SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19550, 5 August 1925, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

UUIMINAL SESSIONS. i ? Tuesday, August 4. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) Thej quarterly sessions of the Supreme Con rtf" were commenced to-day, his Honor taking his seat at 10.30 a.m. There were five cases against eight persons for trial, and three persons were committed from the lower!, court for sentence. * GRAND JURY. Therj following were empanelled as a Grand Jury:—Messrs "William Bruce Christie. Oporge William Collier, Harold Archiba'~4. Arthur Barnett, Walter Hemsley, Edward SLancelot Eastgate, Douglas Bernstein,! George William Herrick, Charles Dean! Hudson, James Frederick Moodio, Jamei Louis Salmond, Pryce Morris, William Percy Seelye, John Bews, Cyril Henry Breeze, Leslie Douglas Coombs, James Alexander Paterson, Gordon Cecil MTntyre, ?Neii Alexander John M'Rae, John Thomas Boyce, Reginald Dawson, George Black- Albert Victor David Langley. Air Georgp Black was chosen foreman. • talS HONOR’S CHARGE. His" Honor, in his charge to the Grand Jnry.i said there were five cases against eight {persons. The first ease was against William Martin Heckler and Edward Carwere charged with manslaughter. ffeckler was the driver of a moter car and Carnegie was the owner. The case “arose out .of the death of a schoolboy named James Cochrane. It appeared from the depositions that this boy was crossing, the traffic bridge at Balclutha and along with other boys was hanging on to the reaf of a carl,,which was laden with timber and roofing iron. The two accused, who were in a motor car, came up behind, and the boy Cochrane sustained injuries from which he died. He was badly crushed between the timber and iron on the cart and the radiator of the motor car. It appeared from the evidence that Heckler was just learning to drive a motor car. •The charges against the two accused were manslaughter. His Honor then read over the principal evidence given in the lower court. He said that in order to establish criminal liability it was necessary to show , there was negligence of some kind. Tne fact that a collision took jplace. implied negligence on the part of the accused. Before the Grand Jury could find' a true bill it niust- be satisfied that .there ,v/as negligence on the part of the accused. —that was against both of them. The law required that any person in charge of an animate or an Inanimate object must take reasonable care. A person in charge of a motor car who acted negligently, as these men had done, was liable for either murder or manslaughter. That was the legal position, and it was for the Grand Jury to say whether a case had been made out. -jHeckler was the driver of the car. He vtt really driving the car under the controffiof Carnegie. Carnegie might very Well bB treated as having acted negligently in alleging Heckler, an inexperienced man, to drive a motor car. If the jury were .conviiJjfed of this it would find a true" bill againsw both accused. Another case was that iW which David Nevin M'Kechie and Ids ife were charged. The original charg&llaid against these two people was one OHrape, but the Crown Solicitor apparen®- did not think that such a charge .was justified. The male accused had admitfßd the offence, but frbm" the' evidence ®it -would appear that the was committed with the cou-

sent o& the girl, and the Crown Solicitor w|k, His Worship thought, justified in amanding the charge to one of indecent , assaults' The bill which would be Ifiid before them would be one of indecent aasauip The evidence showed a shocking state fflF morality in the M'Kechnie household. Sfe thought the Grand Jury would be jumfied in finding a true bill against both Spoused. Other charges were laid >' agains* accused alleging conspiracy. These charge! were laid under Section 219 of the Oime» Act. It was for the jury to say wheth«r a prima facie case had been made out. liHe thought, however, it would be justififSin finding a true bill against both accuse®. As far'as the question o§ husband and \w|fe conspiring was concerned, that was a Blatter of law. He thought, however, a prirga facie case had been made out and the jiwy would be justified in returning . true bills. Then there was a case against a maiStKKamod Walsh, who was charged with having had carnal knowledge with a girl tinder the age of 16 years. The girl stated that accused had had carnal knowledge with her, and accused had signed a confession admitting the offence. Ho thought the jury would have no difficulty in finding a true bill against the accused. The next case was one against James Alexander Fraser and Robert Murray Newlands, in which the accused had demanded money from a man named Nichol and a woman named Stevenson with intent to steal such money. It so happened that Mr Nichol and Mrs Stevenson had travelled on the same train from Dunedin to Christchurch on May 1, Mr Nichol on arriving at Christchurch was met by his wife, and Mrs Stevenson was met by her friends. On their return to Dunedin they each received letters from