SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3861, 13 March 1928, Page 33

SUPREME COURT.

• OAMARU SESSIONS. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were opened in Oamaru on Wednesday morning before his Honor Sir William Sim. The following grand jury was empanelled—Messrs J. . M'Diarmid (foreman), H. Jenkins, F. Jones, N. M. Hood, W. I.- Steenson, J. R. Cagney, A. C. Keay, D. J. Cross, F. 8. Steffan, I. Dalmer, G. Frith, J. D. Forbes, R. B. Meek, J. McLaren, C. O. Brown, 8. G. Reid, E. A. Williams, W. Aikenhead, L. K. J. Familton, W. Clark, A. Webster, and W. Jamieson.

In addressing the grand jury, his Honor stated that usually there was no business for the grand jury in Oamaru. On the present occasion, however, there were three criminal cases, -the most serious of which were the charges against Mary Jane Clark. . There were three counts against the accused, the first of which was that of manslaughter by causing the death of Jessie Elizabeth Smart. His Honor read the evidence given by Mrs. Thorpe in the lower court, and the evidence of Drs Orbell and Fitzgerald, and said he thought the jury would have no difficulty in bringing down a true bill. In the charges against Frank Murray and the man John Guilliinont of carnal knowledge and indecent assault respectively, the jury should also experience no difficulty in returning true bills. The grand jury, after- a short retirement, returned true bills in all cases. A PLEA OF GUILTY.

Frank Murray, aged 48, was charged on a number of counts with carnal knowledge, attempted carnal knowledge, and indecent assault at Moeraki and elsewhere in September and October last. The accused pleaded guilty. Mr A. C. Hanlon, who appeared for the accused, stated that his client was a married man, who had lived all his life in the district. His wife had left him some years ago. He had held a good character until now. although he had picked "’'th a widow, and lived with her. Arter referring to the circumstances of the case Mr Hanlon asked that the accused be treated as leniently- as possible. The police report was, he said, generally favourable. -

His Honor said the probation officer had recommended probation in this case, bitt it was not a matter for probation. The accused must suffer some punishment. He would be ordered to be detained for reformative treatment for a period of 12 months.

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. Mary- Jane Clark, of Dunedin, was charged with manslaughter, in having caused the death qf Jessie Elizabeth Smart by performing an illegal operation upon her at Dunedin on November 27. The accused was also charged with unlawfully using al ? instrument or other unknown means, with intent to procure abortion, and with supplying an instrument or thing with intent to procure abortion. The accused pleaded not guilty. Mr A. G. Creagh appeared for the Crown, a nd Mr A. C. Han lon for the accused.

The following jury was empanelled : — H. Abbott (foreman), D, M. Scott, C W. Brooker, J, S. Caldon. D. Burns. E. P Tonkin, W. Tinnock, J. I. Mac Ewan, J. S. Macpherson, Al. J. Barnett, and D. i>. Evans. Mr Creagh outlined the case at some length. He stated that Jessie Elizabeth Smart was a girl 19 years of age, who had been employed at the Oamaru Woollen Mills. Mrs Thorpe had been employed at the same mills. As a result of certain d’s closures, it was alleged that Mrs Thorpe arranged by telephone to take Jessie Smart I to the house of Mrs Clark, in Maclaggan street, Dunedin. Thg two went to Dunedin, and it was alleged that an operation was performed in the house of the accused, that a sum of £lO was paid by Mrs Thorpe, and .that the girl Smart, who was subjected to the operation, died in the Oamaru Pub lie Hospital a few days later fiom septicperitonitis. The accused had denied ill knowledge of the telephone message, or of Mrs Thorpe, but it would be proved that Mrs Thorpe had previously met the a? cused. and had visited her house in Dim edin. Jane Ellen Thorpe, a widow, residing in Thames street. Oamaru, gave evidence simt lar to that given by ner in the (owe) court. She also minutely described the house in Dunedin that she had visited The witness was cross-examined brieff* by Mr Hanlon. She stated that in doing what she did. she knew that she was com mitting a very serious crime, for whi T she would be liable to severe, punishment if convicted. She made her first statement to Senior Sergeant Shanahan, who toil her that it would be for her own good P she told ah she knew. She bad met Jack Chilcott first in another woman's house It was Jack Chilcott who gave her the £24. and he must have known that the mone« was intended for an illegal operation. He took the £24 from his pocket, and said that ought to be enough. Witness ha 1 given Chilcott £3 back, after the operation, had been performed. -John William Chilcott. confectioner, gave evidence to the effect that he had given Mrs Thorpe £24 iu notes. The girl Smart had told him the money was required for an operation. Under cross-examination, Witness stated that he knew the operation would be an illegal one, and that it would be a crime. Either Mrs Thorpe or Miss Smart told him that the cosit of the operation would be £24. There -were two interviews between them, and on the second interview he gave them the money. He had received some money back from Mrs Thorpe, but he could not say the amount. It might have been £2 or more. Mr Hanlon: That’s all right. I’d like to live in Oamaru! Under further cross-examination, witness stated that when he was interviewed by the senior sergeant he might have been told that in supplying the money he had committed a very serious crime. At that time Mrs Clark had not been arrested, so far as he knew. E-idence concerning the sending of a telephone message by- Mrs Thorpe to Mrs Clark’s number on November 22 was given by James George Currie and Charles F. Lavender, of the Postal Department. Annie Conner, proprietress of the Leviathan Hotel, in Dunedin, gave evidence iu

