SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3961, 11 February 1930, Page 25

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

The quarterly criminal sittings were commenced at the Supreme Court on the 3rd inst before Mr Justice Kennedy. GRAND JURY.

The following grand jury was empanelled:—John Mitchel Alexander, Alexander Cable. William Gordon Kindley, Athol Charles Duke, Henry Hugh Henderson, Edward Ernest Nicholson, John Alexander L. Wallace, David M. Fastier, Thomas Steel Coull, Hercules Henderson, George Logan Robertson, George Chance, John Black, Reginald James Kilroy, Mervyn Fulton Valpy, Joseph Henry Al’Dougall, James Bennet L. Rutherford, Leslie Farquhar Cleghorn, Gerald Benson, James Hogg (foreman), Herbert Spencer Watson, Gordon Sutherland, and David Charles Stark. HIS HONOR’S ADDRESS. In his charge to the grand jury his Honor said there were bills of indictment against six persons. The alleged crimes included attempted carnal knowledge, indecent assault, and assault upon a child, and the commission of an indecent act intended to insult or annoy. Two persons ivere charged with offences relating to the driving of motor cars, and one person was charged with sheep stealing. It was the duty of the grand jury to ascertain if there was sufficient probable evidence to warrant the accused persons being placed upon their trial; the grand jury had simply to ascertain whether a prima facie case had been made out. Dealing with the charge of carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 16, his Honor pointed out that consent could be no defence. In the case of attempted carnal knowledge the accused was alleged to have advertised for a masseur, and to have committed in her presence an indecent act intended to insult or offend her. If the grand jury was satisfied that there was prima facie evidence of exposure, and that it was not accidental or necessary, then there would be no difficulty in returning a true bill. His Honor said that, in respect to the charge against the motor drivers, one was alleged to have killed a cyclist, while another was alleged to have done bodily harm to a cyclist. One driver was charged with manslaughter, and, alternatively, with negligently driving a motor vehicle, thereby causing death, and, while in a state of intoxication, being in charge of a motor vehicle, and by an act or omission relating thereto causing death. Manslaughter was culpable homicide which did not amount to murder. Homicide was culpable when it consisted of killing by an unlawful act or by an omission to perform or observe a legal duty, or both combined. The man who drove a motor was under a duty to drive his vehicle with care and due regard to the safety of other persons who might be upon the street or highway. If a driver, by an unlawful act or failure to take care, killed a cyclist m circumstances not amounting to "murder, then he was guilty of manslaughter Ihe charge of negligent driving was alternative. Under an Act of 1922 it was possible to bring a charge against a motorist which did not appear to be so grave and for which a lesser punishment was provided than the maximum punishDient for manslaughter. A motorist drove negligently when he did not exercise the care that an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent man would exercise. That was the standard of care the law required, and no less care would be accepted. Speaking with respect to the charge of a motorist being intoxicated, bis Honor said a man might be able to walk or to talk and still be in a state of intoxication understood by the law when the words applied to a person in charge of a motor vehicle. The grand jury had to be satisfied that the condition of a driver was so affected by alcoholic liquor or drugs as to render him incapable of driving a motor car. The charge of sheep stealing against Claude Button Manners, said his Honor, was not the ordinary type, and very careful attention would require to be given. The evidence would show that the accused was one of two partners in a farm and butchery business. They had disagreements and some talk In correspondence about a dissolution of the partnership, but notwithstanding that the partnership was carried on. The accused slaughtered Some lambs on the farm for the purpose of the business, and it was in respect to those lambs that the charge was laid. A mercantile firm had a bill of sale in respect to the lambs, and it was alleged that by slaughtering the lambs the accused fraudulently deprived the firm of its special-interest in those lambs. If the grand jury found that the accused, honestly believing he had a right to slaughter the lambs, provided he accounted for the price of them to the mercantile firm and intended to pay the price of them, then there would be no probable sufficient evidence showing an intention to defraud, and in such a case a no bill should be returned. His Honor said he had dwelt upon this case because it was not an ordinary case, and because on the evidence there were some very unusual and some very unsatisfactory features. Accused was further charged with theft as against his partner. The grand jury might conclude the whole matter was a partnership quarrel, and if that was the impression, there should be no bill in the case. A criminal court was not the place to settle mere partnership disputes where there was no fraudulent intent. NO BILL. The grand jury returned a “ no bill ” in respect to the charge of sheep stealing against Claude Sutton Manners, and the accused was discharged. , TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned in all other cases. FATALITY AT ROXBURGH. The first accused placed in the dock was George Al'Gavin O’Kane on charges of having on November 30 last committed manslaughter by killing Stanley Omand; with recklessly and negligently driving, thereby causing the death of Stanley Omand: and that while in a state of intoxication in charge of a motor car, and by an act of omission relating thereto, he did cause the death of Stanley Omand.

Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The , Cro ' vn Prosecutor (Mr F B Adams), in opening the case, said "that theie had been a dance at Roxburgh on ovember 29, and in the early hours of the morning Omand lost his life. The first count was one of manslaughter, and was presented in the way in which such cases as this were invariably presented to a jury. In referring’ to the other counts the Crown Prosecutor said that even if it could be shown that deceased himself was partly responsible for what happened it would not be an answer if the jury was satisfied that there had been negligence on the part of accused. If a man chose to get himself in a condition in which he was unable to control a motor car, and went on the road, it could not be said that it was not his fault. Deceased was in a telephone exchange, and w r a s- 21 } , ears °f age, and on the night of November 29 he went to a fire brigade dance at Roxburgh. The last dance took place about 1 a.ni., and after deceased had taken a young lady home he left on his motor cycle. After that he was heard by a youth who had also been at the dance, and had gone to bed. He was trying to go to sleep when lie heard a sound like a blow-out of a motor car tyre. He also heard the sound of a motor cycle. Ihe car did not stop. lie would say the car was travelling fairlv fast. He heard someone call out “ Hey/’ ami on going out saw deceased lying in the light His motor bicycle was also lying there 1/r Gilmour was called, and on seeing deceased directed that he be sent to the Dunedin Hospital, where he died in tile evening about 9 o'clock. If succour had not been brought to him he would have died where he was found. Mr Adams went on to follow the movements of accused, and referred to a lengthy statement he had made, the effect of which, was that he had abstained from drinking, and that on his return journey he was travelling about 20 to 25 miles an hour and was keeping a good lookout. He had an idea that he was approaching a bridge, and he felt a bump immediately afterwards, and his front tyre went flat. Ihe bridge was really half a mile from Roxburgh, and the accident happened a quarter of a mile before the point at which the accused would reach the bridge. He changed into second gear, and reduced speed to five miles an hour, although his tyre was blown out. Mr Adams then dealt with what happened when Mr Tamblyn met .accused, and stated that Mr Tamblyn identified the accused as the man who had his car in a hedge. Mr Tamblyn, owing to the man's actions, was °f the opinion that the man was under the influence of drink.

