SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 22731, 6 November 1935, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

INVERCARGILL SESSION HIS HONOUR’S CHARGE “I am glad to be able to tell you, that your labours to-dajf will be light,” began his Honour, Mr Justice Kennedy, in his charge to the Grand Jury at the opening of the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court in Invercargill yesterday. “There is but one case for your consideration —a charge of breaking and entering into premises with intent to steal,” he continued. “That charge is laid against a woman. That one case, however, is not a truly reliable guide of the serious crime committed in your district during the preceding three months, for three persons have been committed for sentenced—two on charges of sexual crime and one on a charge involving dishonesty. During the three months just passed, too, prisoners committed for sentence in this district have been sentenced by me in Dunedin. But with all allowance for the matters just mentioned, it is a matter for congratulation that there is for trial but one case. You will observe with pleasure that crimes of dishonesty, which have so frequently in recent years appeared on your calendar, have diminished. There is no charge arising out of the negligence of any motorist on the road.” The evidence to be laid before them in the one case for trial, explained his Honour, was that a woman observed a person in her house under certain circumstances. Other evidence would be given in support and he had little doubt that the Grand Jury would find that evidence sufficient to warrant their returning a true bill. His Honour concluded his charge by outlining the functions of the Grand Jury. The following Grand Jury was empanelled: Charles Edward Watts (foreman), Harold Norton Aitken, Peter Alexander Bell, Hugh Crawford, Dudley Davies, William Ferguson, Alexander Glass, David Grindlay, Arthur Hamilton, Winston Thomas Hazelmore, James Holland, John Henry Huffadine, Eric Stewart Inglis, Charles James Lowery, Hugh Lindsay, Hamilton Mair, John Douglas Speirs, James Strang, Percival Brooks Witt, Herbert Guest, Martin Henry Scully, Herbert Geddes and Gavin Baird Millar.

Breaking and Entering Charge.

After a short retirement, the Grand Judy returned with a true bill against Julia Cecilia Taylor, charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house by day with intent to commit a crime, who pleaded not guilty. The accused was defended by Mr T. V. Mahoney, while Mr H. J. Macalister appeared for the Crown.

After five jurors had been stood aside by the Crown and three challenged by the defence, the following common jury were empanelled: Wallace Williamson (foreman), William Morris, Robert Aitken, Robert Hood Moffat, Edward George Sands, Eric James Gordon, Louis Searle Alsweiler, Murdoch Watson, Joseph Charles Carter, Bertie Taylor, Thomas Duncan Thomson and Frank George Auburn. The Crown Prosecutor, in briefly outlining the evidence upon which the Crown relied, said that a Mrs Walters, of East road, when suddenly switching on the hall light in her house one evening saw the accused in a bedroom. When asked what she was doing there, the accused said she had made a mistake and rushed out of the house. Subsequently a torch was found nearby and also some handkerchiefs belonging to Mrs. Walters, while certain jewellery was missing. There was no doubt certain articles were taken from the house and the only real contest would be whether the accused was the person seen in the house. On that point, evidence of identification would be given both by Mrs Walters and another witness. It would be for the jury to say whether or not they were satisfied with that evidence of identification. Minnie Elizabeth Walters, a married woman residing at 374 East road, Invercargill, gave evidence that on the evening of September 2 last she had occasion to go from the kitchen into the hall about seven o’clock. She switched on the hall light and found the front door half-way open. It had been closed at six o’clock and no one belonging to the house had been through the hall in the meantime. She found the bedroom light on and saw a woman standing in the middle of the room holding something up in her skirt.. The woman said, “Excuse me, Mrs Walters. lam in the wrong house.” The woman witness saw was the accused. Witness got a fright and screamed and the woman ran out of the house. Witness stood very close to her in the bedroom. She was wearing a light grey coat, similar to the one produced. Witness had known the accused for several years. She lived further up East road. Witness missed her pearls, her earrings, a brooch, a cut glass scent bottle and some handkerchiefs. (A torch found in the garden was produced.) The matter was reported to the police the next day. The brooch was sent back to witness through the post a day or so later. The packet bore the Lorneville post office mark. To Mr Mahoney: As soon as the accused spoke, witness recognized her as Miss Taylor. Had she not spoken witness did not think she would have recognized her. She could not see what the accused was holding in her skirt. Witness was positive the coat (produced) was that worn by the accused