the accused which were signed “Friday.” The letters were in similar terms, and demanded £SO, the alternative being threats of exposure. „ When Fraser was seen by Mr Nichol he admitted that he was responsible for the writing of the letters, or at least that he had caused the letters to bo written, and that he fiad posted them. Fraser had spoken to Nichol several times about the subject matter of the charge. Nichol asked Fraser how Newlands came to write the letters, seeing that he was not known to the parties, and Fraser replied that he supposed ho (Fraser) would have to bear the brunt of it. His Honor said that this established a prima facie case against Fraser, and Newlands had signed a confession in. which he admitted that ho wrote the letters. The legal aspect was clear, and was dealt with under Section 206 of the Crimes Act. The evidence on the subject was very clear, and the jury would be justified in finding a true bill against both accused. The other case was against William Henry Clements, the offence alleged against him being a breach of the Bankruptcy Act. It appeared that Clements was declared a bankrupt in December, 1923, and had not received His discharge. During the period on which he was an undischarged bankrupt he obtained credit for £2O and upwards from several people without intimating that he was an undischarged bankrupt. There were several cases against the accused. The first case related to the gale of a. motor car. Accused was in a motor business. He sold a. second-hand motor car to one named Burns, and obtained from him a sum of £2O, but Burns did not get delivery of the car. It appeared that accused bought this car from a Mr Darting on credit, and that he did not inform Mr Darling that he (accused) was an undischarged bankrupt, which ho was bound to do under the Bankruptcy Act. 'Then there was a case in which accused obtained a loan of £2O fiom Mr Norman Wood. He was also charged with obtaining goods on credit from Francs Joseph O’Neill, and not telling Mr Q Neill that he was an undischarged bankrupt. Prima. facie cases would seem to have been established. _ _ TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills in all cases. PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. FALSE PRETENCES. Charles M‘Donald, alias Tomlin., who Had pleaded puiltv in the lower court to nine charges of false pretences and issuing xaluclcss cheques, came before the court for sentence. . , ~ , , n When the accused was asked if no had anything to say he handed a document to Honor said that ho noticed that the accused had been declared an habitual criminal in 1919. He supposed the man Had to thank the Prisons Board for the opportunity of committing .the present series of crimes. Ho could not understand why the board, time after time, let out men who had been declared habitual ! criminals only to give them opportunities of committing additional crimes. Iho a<> cuscd would bo sentenced to six months imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to bo cumulative, and as part of the sentence he would be declared an habitual criminal. His Honor concluded tjy expressing the hope that the accused would not bo given a further opportunity oj preying on the public. BREAKING, ENTERING. AND THEFT. David Louis Armour Michie, who hud pleaded guilty in the lower court to three charges of breaking, entering, ami theft, at Kaitangata, was next brought forward for sentence. . , Mr A. G. Nelli, who appeared for the accused, "said the charges were spread over a period of about six months—from December 1324, till June, 1925. The commission of the first offence was due to the fact that he had got behind with his household accounts, as a result of suffering from an injury at the nunc. Owing to Ins failure to report the accident the employers refused to pay compensation. The accused was Idle, for about a month as a result, of the accident. Lew on work became at the' mine* and the accused got

only four or five shifts in a fortnight. He conild not get day work, and had to work on night shifts, but owing to the fact that his wife was very nervous he could nox, go to work on several occasions. As his creditors were beginning to press him and his wife and children were existing practically on bread and butter, he committed the first offence. When the accused was about 10 years of age he had a severe fall from a dray, striking his head, and since then his family had noticed that his actions had not been normal. This fall might have weakened his will power, and ho might not have been sufficiently strong to resist the temptation. The accused was only ,24 years of age, and whiln he was in work he was a good worker. The accused had a wife and three children, whose ages ranged from four years to one year. At present he was working with his father-in-law, who was a sawmiller. The accused had given the police all the assistance ho could to clear tip the charges. This was the firs* conviction against the accused, and Mr Neill said that if the benefits of probation codld be extended to Michio the results would not be lost on him.