Dr J. R. Gilmour said that a call was made at his door at about 2 o’clock in the morning of November 30. He went along the road for about half a mile, and found deceased and others. Deceased was lying on his back, suffering from shock and a compound fracture of the leg. He attended to deceased, putting his leg in splints. Deceased was then taken to a garage, where witness remained with him until he was sent to Dunedin. The main reason for sending deceased to Dunedin was the condition of the leg. Witness did not anticipate that deceased would die. He did not think the journey to Dunedin would cause further bleeding, or make much difference to the shock.

To Mr Hanlon: No bones were protruding. In order to stop the bleeding a pad was put over the wound. There was no arterial bleeding. The bleeding had not absolutely stopped when deceased was sent on his journey. Witness did not think the journey would aggravate the oozing of the blood. Witness did not know that deceased died from loss of blood. He did not think it would have been better to keep him in Roxburgh. Dr Strang, a resident surgeon at the Dunedin Hospital, said that the deceased was suffering from a compound fracture of the right thigh bone and the right shin bone, and was also suffering from .shock. Witness gave details of the treatment of the deceased. He was given two transfusions of blood, but died at 9.45 p.m. on the night of November 30. Witness said that the deceased had died from shock, resulting from the accident. To Mr Hanlon: It was not usual to give a transfusion for shock, apart from loss of blood. The fact that an injured man had been carried 100 miles in a car would aggravate the effects of shock James Sainsbury, motor mechanic. Roxburgh, said he had been at the fire brigade’s dance at Roxburgh on Friday, November 29. Witness first noticed the accused and another man fighting in a back room. He went and stopped them and found they were only sparring. The accused asked witness to go out to the front of the hall with him, and there he found a five-seater car. The accused produced a quart bottle of whisky from the back of the car. There was not very much in the bottle—it was about a-quar-ter full. Witness had one drink, and the accused put the bottle back in the car. Neither O’Kane nor the other man who was with him had any of the whisky. The accused seemed to have had a few drinks. He was happy. To Mr Hanlon, witness admitted that in the lower court he had said it was a small bottle of whisky O’Kane had taken from the car. He was now satisfied that it was a large bottle. Witness could not smell any drink on the accused. Thomas Omand, father of the deceased, said his son was 19 years past at the time of his death. The deceased had always enjoyed good health. He had been riding a motor cycle about 12 months before his death, and, so far as witness knew, had never had an accident.

Detective Kearton said that on December 5 he had photographed a Buick car which was registered by Henry O’Kane. Gordon Alexander Aston, fruit picker, said he had been employed at Mr 11. Craig’s place, near Roxburgh, in November last. He was at the fire brigade’s dance until its end. He had seen the accused there with a man whom witness had later learned was named Williamson. After the dahce witness went home and to bed. His tent faced on to a hedge. He had heard the sound of a motor cycle coming from Roxburgh. The cycle appeared to be going fairly slow. He heard it pass his tent and then a sound very much like the blow out of a tyre. Shortly afterwards he hard someone call out ‘'Hey! He heard this called out about four times, and he then got up and went to the gate. He could see someone lying on the road under an electric light, and he saw a motor cycle lying near the’man. The man was lying on the side of the road on the grass. Witness had learnt

later that the. man was Stanley Omand. Omand said his leg was broken. Witness then went to call Gordon Craig. Omand had said that a blue sedan car had hit him and that he had asked a man named Thompson, who had also arrived on the scene, to keep his eye out for it. The deceased had said he was going about 10 miles an hour. To Mr Hanlon: In the lower court he had said that so far as he could remember. Omand had stated that the car had a <r*nt on the mudguard on the righthand side. Witness could not say whether Omand had stated that the car had stopped.

Re-examined: He had stated in his evidence in chief that he did not think the car had stopped. Francis Joseph Tamblyn, fruitgrower, residing at Coal Creek, said his place was exactly five miles and a-half from Roxburgh. He had been present at the fire brigade’s dance, and had seen the accused there. Witness left the hull just after the last dance—about a quarter past 1. M itness had his car with him, and his road hSine brought him past Mr Bennetts s gate, and also past Mr Toms’s gate. When he was near Bennetts’s gate he noticed the light of a car coming behind. Witness was travelling at about 30 miles an hour. The driver of the car tooted his horn, and witness cased his speed by about two miles an hour, and pulled to his proper side of the road. V\hen the car drew abreast of him he noticed that its two outside wheels were partly on the grass on the side of the road. Witness would then be about 30 yards or 40 yards beyond Bennetts’s gate, and nearing Toms's gate. \\ itness expected that the accused's car would capsize. There was a considerable drop on the side of the road where the two outside wheels were running—about two feet. Witness considered that the accused was going fully 15 miles an hour faster than he was travelling—about 45 miles an hour, as near as he could guess. Witness commenced to pull up, and the accused’s car swung across in front of him and into the hedge beside Toms’s house. . When the accused’s car swung across in front of witness's car there would be a space of from two yards to five yards between them. Witness prevented an accident by pulling up his car. Witness drove a few yards, and then got out of his car and went and had a word with Q'Kane. O’Kane got out of the driver’s seat, and witness asked him what he thought he was trying to do. The accused replied that his accelerator jammed. Witness said the accelerator was not jammed now. The accused said it was. Witness said he would ring up the police and inform them that the accused was a danger to the road. Witness did not help to get the accused’s car out of the ditch, as he thought it was just as well there for a while. Witness then went straight home. He saw Clive Toms got out of the accused's car. The accused spoke all right, and witness did not smell drink on him. He thought the accused had had a few “ spots " by the way he was handling his car. Air Hanlon had not questions to ask. Alice May Paterson, who at the time of the accident was employed in the Commercial Hotel at Roxburgh, was asked by Mr Adams whether she had been keeping company with the deceased at the time of his death. The witness then fell backwards in a collapse and was carried from the court room.

Francis Joseph de Siva, fruitgrower, residing at Coal Creek, sa kl he had been awakened on the rooming of November 30 by the sound of a car, apparently in difficulties. The time would be between half-past 1 and 2 o’clock. After the car had got out of the ditch he noticed the reflection of the lights through his bedroom window. Witness got up, and the two bright lights of the car then shone right into the bedroom. The car stood there for 10 to 15 minutes. The width of the road in this part where it was graded was 20 feet. The marks of two of the wheels of the car were two feet below the level of the road. Witness knew the deceased, and would say he was a careful motor cyclist. Air Hanlon said he had no questions to ask.. He agreed to accept the witness Paterson’s depositions in the lower court as her evidence. This was of a formal nature, anil stated that the witness knew the deceased was a teetotaller. Jessie Craig said she had heard several cars passing her place on the night of November 30, and she had then heard a crash and a car pass her window. She had looked at the clock and it was 10 minutes to 2. The car did not stop in her hearing. She had been impressed by the noise the car made, and it appeared to her that all the parts were loose by the rattle it made.

