SUPREME COURT OPENS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18634, 19 February 1935, Page 6

SUPREME COURT OPENS

QUARTERLY SITTING A SUBSTANTIAL LIST SIX CIVIL ACTIONS Although there were only two crimin.nl cases—one involving two charges —to engage the attention of the grand jury, the list of business prepared for the quarterly sitting of the Supreme Court in Gisborne, which opened before Ilis Honor Mr. Justice Smith, this morning, was the longest that b.ns been presented in the Supreme Court here for nearly two years, and it is anticipated that the judge’s attention will be occupied until the end of the week. In addition to the criminal list, on which there are also two prisoners for sentence, there are six civil .actions for hearing, one by the judge and a jury, and the' others by the judge alone. There are also two undefended divorce petitions, two motions for decrees absolute in divorce, one motion for discharge from bankruptcy, one application for a public examination in 'bankruptcy, three miscellaneous applications, and a number of applications under the Mortgagors’ Relief Act, together with other chamber matters. GRAND JURY. When the sitting opened this morning the following grand jury was empanelled:—Frederick R. Ball, foreman, Keith G. Butters, Alexander L. Campbell, Edgar A. Collett, Montague W. Craig, George Crawshaw, William E. B. Froggatt, Maxwell R. Fry, James limes, Herbert R. Kendon, Arthur F. Langridge, Edgar L. Maude, Alexander W, Mclntosh, Walter D. Morley, Ivan O'Meara, Sydney 11. Phillips, William Pilmcr, Albert E. Pyatt, Albert F. Salmon, Joseph E. Shepherd, William J. Sinclair, James 11. Sunderland, and Frederick Tolerton. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE Charging the grand jury, His Honor remarked that he understood that cn several occasions within recent years there had been no criminal cases for trial at the quarterly sittings of the Supreme Court in Gisborne. On this occasion there were two, but that must be regarded as a small number for the district. * The first case, continued ■ His Honor, was one in which there were charges of unlawful carnal knowledge and of abduction. The facts shortly were that about four years ago the accused went to live with the elder sister of the girl involved in the ease. Somewhere about December 8 this elder sister, to whom the accused was . married . ini..Maori fashion only, went to hospital. It appeared also that before this /time the' girl and the accused had been'corresponding, .and that the letters which' passed between them were love-letters.' The mother had occasion to thrash the girl, and she then went off to the accused’s whare while the sister was in hospital. The whare was only 18ft. by 16ft.. and had in it a lied and a table. The Crown case was that the accused had unlawful carnal knowledge of the girl. His Honor went on to say that he had had to deal with a good many cases of the kind, but lie did not think that he had ever had to deal with one in which the girl, on being put into the witness-box. herself said that- there had been no criminal relations. That was the essence of the case, and if the main Crown witness said that there were jio such relations, it would he a serious matter for the grand jury to find a true -bill. Tlie Crown, of course, put forward other evidence. There was niedical evidence to the effect that the girl’s condition was consistent with her having had relations with a man.

The case was one which required very serious consideration. The only evidence was that of the constable who said that the,, accused told him that he ■had had relations with the girl four or five times, but this he later denied to the detective. The jury had to consider whether in those circumstances the case was one where tlie accused should be placed on trial before a common jury. On the count of abduction it seemed clear from the evidence that the jury should bring in a no bill. It- appeared that the girl went voluntarily to the accused’s house, and if so it was clear law that there was no offence. There must be on the man’s part a taking away or a causing to be taken away before a charge of abduction could be established.

“The other ease should give you no difficulty,” continued His Honor. The case. was one in which the accused was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm, and there was no doubt on the Crown evidence that actual bodily harm was established. The grand jury was not concerned with the defence, which appeared to be one of provocation, “though I may say,” added His Honor, “that no language alone is sufficient, justification for assault. There must be some threat of bodily harm.” COMMON JURORS. The following common jurors wore sworn in:—Athol A. Allan, Frederick G. Bacon, John Bayliss, Richard G. Bcllcrby, Henry J. Bloxham, Nelson Boag, Frederick B. B.ousfield, Stewart S Brown, John Brooking, Ralph O. Ball, Albert E. Clare, Howard I’. Clare, Arthur F. Clark, Charles K Clayton, John J. F. Cook, George H. Douglass, Edmund Dudley, Kenneth R. Ellmers, Frederick H. Forge, George P Hamilton, Andrew R. Hanna, Hans O. Hansen, James W. Harvey, Patrick Heency, Glynn Hillyard, John G. A. Hughes, Charles McDonald, Th.omas H. MeLatchic, Harold F. McKnight, Mcrvyn McMahon, Douglas G. Monies, Hugh Miller, Robert A. Mitchell, Joseph T. Morgan, James Morrison, Walter E. Moxley, John If. Nicholson, Francis L. V. Pyke, John H. Robinson, Reginald J. Scholium, Gilbert Sohire, David B. Simps.on, Eric A. Smith-, Benjamin Urry, George Wade, Steven Whitehead, Levi L. Winter, Allan C. S. Woodfield, and Leonard O. Wright. TRUE BILL. After a brief retirement, the grand jury retu'rned a true bill against Ernest McDowell, charged with assault causing actual bodily harm. NO BILLS The grand jury returned no bills in respect of the charges against Charles Edward Craft of unlawful carnal knowledge and abducLion.