His Honor said tho probation officer recommended that the accused should bo released on probation, and he thought ho would be justified in granting probation. The only question was as to the terms. Iho accused would be released on probation for three years, on condition that he paid the cc-s-ts of the prosecution (£4 6s lOd) within three months and also paid to M'Gruer, Taylor, and Co. within 12 months the sum of £l6 15s, representing Iho value of the stolen goods not recovered in such instalments as were fixed by the probation officer. A CHANCE THROWN AWAY. Colin Frederick M'Donald was then brought up for sentence on two charges of breaking, entering, and theft. Mr Adams said the accused was a member of- what: was known as the “Forbury Road Gang,’’ which came before the court in June last. He seemed to have gone from the court on probation and committed the offences to which he now pleaded guilty. His Honor; He was ordered to take out a prohibition order, and it was understood that he took one out, hut apparently that did not prevent him from getting drink Clemency in this case would be absolutely wasted. The accused would be detained for reformative purposes for a term of three years. OASES FOR TRIAL. CARNAL KNOWLEDGE. Nathaniel Walsh was charged with having carnal knowledge of a girl aged 13 years, and also with having indecently assaulted the .girl. Mr W. L. Moore appeared for the accused, who entered a plea of guilty. Mr Moore said the accused was 21 years of age, and came from very respectable parents. In a case of this sort the only thing he could do was to ask the court to take into consideration the youth of the accused, the respectability of his family, and the probability of certain temptation, possibly not from the girl alone, but from somebody else. The accused got credit for being a steady, worker and not a drinker. lie would ask his Honor to extend as much leniency as, possible. His Honor said it was not the practice to grant probation in such cases. The accused would be detained for reformative purposes for 12 months. DEMANDING MONET WITH MENACES. James Alexander Fraser and Robert. Murray Newlands were charged with having demanded money from James Eric Nicol and .lean Algnrson Stevenson with menaces. Fraser was represented by Mr Hanlon and Newlands by Mr Neill. Both pleaded guilty. ’ Mr Newlands said that Fraser was between 64 and. 65 years of age. He had been in New Zealand for 45 years, and for 20 years of that time had been in the service of tho New Zealand Express Company. Prior to that he was in Invercargill and Papakaio, in each of which places ho remained for seven years. His character had been excellent all the lime he had been in New Zealand. Fraser was a married man, with two daughters, aged 20 and 10 years respectively. In tho depositions Fraser took the blame for conceiving the stupid idea of sending the letters, and as far ns was possible exonerated Newlands. The two people to whom the letters had been sent had gone away in a train together, and in a fit of stupidity Fraser seemed to get the idea into his head that they were going away for an improper purpose. A.s a result he devised a scheme for threatening them and getting some money out of them. His Honor: The worst the police can say of him is that he has a reputation of interfering in other people’s business. Mr Hanlon: In other words, he is an old fool. I submit that it is a case in which some monetary penalty might be inflicted. It could be made sufficiently substantial to teach Fraser not to interfere in other people's business. His Honor: I think a pecuniary penalty would bo sufficient punishment. Mr Neill said he thought it was clear that Newlands took a very small part in the proceedings. His Honor: All he did was to write the letters Hr Neill: The reason he gives for that .is that he had known Fraser for many years. He has never been before tho court previously, and I think that if he is admitted to probation he will keep on the track from now on. His Honor said Fraser would be ordered to pay a fine of £25 and Newlands would be ordered to pay : one of £10". Newlands would be allowed 14 days for payment.