Francis Henry Thompson. motor mechanic, Roxburgh, said he was at the fire brigade’s dance. He left the dance at about a quarter past 1. He saw Stanley Owen at the dance. After the dance witness went to the garage, got a car, and started with passengers up Coal Creek. He went about four miles. He saw a car which appeared to be backed into Toms's gate. It was pointing towards the middle of the road. There were no lights burning on it and he saw no one about it. Witness went on up the Coal I Creek road about a mile and a-quarter. He saw no cars coming towards Roxburgh. Witness was not on the road all the time, as he went up to Bennetts’s place to drop passengers. On returning he came on the scene of the accident, just outside Henderson’s hoqge. Witness saw the people at the scene of the accident and pulled up. Stanley Omand was lying on file side of the road, and his cycle was practically off the road. It was on the Roxburgh side of the deceased. Witness could see quite distinctly. Mr Hanlon said he would not object to the witness stating what Omand had told him. / The witness, continuing, stated that Omand said that a car had hit him and had gone straight on. He also said that if witness saw a car with the right mudguard dented, that would be the car that had hit him. Tire deceased said that the right-hand mudguard had struck him. The deceased said he was travelling at 10 miles an hour, and that he had a light. The car at Toms's gate was not there when witness was returning to Roxburgh. Witness examined the bulb of the lamp on the motor cycle after it had been removed and it was in working sender. Witness had brought Omand to Dunedin in a car.

To Mr Hanlon:: Omand had not told him that the car was a blue sedan, and he did not swear that in the lower court. He had said Omand had told him it was a blue caf. The car witness was driving was a blue sedan. Omand had told him to look out for a blue car. Witness would swear that Omand did not say it was a blue sedan car that hit him. It was possible that one or two cars might have passed along the road without the witness being aware of it. Leonard Franklin Taylor, motor mechanic, Roxburgh, said he was at the r ire Brigades’s dance. He had gone to Air Toms's place with Constable Al'Alahon on December 6 and had taken certain measurements. The marks were still visible where the car had gone into the fence, and here it was they took the measurements. He had gone with Constable Al'Alahon and the witness Thompson at about half past 10 at night on December 8 to the scene of the accident. Hie place where Omand had been found lying was near an electric light pole. Witness stood with his bicycle at the spot where Omand had been and pointed a torch towards Coal Creek. Thompson had then driven up jn a car with its lights on. Witness could see the car approaching about 200 yards away, but he could not see its colour. \\ itness then changed places with Thompson. Witness could see Thompson about 100 yards away, and could also see the light he was holding and the electric light on the pole.

The case against O'Kane was continued on Tuesday. Ihe witness Leonard Franklin Taylor continued his evidence, stating that he had examined a balloon tyre and tube in botn of which he had discovered cuts. Ihe valve had been torn from the tube, and the rust-band was in pieces. Ths tyre appeared to have been run deflated. The damage could have been caused through collision with a motor cycle. He had also examined the lamp from Omand’s cycle. While the lamp itself was in working order the generator and bracket broken. This would have been sufficient to extinguish the lamp. Witiress went on to describe the damage to the cycle. He considered that the cycle . ’■ ■? een struck at an angle from the right-hand side. The damage could not have been caused through the cycle striking a post or a bridge. To Air Hanlon witness stated that he had merely examined a photograph of the car. In the lower court he had tried to fit in the marks on the car with those on the cj'cle, and had found one dent winch could only have occurred through a blow from the handle-bar of the cycle or through the deceased striking it. .In reply to a question by Air Adams, witness said that all the marks could be accounted for.

Leslie Alanuel, an orehardist, of Coal ( reek stated that he attended the Fire Brigade dance at Roxburgh where he saw the accused, who came in with a friend and a>ked him if he would care to have a drink. Witness refused. Lattr on he could smell liquor on the accused. but he could not tell whether the accused was under the influence of iquor Ihe accused told witness that he and his friend had stopped at every hotel on the way up from Dunedin. Witness left the dance shortly after 1 o'clock, a nd his way home he saw a car with the accused and some friends, in difficulties. It had run into a hedge. The accused was not under the influence of liquor at the time. Donald Gunn, a labourer, of Roxburgh, who also attended the dance, said that he drove up the Coal Creek road on his way home. He saw two cars, one of which appeared to be in difficulties, in front of Mr Tomss gate. One of these belonged to Air Alanuel. On his wav home he met no cars bound for Roxburgh. Norman Alarsh Elder, a garage proprietor of Roxburgh, said that the accused called at his garage on the morning of November 30. Before bringing his' car in he asked witness if he had time to . a n4? ni r C^ure * ’ len brought the car m. Ihe trout right mudguard was dented in on the top. \\ itness said that the tyre was beyond repair. Before the accused left witness asked him if he haa had an accident, and he stated that he thought that he had h:t a bridge on his wav reck from Coal Creek.

Constable Thomas M illiam Parkhill x- * ,t 8-30 a.ni. on the morning of November 30 he was informed that a serious accident had occurred at Roxburgh On arrival there he found the accused m the billiard room of the Commercial Hotel. The accused stated that lie yas the driver of the car concerned m the accident, and accompanied witness to the scene. Together they took measurements. Afterwards they returned to the pence station, where the accused made a voluntary statement. There was a bridge between the scene of the accident and Roxburgh. M itness examined it. but found no marks to indicate that it had been struck by a vehicle. The registrar read the statement made to Constable Parkhill bv the eused In it the accused stated that he had had no liquor either on his way from Dunedin to Roxburgh or at the dance. He had taken Toms home from the dance, and on his return had been travelling in the middle of the road at 20 to 25 miles an hour,' keeping a good lookout, when he had felt a bump, and his left front tyre had gone flat. On reaching the Commercial Hotel he had left the car in a side street, and had gone to bed. When he had gone to his car the next morning he .lad noticed that the left-hand front mudguard had been badly damaged. A young man had asked, “ How did you have the accident? ” and the accused had said that he thought that he had struck a bridge. The young man had said that a motor car had run into a man on a motor cycle. It had then struck the accused that he might have hit the man. He had then gone to Williamson and had told him what he had thought. The accused was certain that both head lamps had been burning, anil that if a cycle had approached him with a head lamp burning he would have seen it. lie was convinced that the cycle had been travelling on its correct side of the road. He would defy anyone to say that he had supplied him with liquor from the time he had left Dunedin until he had gone to bed.