regard to Mrs Thorpe and Miss Smart staying at her house from a Saturday to Monday in November. ( William Pickering, night porter at the Leviathan Hotel, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. George R. Hunter said that Mrs Thorpe and Miss Smart travc.lled with him from Dunedin on a Monday morning in November. Eva May Johnston, an employee of tha Oamaru Woollen Mills, stated that in August last she had met the accused in Oamaru in company with Mrs Thorpe. She had been introduced to witness as Mrs Clark. To Mr Hanlon: Witness had not previously seen the accused, nor had she seen, her since until she .saw her in court.

Detective William Roycroft, of Dunedin, gave evidence concerning the result of his visits to the house of the accused in Maclaggan street. The accused had denied all knowledge of the girl Smart, and had invited the police to search her house. The search was made, but nothing was found. Accused later denied all knowledge of eithei- Mrs Thorpe or Miss Smart. Witness obtained a statement from the accused, describing her movements on Sunday, November 27. the date upon which the operation was alleged to have been committed. Afte being questioned about a telephone message ou November 24, the accused made another statement in which she denied having received a message on that date. Witness described the house occupied by accused in Dunedin, and this description was similar to that given by Mrs Thorpg. Cross-exc .lined by Mr Hanlon, witness stated that after a diligent search notning was found that would connect the accused with the business of an abortionist. Witness did not ask the accused about any telephone message that might have been received on November 22.

Dis Orbell and Fitzgerald gave evidence concerning the illness and death of Jessie Elizabeth Smart, and the result of a post mortem. Both concluded that the cause of death was acute peritonitis, which had been produced by the introduction of some septic material. The conditions could have been produced by an illegal operation. Under cross-examination by Mr Hanlon, Dr Fitzgerald stated that septiemmea might occur when a legal operation was performed, hut it rarely happened. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Hanlon stated that he did not propose calling evidence for the defence. Iu addressing the jury on behalf c.f the accused, Mr Hanlon stated that if a conviction were entered at all it must be on the charge of manslaughter. It was for the jury to say whether, on the evidence, there was sufficient to justify a conviction. In view of the seriousness of the charge, it was necessary that the jury should be satisfied on the most cogent evidence of the guilt of the accused. There was not a bit of evidence from the girl who died that could implicate Mrs Clark. Then whit was the evidence? Mrs Thorpe was, in law, an accomplice, and in making her statements she was shielding herself from the consequences of her crime. It was quite possible that Mrs Thorpe operated herself, because it was she who received the money. Counsel did not state that Mrs Thorpe performed the operation, but he asked what was to prevent her from | doing so. There was nothing against Mrs 1 Clark until Mrs Thorpe went into the witness box. He asked: Could any woman | have a greater motive for lying than I Mrs Thorpe? The witness Chilcott, who had been called to support Mrs Thorpe, had also a motive, and was equally an accomplice. He asked: How did Chilcott and the girl get into touch with Mrs Thorpe?,Was it not because they knew she had a reputation? Both Mrs Thorpe and Chilcott were giving evidence be- 1 cause they were not being prosecuted. Mr Hanlon quoted the opinion of tlie English Court of Apneal concerning the danger of accepting tae evidence of accomplices without corroboration. He asked the jury if they were prepared to accept the evidence of accomplices who w-ere striving to protect their own skins. The corroborative evidence, if available, must be something that would connect the accused with the commission of the crime, Mr Hanlon contended that there was not a tittle of evidence to corroborate the evidence of the accomplices to connect Mrs Clark with the crime. Mrs Clark had made no admissions. It was quite true that Mrs Thorpe hail gone to the telephone exchange and asked for a Dunedin number. But there was no evidence whatever that she had had a conversation with Mrs Clark or anybody else in Dunediu. The whole thing might have been a blind. Mrs Thorpe had described a room at Mrs Clark’s house that agreed with that of the detective, but her description was possible through her having visited the house on other business in August. Mr Hanlon criticised the evidence given concerning Mrs Clark having been seen in Oamaru in August, and he emphasised the fact that the detectives had found absolutely nothing in Airs Clark’s house to connect her with the crime. When the whole thing was washed up there was nothing in the case excepting the evidence of Mrs Thorpe. He asked was the jury prepared to deprive the accused of her liberty on the evidence of a woman who was an a'dmitted accomplice? His Honor, in directing the jury, stated that under the Crimes Act the accused was liable to imprisonment for life for committing an illegal operation, and to three years for supplying ?n instrument. As counsel had pointed out, if the accused was convicted, at all, it 'should be on the charge of manslaughter. It was doubtful if there was any evidence to support the two other charges. It was for the jury to say what value they attached to the evidence of Mrs Thorpe, for it was upon this evidence that the Crown largely based its case. It had been said that Mrs Thorpe was trying to shield herself. But she was not shielding herself. If the police did not take action against her any private individual could do so. His Honor did not think the suggestion that Mrs Thorpe had performed the operation herself was supported by evidence. He explained the position in regard to accomplices and corroboration. A good deal of the evidence called in this case had not helped to corroborate the evidence of Mrs Thorpe. There were only two matters that might be regarded as corroboration. One was the ringing up of the telephone number of the accused on November 22.

