been advanced by a moneylender, and are alleged to have been ‘forged and uttered. The offence would not be complete till the spurious instrument was made. In another case a man was charged with attempting to get money by means of a forged totalisator ticket. The attempt was sufficient, without actually getting money, to bring a man under the criminal law. The false pretences case appeared to he only of identity. Money had been paid to another accused on representations that he had a sawmill, but, although there was a mass of evidence, it was not necessary to go into it, beyond that of the person whose money was referred to in the indictment. In the charge of money .having been obtained on representation of ownership of a patent for windscreens, the questions here were: "Was the statement false? Was it made for the purpose of getting money ? Did it succeed in getting money? In the case where three young men were charged with the theft of cigarettes, the fact that they were the property of the Government constituted theft if they were unlawfully taken. The question of being commandeered could not enter into the matter.

TRUE BILLS. RETURNED IN ALL CASES. The grand jury found true bills in all the cases hated for ‘trial, namely:— Percy William Solly, fal&a pretences. Charles William Taylor, manslaughter. Lewis Benjamin, indecent assault. Edward Robert Stone, forgery and uttering John Monaghan, indecent assault. Guy Leslie Fulton, manslaughter. Thomas Kerr Cockbum, false pretences and theft. Robert Fpx, forgery and attempted uttering. George William Thomas, false pretences. Alfred Charles Morris, |theft. Charles Somerville Lennox, George James Gould, Alfred George Smith, Walter Leslie Young* theft. INDECENT ASSAULT CHARGE. REMANDED "FOR SENTENCE. John James Monaghan, a man about 40 years of age, pleaded not guilty to a charge of indecently assaulting a boy at Island Bay on March 11th, 1921. Mr P. S. K. Maeassey appeared for the Crown. Mr W. Perry appeared for the accused. By His Honour’s order, the court was cleared. The youth gave evidence that late at night he visited the cottage at Island Bay where accused lived alone, for the purpose of getting some bead rings, which he had promised to give him. Witness then detailed what took place. Edward James Jones, motor mechanic, gave evidence of having gone with Detective Revell to accused’s whare on the night of the 11th. He detailed what he and the detective saw from the bank window. They had their boots off. Detpctive Revell also gave evidence. Accused, in his evidence, said he lived alone in the whare for the past six years. He knew the boy for the past eighteen months. He had been to his whare three times. On the first occasion he chided the boy for calling on him very late at night. After a brief summing-up by His Honour, the jury retired, and. returned in an hour with a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was remanded for sentence. FORGERY AND UTTERING. FRAUD ON V~S.S. COMPANY. Edward Robert Stone pleaded guilty to ten charges of forging and uttering wages allotment orders totalling £BS, issued by the Union Steam Ship Co., purporting to bear the signature of Captain Clift, master, s.e. Manuka. It was the custom of the company to advance money to employees, by means of allotment notes, when the men were likely to be at sea for some time. The charge against Stone was that be had forged farms similar to

those of the Union Company, and had received money on them through a local financial agency. Mr A. B. Sievwright, who appeared for the accused, asked that an examination be made of Louis Spira, manager of the Citizens’ Loan and Discount Company, as to whether accused had received payment en the orders. His Honour acceded. Louis Spira gave evidence that there Was a total of 59 spurious allotment orders presented to him, of the amount of £SOO. He had advanced about £SOO to Stone on account of the allotments. He could not produce any hooka in support of this. The money was not ! pa-id on account of his firm: he was acting on behalf of a principal. Mr Sievwright: Did you have any receipts from Stone? Witness: No; I took the orders from Stone. His Honour: Can you produce a record of the payments to Stone in January and February ?—I gave them to my brother-in-law, and he cannot find them. Was it your concern to see that the firemen and seamen got the money ? No. •How much did yon allow Stone on the ten forged orders?—£77. My commission was ten per cent. Counsel: Have you any record?— No. Well, Stone says you gave him nothing. Don’t you think he forged these orders because you were pressing him for money?—l was pressing him for several hundreds of pounds. I could not get the money when it matured from the Union Company as the orders were all payable to Stone. Accused was remanded to custody till Saturday, when counsel’s address on the question of mitigation will be heard. The court adjourned till ten o’clock , to-day.