Constable Al’Mahon, of Roxburgh, said he had visited the scene of the accident on December 1, and had taken certain measurements. There was a bridge between Roxburgh and the locality where the accident occurred. He would expect

to find marks on the bridge if it had been struck by a car, but he found no n.arks In witness's opinion there was r.u likelihood of a motor car driver mistaking the light of the electric pole for the light on a motor cycle. Francis C. F. Reid, a member of the of impenny Bros, and Reid, said he had examined both the car and the motor cycle. They had come into a collision, the right-hand guard of the car sti iking the cycle. He based this opinion on the fact that certain marks on both ■se.iicles corresponded. Witness then explained his points. He did not consider tiiat the damage to the car could have been caused by it striking a bridge. 1° Air Hanlon: He could not agree that the marks on the motor cycle could have been caused by it coming into collision witli some other car.

Tor the defence, Air Hanlon said he had no witnesses to call.

MR ADAMS’S ADDRESS. Mr Adams, in his address to the jurysaid the question was whether or not tlm accused was the driver of the car whiifi had knocked down Omand. He had sone doubt whether that point would be sen- ? contested, and he must deal wi + h it if it was Counsel referred to the fact that Omand had said it was a blue car which had struck him, and said that so tar as he knew this was the only in the case that gave ground for a gestion that some other car must have been involved, and that it could not have been the accused s car. The jury had to bear in mind the deceased’s condition at the tune he said it was a blue car, and to remember the suddenness of the approach of the other vehicle. It came head on to the deceased, with its lights burning, and under those circumstances what chance would Omand have of deciding whether it was a blue or black or grey car that had struck him? In the third place there was Thompson’s car on the spot—a blue car—to put the idea of a blue ear into the mind of the deceased, seeing the condition in which he was in. There was no suggestion that Thomson’s car was involved in the accident Counsel said he put it to the jury that the accused himself, when spoken to by the constable had admitted that he was the diner of the car. O'Kane’s statement, read to them that morning, did not deny that he was the driver of the car, and it might be to his credit that there was no such denial on record. The evidence narrowed it down to O’Kane’s car He left it to the jury to attach what value it might think fit to the accused's statement that he had struck a bridge Counsel submitted, that the accused knew he had struck the motor cyclist, and notwithstanding that had driven on and left him lying on the roadside. The next question was whether the accused was drunk. In regard to the suggestion that lie was drunk, counsel said he did not propose to say much, as it was a charity to the accused to consider that he was to some extent under the influence of liquor. Even if the accused were not drunk they might very likely cmieluds tiiat he had some liquor, and that short oi being drunk he had reached a sta<r e of nnnd from which he might easily "have become involved in an accident. Counsel referred to the manner in which, prior to the accident, the accused had driven his car across Tamblyn's car, and said it showed the condition in which he was in just befoie the collision. Assuming even that the accused was perfectly sober and a normal driver, there remained the question of negligence. They had the evidence of Omand, who had said he was on his proper side of the road. The collision Lad occurred on a wide part cf the road, and the jury should consider why the accused could not have seen Omand and have avoided the accident. The accused, on the other hand, was on his wiong side of the road. In the absence of explanation the jury was entitled to °"' n con S, lusi °ns on the question of negligence. Counsel submitted that n r ° WI ? - had e « ta V li s’‘ed that O'Kane '. V’ e ! lrivc r f'i the car and that he L ui drUnk ' °, V natively, that bv his no' T S n COII< " <;t i 011,1 ne K 1 ’R«?nce he had caubed the accident.

AIR HANLON'S ADDRESS. that l \rr a AR’ in a(, , dres , in « tile J' ll '.'-, said thn£ l.« had referred to the fact would iJ 1 n . ot , kno"', "hat the defence •T’LL! °' J” 1 /- he had Kiven awav the stated B /r n ‘ !S °? V i n ? as . e " llen he had stan d that Omand had described the car and' Im i a H 6trUC ' I”" 1 ! aS a bhle scdan > ?i 1 i ? sked the - 1UI A" not hennd-. n • ‘ end - nia a' 31 r Ada niS had made an impassioned appeal for the coniietion of J Kane. This was not the custom of Crown prosecutors, and certaini\ not that of Mr Adams. The jury would reinember that Mr Adams had told it that a revolting act ” had been done, that it was an ‘ abominable ” offence that there was “not a spark of humanJ. 11 a nian who would commit such an offence, and had used the phrase jour natural abhorrence.” These phrases were worthy of an orator who must win his case at all costs. Did the case require bolstering up? It was not upon speeches, however, but on the evidence, that the case must be decided. Mr Adams had stated that there had been no eye-witnesses. Certainly none had been put into the box. There were, however, two eye-witnesses—the man driving the car and the young man who lost his life. Air Adams had said that the case depended on circumstantial evidence, and that circumstances could not lie. Counsel submitted that in this case circumstances did lie. What did this circumstantial evidence amount to? The accused went to a dance, and while he was taking a man home the accelerator jammed, Imd that was why the car ran into the hedge. That showed tiiat the accused was on the road somewhere about the time the accident happened. Evidence had been given regarding the accused before he began to return to Roxburgh, but it had only been called to prejudice the accused in the eyes of the jury. The Crown said that if he went too fast one way he must have gone too fast coming back. it bad not been proved that the accused was intoxicated or that he had been guilty of negligence. - s soon as he had realised the possibility that he was responsible he had gone to the police and reported, but it did not follow that he had meant that he had been driving the car which had caused the accident. It could not be read into the statement that he had said “I ant the man who caused the accident.’’ The members of th? j’gry couli