on the night in question. Witness did not report the theft to the police that night as she was too upset. The houses nearby were much alike. She had not any grudge whatever against the accused. In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, witness said there was no doubt at all that the accused was the person seen n her house. Daphne Joan Taylor, residing at 392 Tay street, said that on the evening in question, when on her way home past Mrs Walters’s house about seven o’clock, she heard a screaming out in the house. Witness had just got past Mrs Burridge’s gate when she heard someone running along behind her. Witness turned round and saw the accused entering Mrs Burridge’s gate. She had known the accused about four years and recognized her immediately. She was wearing a light grey coat and a small hat. To Mr Mahoney: She could not see the face of the accused. She did not see her running out of Mrs Walters’s place. Nevertheless, witness recognized her straight away, for she had seen her so often that witness could not mistake her. Witness had no grudge whatever against the accused. She was frightened of her because she gave her “a hiding” once. The trouble was later made up. It happened about three or four years ago. She was still frightened of her, but did not want her out of the way at all. Witness remembered stating to the Magistrate in the Lower Court that if any disturbance occurred in East road she would immediately associate the accused (if there) with it. Detective-Sergeant R. Thompson, gave evidence that he interviewed the accused on September 4 and questioned her as to her movements on September 2. She stated that she went to bed at six o’clock and was not allowed to go out again. None of her people, she said, could verify that as shd occupied a small room away from the house. The coat (produced) was found in the room. Witness went up to Mrs Walters’s house and saw a woman’s footprints in the garden and also near the dividing fence between Walters’s and Burridge’s. To Mr Mahoney: He understood that the accused was not in good health

and that was why she was living in an isolated room. All the footprints were in loose soil and consequently almost useles for identification purposes. No jewellery or handkerchiefs were discovered in the search.

Re-examined by the Crown Prosecutor, witness said it would not have been fair to the accused to have conducted an identification parade, for the accused was known to both the women witnesses. Plea For the Accused. The defence did not call evidence, and the Crown Prosecutor having indicated that he did not desire to add anything further, Mr Mahoney addressed the jury on behalf of the accused. Counsel suggested that Mrs Walters had been so distressed over the trouble that her memory had proved unreliable and confused. He did not suggest that she was deliberately misleading the jury, but he did think she had been mistaken. Both the women witnesses called by the Crown had given inconsistent versions as to the accused being bareheaded or not. What were the probabilities of the case? continued counsel. The neighbourhood had been particularly clear from offences and it was significant that the houses nearby were of similar type. He invited the jury to conclude that some person passing Mrs Walters’s house had seen the dooropen, seen the light on and had commenced to prowl about. If that were so, then there could not have been any breaking. But in fairness to the accused, he* would ask them to go further. Mrs Walter- had stated that she had known the accused for many years, but when she accosted the girl in the bedroom she had not recognized her until she spoke. The witness Taylor did not see the accused’s face yet she swore positively it was the accused. The evidence of the detective-sergeant had beeh practically valueless. The accused, moreover, stressed counsel, had given a perfectly reasonable explanation as to her being in bed'- at 6 p.m. Mrs Walters had declared that she had no grudge against the accused, but what had she done between the-Lower Court hearing and that in the Supreme Court. She had interviewed a man named Thomson asking him to verify that she ’had identified the accused shortly afterwards. Either Mrs Walters wanted to save her own face or else she bore a grudge against the accused. Again, Daphne Taylor had had a hiding Uom the accused and had never been able to square it up. The Crown had to establish: (1) That the house had been broken into; and (2) that the accused had broken into it. If there was any doubt, then the accused was entitled to His Honour, after explaining to the jury the ingredients of the offence charged against the accused, reviewed the evidence given by the witnesses for the Crown. Mrs Walters, he said, had stated that she recognized the accuseds voice; Miss Taylor had not seen the face, but knew the accused’s figure. Did the jury accept the Crown evidence and were they satisfied the accused was actually in Mrs Walters’s bedroom and that she opened the door? It had been suggested by counsel for the defence that the evidence of the two women witnesses should be scrutinized carefully. If the jury thought one or other was animated by a grudge, they could, of course, reject the evidence, but did Miss Taylor, in particular, give, the impression that she had a grudge? It was for the jury to consider all the evidence and give it the weight they th .ught fitting. The jury retired at 1 p.m. and returned immediately after the luncheon adjournment with a verdict of not guilty.