The jury would be justified in accepting this as some slight corroboration. In regard to the furniture in the house, Mrs Thorpe had admitted that she had been there twice before, so that her description was not of much value. The accused had told the police that she knew no person of the name of Airs Thorpe, and the Crown had called evidence to show that Mrs Clark and Airs Thorpe were acquainted. When the whole case was boiled down it was for the jury to say whether it believed the evidence of Airs Thorpe. His Honor warned the jury that Mrs Thorpe was an accomplice, and warned it of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. The* jury retired at 3 p.m., and returned at 3.22 with a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The accused was thereupon discharged. ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. John Guillimont, 76 years of age, was charged with indecently assaulting a female child at Pukeuri on October 28. He was also charged with committing an indecent act,- and with committing an indecent act with the object of insulting the child. Mr Creagh appeared for the Crown, and Mr H. Grater for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empanelled-.— D. Williams (foreman), D. Craig, J M’Cone, B. Al'Ghee, S. R. Irwin, J. S. Nimmo, T. W. Dimick, J. R. Gilchrist, E. J. Speid, C. Church, H. Burgess, and 0. Byventon. Evidence for the Crown was given by Herbert Robbie, Cora Al‘Kay, Mrs M'Kay, and Constable Tretheway. The lastnamed stated that the accused had ad mitted giving, the child a flower and offering her a penny. Air Grater, for the accused, said that there was a strong element of doubt in the case, and he asked that the accused oe given the benefit of the doubt. His Honor stated that it was clear from the evidence that an indecent assault had been committed. The jury should no'; take into consideration the fact that the accused was an old man. If it regarded its oath, it would enter a conviction. Youug child ren must be protected against crimes such as that alleged. The jury, after a retirement of a few minutes, returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of indecent assault. Mr Grater presented a report from the medical superintendent of the Seacliff Hospital to the effect that the accused was physically weak, though not certifiably insane.