not decide on guesswork. They must find whether their consciences were satisfied that it was proved that the accused caused the death of the man Omand. Referring to the evidence of the experts, M r Hanlon said that they thought that they had to give certain evidence because they had been called by a certain side. The witness Reid had said, “ The marks on the cycle could not have been caused by any other car. If the ease were not a very serious one that would be a joke, but a man’s liberty was at stake. Could anything more stupid have been said, Mr Hanlon went on to deal with the fact that Omand had said that the car which had struck him had been a blue sedan, ■whereas the accused s car was a fawn grey colour, and he read the evidence on the point. The Crown asked the jury to conclude that the injured man, who had given a clear description of the car, had made a mistake. What was the value of expert evidence in the face of Omand s statement? Resuming his address after the luncheon adjournment. Air Hanlon stated that he wished to refer to the question of negligence —whether there was negligence on the part of O’Kane or the man who drove the car. Had the Crown proved negligence? Drunkenness might be a form of negligence, and other forms might be speeding, failure to keep a proper look-out, driving a car without proper brakes, or driving on the wrong side of the road. Had any of these things been proved against the driver ot the car? The jury was not entitled to assume negligence merely because there had been a collision. The onus was on the Crown to prove it. What was the evidence in regard to drunkenness? The witness Sanders had said that he thought the accused was drunk because he was bright when he was in the hall. Surely the jury could not bring itself to convict a man on that evidence. Manuel had said that he could not tell from the accused’s appearance or manner that he had had drink. Later he could smell drink on the accused, who otherwise was all right. Manuel further stated that at the time he assisted O’Kane when the car had run into the hedge he had not been under the influence of liquor. After further reference to the evidence on the point, Mr Hanlon asked whether it would be just to say that the accused was drunk and that this was the cause of the accident. Counsel euggested that the members of the jury could not find it in their hearts to come to such a conclusion. The Crown must prove its case to a reasonable degree of certainty. It should not leave the jury to cay “it looks suspicious.” It must prove beyond reasonable doubt that O’Kane’s car killed Omand and that at the time O’Kane was doing something negligent. The jury must not think that the law demanded a sacrifice and that somebody had to be punished. “If you conclude that the accused is guilty of an offence, by all means convict him. but be sure of it.” counsel concluded. *' The man himself said that a blue sedan killed him. To convict the accused you must say that a grey tourer did it. I submit that you dare not say so.” IIIS HONOR’S ADDRESS.

His Honor, in summing up, said the case of the Crown had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt was to be distinguished from mere conjecture—a visionary aspect or a mere possibility. Omand himself had said he was struck by a car, and described it either as a “ blue sedan ” or a “ blue ” car. He also referred to a dent or injury to the right-hand mudguard of the car which had hit him. His Honor quoted the evidence of the boy Aston and Mrs Craig. Both witnesses, he said, spoke of the noise of the actual collision, and he apprehended they would reach the conclusion that it had talten place. Whose car was it? Was it the accused’s ear, and was be at this time driving it? Was the evidence incompatible with the conclusion that it was the accused’s car? They would, of course, be faced with the fact that O’Kane’s car was not a blue car or a sedan car, but a tourer car. If, however, they took the other part of Omand’s statement about a dent on the mudguard, they would have a description properly describing accused’s car as viewed next morning. The witnesses who had heard the collision had referred to the puncture of a tyre, and the accused said his tyre had been punctured on the road that night. The accused had apparently noticed the dent on his car next morning. How did the accused account for it? He had said he must have struck something, but would he damage his car like that and be unaware of it? In regard to O’Kane’s verbal statement to the police the next morning, they should view it carefully. It might be that they would consider there was a distinct admission that the accused was the driver of the car, but if they had heard the exact words they might not consider that was so. The accused in his written statement had said he was driving in the centre of the road, and was keeping a good lookout. He had thought he was approaching a bridge and then he felt a bump and his right-hand tyre went flat. He had also said that he thought it must have been his car that had hit the motor cyclist. The jury, however, would be able to read the written statement itself. It showed what the accused thought he had done on the particular evening. Referring to the question whether it was the accused’s car which caused the accident, his Honor said that the jury was entitled to consider what the chances were for Omand to tell what was the colour of the car which struck him. It would be a remarkable coincidence if in the same district at about the same time another car received damage in the same place as the ear which the deceased had described. The jury need not consider the question of negligence until it had decided whether the accused was the man who drove the car. No one had seen the accused take liquor. One person had smelled liquor upon him, and other witnesses had drawn inferences from the accused’s conduct. It was for the jury to weigh the whole of the evidence and give a verdict accordingly. GUILTY ON SECOND COUNT.

The jury retired at 3.15, and at 3.33 the foreman (Mr W. Duff) returned and stated that the jury wished to see the ear.

Mr Adams said that the only difficulty Was that if the jury saw the eycle at the same time a certain amount of explanation might be 1 necessary. He had

considered that it would not be necessary for the jury to view the car. Otherwise he would have asked the witness Reid to show the points in his evidence. Mr Hanlon said that he would not object to the jury seeing the car, hut he would object to anyone being there to give evidence. His Honor: I think that the jury should see the car, and I will arrange accordingly. Mr Adams: May counsel be present? His Honor: I think counsel might dispense with their presence. Mr Adams said that one of the tyres on the front of the car was deflated, and it was, therefore, not in the condition in which it was at the time of the accident. His Honor said that the jury could fit the evidence in with what it saw and gave instructions that the jury was to be taken to view the car. The jury returned to the court at 5 o’clock. The foreman: Instructed by my jury, I have to ask you if we can omit the word “recklessly” from the second count? His Honor: Yes; if you desire so to do. The foreman: Then, your Honor, the juryfind the accused guilty on the second count. His Honor: That is guilty- of negligentlydriving a motor car, omitting the word “ recklessly,” and not guilty- on the first and third counts. His Honor added that the prisoner would be remanded in custody for sentence at 10 o’clock on Friday morning. The foreman then handed his Honor the following rider:—“That in view of the fact that the accused had had a long drive and had attended a dance, the jury is of opinion that he was partially overcome by fatigue and therefore negligent.” The accused was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. His license was suspended until its expiration, and he was disqualified from obtaining a license for three years from May 31, 1930. SERIOUS CHARGES. Charles Free, for whom Mr I. L. Hjorring appeared, was charged with, on or about the month of March, 1929 at Oamaru, attempting to carnally know a girl under the age of 12 years, with on or about the month of March indecentlyassaulting the girl; with on or about October 5 attempting to carnally know the girl: with on or about October 5 indecently assaulting the girl: with on or about October 19 attempting to carnally know the girl.

The Crown Prosecutor said the girl lived with her mother, and at one time they- had lived at the accused’s house. The girl stated that indecent acts had 'aken place by Free on four or five occasions w-hile they- were living there, but these offences were not included in the present charge. On a later occasion the girl and her brother had visited the accused’s house to get some fruit. The accused had sent the boy home, and the offence referred to in the first charge was then alleged to have taken place. Mr Adams also gave details of the other offences, and said that the accused had been in ♦lm habit of leaving notes for the girl. One of these notes had been recovered, and they would prove that it had been writtten bv the accused. The Crown Prosecute” said that a watch had been set, and as a result the accused had been caught committing an indecent assault, so that in this instance there was corroboration. Mr Adams stated that he had been surprised to find that the fifth count was one of attempted carnal knowledge He had drawn up the indictment and had intended it to be a charge of indecent as sault. He gave notice of his intention to move at the end of the hearing of evidence that tire charge be altered accordingly.