Prisoners Sentenced.

Three prisoners, who had each pleaded guilty in the Court below, were sentenced by his Honour. Hoani Ahitane Hikamate had nothing to say, in reply to the usual question, when he appeared for sentence on two charges of attempted breaking and entering. The Crown Prosecutor said that he had nothing to add to the probation officer’s report which set out the position fairly. “You appear from the probation officer’s report to have had many chances, but you have not responded to help or kindness,” said his Honour. “You were out on probationary license when you committed the present crimes. That license is now cancelled and you will be detained for reformative purposes for nine months. That is the sentence on each charge and the sentences are concurrent and concurrent also with that of the Borstal detention. I recommend that the sentence be served in the Borstal Institution and so, in effect, you have an extension of that detention.” Pierre Francis L’Hommedieu, alias Paul de Brae, who was not represented by counsel, also had nothing to say in mitigation when he appeared for sentence in respect of an unnatural offence. His Honour, in imposing a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour for four years, said that the prisoner had defiled a young man and it was impossible t 5 tell where such harm would end. “I pay no attention to your hysterical attempts to commit suicide as you made sure that the attempts would not be successful,” his Honour added. In pleading for leniency for Richard Lee, whd had pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting a girl aged nine at Centre Bush, Mr B. W. Hewat said that the prisoner, a bachelor aged about 50, came to New Zealand in 1922 from Ireland. Since then he had worked all the time in the Western District where he had the reputation of being an honest, decent working man, and his lapse had come as a great surprise to the people in the district. Counsel sought permission to call Dr. OwenJohnston to give evidence of a physical defect which had some relation to that offence. Mr Hewat asked the Court to take that condition into consideration when imposing sentence. Dr. A. Owen-Johnston, who examined the prisoner last Saturday, gave medical evidence regarding a certain physical condition which, he thought, was an aggravating factor towards the offence. In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, witness said that the condition was not a common one in the case of elderly men. His Honour: Apparently, 'risoner at the Bar, you do not fully appreciate the nature of your condition. I shall not describe what you did, hut it is sufficient to say it was an assault in respect to a girl of nine ’’ears. I shall take into account the medical evidence I have heard and will impose a term of reformative detention for 18 months, instead of hard ' hour. Civil Business. Robert Hugh Dickson (Mr M. H. Mitchel) sought from Mavis Madeline Dickson the restitutio: of conjugal rights. The respondent was ordered, within 14 days of the service of the decree, to return to the petitioner and render him conjugal rights. Sarah Maddock (Mr Eustace Russell) petitioned for a divorce from Henry Luke Maddock on the ground of constructive desertion. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted to the petitioner, who was allowed the interim custody of the child mentioned in the petition. On the grounds of desertion, Henry Alfred Dewe (Mr G. J. Reed) was granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, r inst Florence Elizabeth Dewe. Alice Eliza Butson (Mr B. W. Hewat) was granted a decree absolute, and the custody of the children of the marriage, against Samuel William Butson.

A decree absolute was granted Fanny Mary Dyer (Mr J. G. Imlay) against Ernest Hooper Dyer.