His Honor said it was difficult to know what to- do with the accused, who was not fit to be at large. The accused had pre viously served a term of imprisonment for a similar offence. He would Be ordered to be detained for reformative treatment for a period of five years. SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. GREYMOUTH, March 5. The sitting of the Supreme Court was opened to-day before Mr Justcie Adams with indictments against seven persons. His Honor said that there was a satisfactory absence of crime relating to dishonesty, but there were three cases of assaultcausing grievous bodily harm, one case of indecent assault on a young girl, and two charges against one man of indecent assault on males. The Grand July found no bill in the case where a man over 80 years of age, Neils Mortensen, was chaiged with assaulting Klaus Robert Nordbcrg at Te Kinga on October 8, 1527, and causing bodily harm by shooting him in the leg at his hut, Nordberg having declared his belief that Mortensen did not know what lie was doing at the time. . Three youths—Douald and John Minchin and' William Haseler, charged with indecent assault and common assault on n girl of 15 years of age, were convicted of common assault and remanded for sentence. Charles Clayton was acquitted on a charge of assaulting, at Dobson, on August 19, John Voyce, so as to cause actual bodily harm. ' Voyce was wounded in the head' during a row in the hut occupied by himself and accused, and he alleged that Clayton struck him with a poker during a' dispute about paying their joint food bills. The accused, in evidencealleged that Voyce drunk. The latter seized hold of him and in brushing Voyce away accused caused him to fall, and he struck his head on a box. The medical evidence showed that A oyce was intoxicated at the time. GREYMOUTH, March 6. In the Supreme Court to-day Erasmus Arthur Jones, alias Arthur Edward Jones, was found guilty of indecent assault (two charges) on males at Greymouth, and was remanded till to-morrow for sentence. William Jamieson, charged with assaulting John Thomas Butterworth, at Ngahere, was found not guilty, the jury returning the verdict without retiring. Mr Justice Adams, commenting on the evidence, which showed that the parties concerned in th e case were drinking in Ngahere Hotel after 11 o’clock on a Sunday night, said he thought the facts ought to be brought under the notice of the Licensing Committee. SITTINGS AT HAMILTON. HAMILTON, March 6. At the Supreme Court to-day, Thomas William Waters, a bankrupt builder, was found guilty of two breaches of the Bankruptcy Act. Joseph Randford Coates was found guilty of altering a cheque for £6 to £6O. Sentences were postponed. Theodore Thomas, an habitual criminal, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour for forging a cheque for £2 10s at Owhango. PRISONERS SENTENCED. HAMILTON, March 7. At the Supreme Court this morning, Thomas Frederick Waters* a bankrupt builder, for two breaches of the Bankruptcy Act, received a month on each charge (concurrent); Stanley Menzies, a young man, two years’ probation for forgery. A middle-aged man, Hervey Edwidge Christian, was sentenced to seven years with hard labour for assault on a boy. Mr Justice Blair described persona guilty of such offences as not really human. The law provided no remedy for sexual maniacs, and the only thing was to segregate them from ordinary humau beings.

GISBORNE SITTING. GISBORNE, March 6. At th e Supreme Court, Percy Raggett appeared oil charges of indecent assault ou a boy, indecent assault and criminal assault on a girl under the age of 14. In respect to the charge against th e girl, the evidence disclosed that the case bad not been brought within nine months of the alleged offence, and on the advice of Mr Justice Ostler the Crown dropped the case. On the charge of indecent assault against the hoy, the accused was admitted to probation for 12 months. James Blakeley, an ex-constable at Tolaga, pleaded guilty to forgery and theft as a servant of the Government. The stolen moneys represented portions of fines inflicted on persons by a magistrate, alterations having been made in the criminal records corresponding with the amounts taken. The accused was sentenced to three months’ hard labour. GISBORNE, March 7. In the Supreme Court, George Ngarimu aged 19 years, for being found in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime, was ordered three years’ Borstal detention. Probation was refused in view of his previous record. For committing mischief by seriously wounding a cow which had been trespassing in his garden, Enoka Toheriri Baku was admitted to probation for 12 months. WANGANUI SESSIONS. ! c „ , WANGANUI. Alarch 7. Sir Charles Skerrett, the Chief Justice, sentenced prisoners in the Supreme Court: Sydney Buckland, for indecent assault on females, at Mungapurua Soldier Settlement, received two vears’ hard labour; Alfred Kennedy, of Taihape, for eliding the committing of the crime of indecent assault on a male, was admitted to probation for three years, and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution: Thomas Patrick Kellj’. Taihape, for indecent assault on males, three years’ hard labour; Reginald Crutchley, probation for 12 months for selling a motor cycle which had not been paid for under a hire purchase agreement; William James Brennan nine months’ hard labour for assault in Cooks Gardens. HAMILTON SESSIONS. HAAIILTON, Alarch 9. At the Supreme Court two young men —lra George Land and Bernard Francis Murray—pleaded not guilty to charges of breaking and entering a 'arage at Tauranga on January 27 and stealing seven suitcases and their contents, valued at £95, the property of Messrs Jacksons, Ltd., of Auckland. The accnsj.l were also charged with receiving stolen goods. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, a recommendation to leniency being extended in the case of Murray on account of the evil influence exercised over him by Land. The accused were remanded Alonday to give them a chance of assisting the police in recovering the balance of the goods. On a charge of bookmaking Harry Asher, a tobacconist, was fined £25 anil costs.