Evidence was then called by the Crown. On Wednesday further evidence was given by the girl and her mother Senior Sergeant Scott stated that on arrival at the girl’s home he sent her out to play. The mother, a constable, and witness watched through a window and saw the accused follow the girl into a stable. Removing their boots, they went to the stable, threw open the doors, and found the accused with the girl in a corner. Witness read a statement made by the accused after his arrest in which he stated that the girl threw a note over the fence to him informing him that she had been forbidden by her mother to speak to him. She would, however, meet him in the yard and tell him all about it. Later she led him into the stable and sat on his knee. Her mother had set a trap for him because she had had a disagreement with his wife. Mr Hjorring: You used the girl as a tool to trap this man. Witness: It is my duty to protect children. At the request of the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) his Honor altered the fifth count to one of indecent assault. Mr Hjorring stated that he did not propose to call evidence.

After Mr Adams had dealt briefly with the evidence Mr Hjorring addressed the jury, stating that the girl’s evidence con tained a mass of contradictions. A malicious and devilish trap had been set to compromise the accused, the mother with the connivance of the police, having allowed her daughter to become a party to a revolting and sordid business Counsel invited the jury, as a protest against the despicable methods of the police, to bring in a verdict of not guilty on all counts.

His Honor, in summing up, said the girl was under 12 years of age, and consent on her part would be no defence. In this case they would observe that the only witness to the earlier charges was the girl. There was, however, ample corroboration that on October 19 the girl had been indecently assaulted, if they accepted the evidence. The girl, being under the age of 12, and younger when the offences alleged in the first four counts took place, it would be dangerous to act upon her uncorroborated testimony. While he said that, let it be understood that it was quite competent for them to act upon the girl’s uncorro-

borated testimony-. It had been said that the accused had been decoyed into an ambiguous position so that a charge might be improperly laid against him. The words used by counsel for the defence were “ trap ” and “ deception.” The jury had heard the evidence and had seen and observed the witnesses, and it was for them to say if the witnesses deserved the descriptions which counsel for the defence in his address had applied to them. It might be that they would not accept the view- that the girl was al! that was bad, or that her mother vas a woman to whose evidence they should not pay- a great deal of attention. The jury retired at 20 minutes to 3 and returned at 12 minutes past 3 with a verdict of not guilty on the first four counts, but guilty ou the fifth count (indecent assault). The prisoner was remanded in custody for sentence.

Free was sentenced to 18 months’ reformative detention. “ There is nothing to justify such a crime,” said his Honor, “ and little could be said by anyone on your behalf to palliate it. THE TOMAHAWK CASE. Theobald Mathew Stephan Lawless was charged with, on or about June 4 1929, at Tomahawk, carnally knowing a girl over the age of 12 years and under the age of 16 years. The accused was alternatively charged with indecently assaulting the girl. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr C. J. L. White. Mr Adams, in outlining the charges against the accused, said that he was to have been tried at the November sitting, but at that time he was In the hospital. Counsel read a statement made by the accused to the police, in which he admitted having been at a crib at Tomahawk, but said that neither he nor any of those with him had gone inside the place. Mr Adams said he would like to explain that when the accused was in the hospital he was not suffering from a disease similar to that from which the girl was suffering. Dr Hanan, a house surgeon at the Dunedin Hospital, stated that the girl hat been in the hospital, and that she had been suffering from a ’cne”eal disease. Evidence was given by the mother of the girl. She said, in answer to Mr White, that she had believed her daughter had been in employment. The girl, in evidence, stated that she had gone to the crib with two other girls, and that there were two men with the accused. Witness said that she had been intimate at the crib with Cyril Lawless, a brother of the accused, but rot with the accused. Mr White: In view of that statement is it necessary for the case to go any further?

His Honor said he would not stop the case now. Cross-examined by Mr Wh’te, witness said she had been present at the crib when the parade of nude girls took place. There were men there at the time. Witness made varying statements regarding the number of times she had been at the crib, these ranging from three times to frequently. She admitted having had beer at the crib. A companion of the last witness said she had been at the crib two days running with the accused and two other men. The previous witness and a third girl were also there. The girls had suggested going out to the crib. They went out the first time in a motor car, and the accused took some liquor. They stayed at the crib till about half-past 4 in the afternoon. They all had some of'the liquor. They had gone out to the crib again the second day. Witness gave details of what had taken place at the crib, but said that the accused had not gone with any of the girls. Detective Roycroft said he had first interviewed the accused in Connection with damage done to the crib. He had seen the accused again on July 19, and had told him about the present charge. The accused had denied that he had ever had even intercourse with a woman in his life.

Mr White: I submit there is no case to answer. His Honor: I must direct in this case that the jury should find a verdict of not guilty. - Mr Adams said he did not desire to address the jury. The course his Honor proposed seemed inevitable in view of the evidence. His Honor said that evidence had been given by two girls, and both of them had upon oath said that intercourse with the accused did not take place. There was really no evidence r an which they could act and find a verdict against the accused person. They ~hould, under the circumstances, return a verdict of not guilty. They might retire, but he would ask them to return a verdict of not guilty from the jury box. The foreman of the jury then returned a verdict of not guilty, and said that at the same time, speaking on behalf of himself and his fellow-jurymen, J was to be deeply deplored that si.ch a state of affairs should exist as had been revealed by the evidence. His Honor: I agree with you that some very regrettable feature: have been disclosed in the course of this case. I also agree entirely with your verdict of not guilty. The accused was discharged. GRAVE CHARGES.

On Thursday Daniel Boyce, for whom Mr C. J. L. White appeared, pleaded not guilty to (1) on or about December 10, at Dunedin, indecently assaulting a woman, and (2) on or about the same date doing an indecent act intending thereby to insult or offend the woman.

Mr Adams, in his opening address, stated that the counts were alternative. The accused had for some little time been carrying on business in the Octagon. Apparently -fFP'Tiad rented an office in a building, and in that office he had had his home. It seemed that he had come from England two or three years ago, but he had been in Dunedin only during the last three or four months. His business had been connected with the sale of a steam cooker. The accused had inserted in a local paper at least two advertisements, and it was in connection with these that the charges arose. The advertisement which had attracted the woman concerned in the case had been inserted on November 27, and had read as follows: —“ Wanted, young lady to learn massage, evenings; small salary to commence.” Apparently a number of persons had answered the advertisement. Previously, on September 23, the accused had inserted the following advertisement: —“ Massage by a new process. A London firm in Dunedin will give massage entirely free for one month to three ladies and three gentlemen to prove the value of its invention.” The arrangement was that the woman in this case was to call on five evenings each week, and she was to receive 7s 6d a week for her services. The Crown Prosecutor went on to say that there was a difference between the statements made by the accused to the woman and to the police. Counsel stated that the accused’s own statement showed that he was not qualified to teach massage. Apparently the new invention referred to in the advertisement was a powder which he had secured from a Dunedin chemist, and which had no special qualities. The woman concerned gave evidence, stating that the accused told her that be required massage on account of heart trouble.

