SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 20111, 23 February 1927, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

SESSIONS CONTINUED

INDICTABLE CASES TRIED CRIME IN THE DISTRICT The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday before his Honour Mr Justice Reed. THE GRAND JURY. The following Grand Jury was empanelled:—Messrs W. McChesney (foreman), C. D. Ashley, J. T. Bath, R. R. Binney, J. H. Boyd, I. Copeland, T. J. S. Daniel, C. A. Davis, C. E. Hannah, W. J. Jones, E. M. Lyon, J. J. Purvis, D. Rutledge, A. J. Service, G. Tapper, T. R. Taylor, R. N. Todd, J. A. Wesney, W. P. Wicks and E. J. Wren. HIS HONOUR’S CHARGE. In his charge to the Grand Jury his Honour said that there were two indictments for the jurors to consider. This did not, unfortunately, afford an indication of the extent of the crime in the district as he had already dealt with several other prisoners. The cases for trial would not give the jury any difficulty. The first case was that against Raymond Roy Witting, who was charged with breaking, entering and theft, or alternatively with receiving certain property knowing it to have been stolen. The depositions showed that the house of a man named Daniel Currie Hamilton had been broken into and a quantity of jewellery stolen. The police found some jewellery, part of which had been identified as having been stolen from Hamilton’s house in the accused’s room. Witting claimed to have bought the jewellery for a comparatively small sum from a man in the street. The other case was an unpleasant one, continued his Honour. A young man was charged with having committed incest with his sister. In that case also they should have no difficulty in finding that a prima facie case had been made out.

After a short retirement the Grand Jury returned true bills against both accused. WITTING PLEADS GUILTY.

Raymond Roy Witting appeared on a charge of receiving property knowing it to have been stolen. Accused entered a plead of guilty. Mr Gorden Reed, counsel for the accused, said that he had been before the Court the previous afternoon on charges of breaking and entering. The present charge had been laid subsequently. He had also been charged with breaking, entering and theft, but in view of the fact that the Crown had decided to withdraw that charge Witting had decided to plead guilty to the charge of receiving. “You are under three years’ sentence now,” said his Honour to the prisoner, “and I do not propose to add to that. You will be sentenced to one year’s reformative detention concurrent with the present term.” A SORDID CASE. Edwin Palmer (Mr V. Raines), pleaded not guilty to a charge of incest. The following juhy was empanelled:—Messrs D. Cuthbertson (foreman), H. Cooper, A. J. Bloomfield, P. O’Connell, R. Dick, R. Hill, P. Barry, J. H. Huffadine, H. Townshend, A. Mitchell, J. M. Davis and R. Cook. The Court was cleared during the hearing of the case. Evidence for the Crown was given by the sister, two brothers and mother of accused. In summing up the case the Judge remarked on the sordidness of the circumstances. The jury should consider the suggestion, although it was a horrible suspicion, that the mother had ulterior motives in laying the information against her son. After a retirement of an hour and a quarter the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty, the foreman st ng that the jurors had come to this decision owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. FRAUDULENT CONVERSION OF MONEY. William Grant Ussher appeared for sentence on a charge of fraudulently converting to his own use a sum of £49 12/-. Mr Russell said that at the time of the offence the prisoner had been employed as dog tax collector for certain ridings in Wallace County Council. Ussher came of very respectable parents, and was born in Dunedin, having spent the past 16 years in his life in Southland. Up to the time of the offence he had had an unblemished record. He appeared to be a simple man and had never handled much money prior to his appointment as tax collector. Under the circumstances, Mr Russell continued, he felt justified in respectfully suggesting that probation should be extended to the prisoner. The latter could make restitution at the rate of 30/- per week. His Honour said that he would accept the statement made by counsel, and also the recommendation of the Probation Officer that probation should be granted. The prisoner was sentenced to three years’ probation and was ordered to pay costs and to take out a prohibition order. He was ordered to make restitution of the sum misappropriated. IN DIVORCE. William Barr Andrew (Mr F. G. HallJones) proceeded against Adelaide Campbell Andrew for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery, and against the corespondent, Thomas Aylward, for £2OO damages. After hearing evidence of misconduct between the petitioner’s wife and the corespondent, neither of whom appeared, the jury returned a verdict for Andrew for £2OO. His Honour entered judgment for this amount with costs on the highest scale against the co-respondent. The petitioner was granted a decree nisi with leave to move it absolute at the end of three months. He was allowed the interim custody of the children. HAMILTON SITTINGS NEW ZEALAND TOM MIX. FREQUENTING “MOVIES” MAKES HIM LIGHT-FINGERED. (Per United Press Association.) Hamilton, February 22. The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court opened to-day before Mr Justice Stringer. There is a heavy calender. True Bills were returned in eight criminal cases. For breaking, entering and theft Frank Hubbard was sentenced to two years probation. It was stated that he is known in his district as the “local Tom Mix” because of his resemblance to the actor, and children hero-worshipped him. His frequenting of the pictures led to his downfall. On a charge of theft of a car Arthur William Geoffrey Molo was admitted to two years probation. When the Grand Jury returned True Bills in the Supreme Court to-day in charges against two boys aged 17 and 14, the foreman stated that the jury considered the cases should have been tried in the Juvenile court and expressed regret that the Child Welfare Act did not cover such cases. It was explained that the Act did not provide for the trying of indictable charges in the Juvenile Court. Mr Justice Stringer said he would make representatipns to the Justice Department on the matter. He thought the position had arisen through the Act being badly drafted. WANGANUI CASES Wanganui, February 22. Mr Justice McGregor sentenced Dan Broughton, a Maori, to two years in the Borstal, for sexual offences at an upriver pa. A number of these were heard during the present session and apparently Broughton, who came originally from Patea and Ratana, had been the ringleader.

Rena Puneti and Tini Tewaati who had been under the influence of Broughton, were ordered to come up for sentence within two years if called upon. Ronald Whisker, for indecency, was ordered to be detained for two years in the Borstal. WELLINGTON SITTINGS “CRIME AS A BUSINESS.” YOUNG CRIMINALS ROUNDLY CASTIGATED. Wellington, February 22. “It is quite clear that ever since your youth you have embarked on crime as a business,” said Mr Justice Skerrett to three young men—George Curtis Colcord, George Huia Brewer and Edgar Arthur Peterson —who appeared for sentence in the Supreme Court to-day for breaking, entry and theft. For theft and for breaking and entering with intent to commit crime his Honour explained that Peterson had been twice sentenced to three years’ reformative detention, that Curtis had been sentenced to a similar term once, and that Brewer had been sentenced to three years’ detention in the Borstal Institute. “No sooner did you come out of the institute than you commenced a career of crime,” said his Honour, “throughout the whole of the North Island you committed thefts and have broken and entered business places and warehouses. I regard breaking and entry by night as a very serious crime. It is very apt to lead to violence and loss of life, and there is far too much going on in this country.” For breaking and entry each accused was sentenced to three years and six months’ hard labour, and for theft a sentence of two years hard labour was imposed on each of the accused, sentences to be concurrent.

“I have been compelled to treat you three young men as incorrigible,” concluded his Honour