Di Evans stated that he had examined the accused, and had found no evidence of disease of the heart or fatty degeneration The accused was Buffeting from double rupture, and massage was not safe treatment. There was nothing in his condition to indicate that massage was necessary or advisable. Detective Jenvey gave evidence regarding the statement made by the accused.

Arthur Watson, a chemist’s assistant, said that he supplied the accused with a powder which he did not consider was suitable for reducing flesh. For the defence, Mr White intimated that he intended to call two women who had been witnesses for the Crown in the lower court, but whom the Crown had decided not to call. Both had given evidence in the lower court very much in favour of the accused, stating that they had massaged the accused far some time, and that no impropriety had taken place. The first witness stated that she had massaged the accused for about two months, and during part of that time had also done clerical work for him. No impropriety had taken place during that time.

To Mr Adams, witness stated that the accused had once asked her what she would do if he kissed her. Certain things had happened which she had regarded as accidental. She had received a letter from him in which he had used endearing terms, and in which he stated that he had been struck by her beauty, but she had regarded it as a joke. The second woman also stated that the accused had never acted offensively. His Honor said that he would direct the jury that there was no evidence on the charge of indecent assault. In addressing the jury. Mr White stated that the accused had been a fool. To convict him, however, the jury must find that he was more than a fool. They must find that he was a criminal. The main question the jury had to decide was whether the accused himself really thought that he required massage for the sake of health. The accused had given the police the names of other women who had massaged him. If they had had anything to say against him surely they would have been called by the Crown. Dr Evans had stated that massage in the case of the accused would be dangerous, but the evidence had shown that he had been massaged for months without any serious results. The accused had been under the impression that massage was necessary. He could not afford to employ a professional masseur, and had employed the girls for the purposes of economy. Mr Adams pointed out to the jury that the evidence of Dr Evans had not been contradicted. It would have been quite simple for the defence to call medical evidence to contradict what Dr Evans had said, and it was a significant fact that none had been called. It had not been shown that the accused had had any experience of massaging. Further, he had never denied exposure. Surely his son, who was 17 years of age, could have carried out the massage. If his intentions had been honest why could he not have advertised in terms consistent with good faith? This was a pernicious sort of thing. By means of such advertisements women and girls could be lured into these places and subjected to such acts as had been described in the evidence. His Honor said that there was no evidence of indecent assault, and therefore on that charge the jury should bring in a verdict of not guilty. As regarded the second count, there was no doubt that exposure had taken place, and the iury had to consider whether that exposure was accidental or necessary for some treatment which the accused genuinely’ thought he should have. The Crown held that the exposure was for some purposes of animal gratification, because of the accused’s sexual passion. His Honor quoted the evidence of the chief witness. They might find it difficult, he said, for a woman to invent such a story, seeing the detail in which it was given. The jury’ retired at 3.45, and returned at 4.10 with a verdict of not guilty’ on the first count and guilty on the second count. The accused was sentenced to six months’ ’imprisonment, with hard labour. His Honor said the young woman had been induced to go to the rooms of the accused by specious advertisements. A PLEA OF GUILTY. Daniel Craig Miller Andrews was charged with (1) negligently driving a motor car so as to cause bodily injury' to Edwin Arthur Garchow; (2) whilst in a state of intoxication, and in charge of a motor car. he caused bodily harm to Garchow; and (3) that he had caused bodily harm to Garchow under circumstances that, if death had been caused, he would have been guilty’ of manslaughter.

'lhe accused pleaded guilty to the third count.

Mr Hanlon said he appeared for the accused. Mr Adams said that, subject to his Honor s approval, he thought the ends ot justice would be met if the Crown accepted the plea of guilty to the third count. He would be prepared to apply for a nolle prosequi on the first and second counts. His Honor said he had considered the evidence as disclosed in the depositions, and he thought the course proposed might be adopted. He would formally adjoin >i the hearing of the first and second charg< s to the next sittings of the court. Mr Adams said that he would apply iu due course for a nolle prosequi iu the case of the first and second charges. The prisoner was then remanded in custody for sentence. In pasing sentence, his Honor said it was abundantly clear to him that the accused had run down the cyclist while in a state of intoxication, and that he had driven an unlighted ear on the wrong side in a place where other traffic w..s likely to be met. He was fortunate in that the death of the cyclist did not result from his negligence. Drink seemed to be his downfall, and when he was in charge of a car in such a condition he was a menace to cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians. No doubt he did not intend to injure his victim, but under the circumstances injury’ to others was alum t inevitable. This was not a case for probation or a fine. 'Hie accused would ’>■ imprisoned for six months, ami his license suspended until the expiration of that time. He would also be disqm; 1fied from obtaining a license for thr< ■ years from May 31, 1930. CASES OF BREAKING AND ENTERING. Campbell Dore and William Alexander Robertson, for breaking and entering by night and committing theft from a shop, were each sentenced to two years’ reformative detention by’ his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy yesterday. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Dore, and Mr B. S. Irwin represented Robertson. His Honor, in addressing Dore, said that the benefits of the probation system had been extended to him on three occasions for crimes involving dishonesty. His past conduct left no option but to impose a term of imprisonment. In respect to Robertson, his Honor said he had been previously before the court on four occasions, and on two occasions had been admitted to probation. He had not profited by the warning, but had subsequently appeared on other charges, for which he had received short terms of imprisonment. Likewise there was no option in his case but to impose a term of imprisonment. The crime of breaking and entering was being too commonly committed by young men in the community.

Both men were stated to be married, with families.

IN OTHER CENTRES. AUCKLAND SITTINGS. AUCKLAND, February 3. Several prisoners were sentenced by Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court. Richard James Lanigan (aged 26), formerly a clerk in the Lands Department, was sentenced to 18 months’ reformative detention for the theft of £286 while a Government servant. Counsel said that two years ago the prisoner’s wife became ill and, faced with bills, he converted two large denomination stamps into cash, and went on doing this.” While it is fairly clear that the prisoner is unlikely to offend again,” said his Honor, “ I have a duty to the State, and therefore cannot grant probation. If I do it will be an intimation to every State servant with dishonest tendencies that he may take up to £3OO without fear of punishment. I take into consideration, in fixing the sentence, that the prisoner has confessed of his own accord. It appears that he has been engaged in gambling and that was the cause of his lapse.”

James Porter (aged 23), a stable hand, was sentenced to three years’ reformative detention for theft* and breaking and entering, and theft. The prisoner asked that the term be hard labour, but the judge declined the request, stating that it would be in the prisoner's interest that he should undergo reformative detention. Stating that he had been unable to find any extenuating circumstances, the judge passed a sentence of three vears’ imprisonment, with hard labour, on Owen Barber (aged 45), a farm labourer, for bigamy. “ The circumstances of your association witji this other woman amounts to cold, calculating bigamy, for which there is no excuse,” lie said. “ Apart from that you have inflicted a grave and serious injustice upon a young woman.” . February 4. In his charge to the grand jury at the opening of the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Smith referred to the murder charge arising out of an abortion charge, the woman operated upon having died. The law stated that such a killing amounted to murder, where the accused person knew, or ought to have known, that au illegal oper.itmti was likely to cause death, even »i: » the accused person might have ; that her object should be aecomp’ • I without hurting anyone. The test t<> be applied by the grand jury was there was prima facie evidence from the circumstances that the accused ummui ought to have known that what she w. s doing was likely to cause death. If the grand jury did not find this, it ought recommend that the Crown should reduce the charge to one of manslaughter. On the finding of the grand jury, the charge against Maud Herb.-, i. r.i murder, arising from the pc’-for; . ■ fan illegal operation, was i educe.l t-> one of manslaughter. The grand jury returned a r-.-ffilt -,n the cases of Nicklis Music, of all- ged

S a A nal T k n° v 'leclge of a girl under 16; Allen John Gamble, for alleged carnal knowledge of a girl, aged 15 years and five months, and Nathan Hart, alleged reckless driving of a motor truck, thereby causing death. A no-bill was also returned on two of eight charges alleging theft and fraudulent obtaining of credit by John Albert Roberts. . „ February 6. Alter evidence had been given against John Albert Roberts, of Whangarei. on three charges of obtaining credit by fraud Air Justice Herdman directed the jury to return a verdict of not guiltv. saving that the accused got credit, but ' the debt' nCe 8 lowetl Ile afterwards paid the PALMERSTON NORTH. PALMERSTON N„ February 8. . I he Supreme Court opened this morn- . Mr Justice Ostler congratulated the district on the almost complete absence Ot serious crime. In addition to a prisoner tor sentence, the only case for H'Jal . was that of a man allegedly obtaining a small sum by false pretences, which could quite well have been dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court The grand jury, in returning a true bill, expressed the opinion that it caused unnecessary expense to have the case dealt with by the Supreme Court. His Honor agreed that it was a pity the time of so many people must be wasted, and stated that the case could have been dealt with by jusi ices in the lower court. _ February 5. Leslie Myhill, of Marton, was admitted to probation for one year, and was also fined £lO for perjury. The accused pleaded guilty in the lower court. After a short retirement the jury found Angus Gordon Foster, salesman, of Wellington, guilty of a charge of false pretences by issuing valueless cheques. A sentence of three months’ hard labour was imposed. Febaruary 6. Jhe case in winch Ada Messenger claimed £2OOO from H. E. Bergensen as the sequel to a fatal accident at"pahnerston North in July last, when plaintiff’s husband succumber to injuries received at j r , a . co 'hsion between his motor cvcle and defendant’s car, was concluded to-dav the jury, after being absent for four hours, was unable to agree, ami a new tiial was ordered. WELLINGTON. WELLINGTON, February 4. in the Supreme Court R. B Garnev was acquitted on a charge of carnal knowledge and indecent atssault. The jury considered that the department winch had charge of the girl was lax in not having her examined. Mr Justice Reed remarked that lie did not agree with the jury, and said he doubted if there was material entitling them to come to such a decision.

At the direction of the judge, the jury returned a verdict of not guiltv in a charge against Leonard Maugham’ of the theft of radio goods, or al ternativelv oi receiving them at Otaki. February 5. in the Supreme Court to-day Joseph Maurice White (an artist) and Wilfred Leonard Ramm (an ex-constable) pleaded guilty to breaking and entering the shop of C. Smith, Ltd., on various dates between June 25 and December 17, 1929, and stealing goods valued at £I6G 18s Bd' YVhite also admitted breaking and entering the shop on December 17 with intent to commit a crime, and having been found in possession of house-breaking implements. ISoth were remanded for sentence. Hugh Robertson Stevenson, who up to the time of his arrest was a constable, was charged jointly with Ramm and White with breaking and entering the shop and with theft between June 25 and December 17. and with receiving goods valued at £l7 ss, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. He pleaded not guilty to both charges. Evidence was given by Y bite. The jury, after 20 minutes’ retirement, returned with a verdict of guilty on the charge of receiving, and the prisoner was remanded till Saturday for sentence.

In the case in which John Glasgow Wilson was charged with negligently driving a motor car so as to cause bodily harm, the jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of not guilty.

Tr , ~ , r February 6. Hugh Robertson Stevenson, who, up to the time of his arrest, was a constable was charged with breaking and enterin’ the shop of C. Smith. Ltd., in Cuba street, with the theft of goods between June 25 and December 17. and with receiving goods valued at £l7 ss. knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. He pleaded not guilty. Hvidence w;is given, and the jury, after 20 minutes’ retirement, returned with a verdict of guilty on the charge of receiving. The prisoner was remanded till Saturday for sentence. February 7. Two years, with hard labour, was the sentence imposed by Mr Justice Reed on the two ex-constables concerned in the theft of goods from C. Smith, Ltd. The** were Stevenson and Ramm. The third man. White, received a sentence of 18 months’ reformative detention. TIM ARC. TIMARU. February 4. J he Supreme Court opened to-day before Mr Justice Adams. There are three cases—alleged murder, alleged negligent driving, and alleged indecent assault. Referring to the charge of murder against Jack Oldfield, his Honor said it appeared that accused was at the war. where he was wounded on the head and leg. After referring to domestic matters during the interval between his return from the war and the alleged commission of the crime, his Honor made reference to the murder, relating the evidence given at the preliminary trial. He said that the grand jury should have no difficulty in dealing with the case.

Referring to the second case, of alleged negligent driving, his Honor said that the outcome of the collision was a fatal accident. and the charge was brought under the Motor Vehicles Act. which made it punishable as a crime if a person drove

a motor car negligently, thereby causing the death of a human being. Here the grand jury should experience no difficulty in arriving at a true bill. The jury returned true bills in all cases. In the case against Ernest Peter Henshaw, charged with negligent driving, causing death, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. February 6. At the Supreme Court to-day James Charles Alltrey was found not guilty oa a charge of indecent assault on a girl under 16 years of age at Temuka in November, but guilty of common assault. 'The jury recommended leniency, and the accused was ordered to come up for sentence if called on within 12 months. Walter Keen, for the theft of £l3l 19s Id while an employee of the South Canterbury Power Board at M’aimate, was admitted to probation for three years ami prohibited for that period. He was ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution and to make restitution of the amount as directed by the probation officer.