SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2030, 17 August 1920, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

THE CRIMINAL SESSIONS. The criminal sittings of (he Supreme Court wero continued yesterday afternoon, before his Honour Mr Justice Herdman. Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for the Crown. AN ACQUITTAL. A verdict of not guilty was return >d by the jury in the charge against William James Henry Stewart of having unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 years of age. The accused was discharged. ALLEGED ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. James Baxter Ker, who was not represented by counsel, was charged with robbing with violence a man named William Andrew Moar at Christchurch on May 28, and with taking from him a gold chain valued at £5 and a silver watch valued at £1 JO/-. Minor counts of assault with intent to rob, and of common assault, were preferred against the accused. Mr Donnelly stated that Moar, a seaman, was drinking in tho bar of the Terminus Hotel, near the Christchurch Railway Station, about 5 p.m. on tho date mentioned. He left the bar, and a few minutes later, as he was through au alleyway in tho hotel, lia received a violent blow on the neck from behind, and fell to tho ground. Ho identified his assailant as tho accused, whom he felt going through his pockets. Another witness would state that the accused was in the hotel bar about 5 p.m. on that day. Further corroboration of the evidence connecting tho accused with the robbery was furnished by tho fact that Moar, who had been wearing a greenish felt hat, was wearing one of a brownish colour when ho made a complaint to the police about an hour after. Tho accused was arrested next morning on another charge, and was then found to be wearing a greenish felt hat, which was identified by Moar as his. When asked to explain his possession of the greenish hat, he stated that ho had been assaulted and robbed of £2 in Colombo Stroet the previous evening, and that when he recovered from" the assault the hat was handed to him by a girl who was standing by. i Moar, a Scotchman, did not adhere in his evidence to the statement on record in the lower court, namely, that he could identify the accused as tb.2 mail who assaulted him. Tho witness was cross-examined at considerable length, and rather ably, by the accused, who brought up a number of alleged discrepancies between his S resent evidence and the lower court epositions. Tho accused: Don't you remember having a row with me in the street aJ>out half -past seven? Witness: Yes, I do.

The accused: You got behind me, took me by the throat, threw mo down, and started kicking for all you were worth. Some people stopped you, and told you to let me get on my feet, and then, when you were getting the worst of it, you called the police and said you had been robbed. Now, isn't that the whole of the facts in this case?

The witness: I remember having a row with you.

Ernest John Mc.Lennan, railway employee, stated that Moar and the accused came into the luggage room after the departure of the 6.15 p.m. ferry train. Moar then had a watch with him. Some time later, Moar came in alone. He then had no watch.

Harry Wakefield, proprietor of & fruit shop in Tuam Street, said that the accused and Moar came into his shop about 6.45 p.m. on May 28. Moar then had his watch, and, in the course of a discussion on the question whether ho had time to catch a train, he challenged the correctness of witness's watch. Moar started to cause trouble, and the accused ended it *y taking him outside. At this stage the Court adjourned for • the day. " TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. When the case was resumed this morning, the accused, addressing the jury, said that, in company with Baker, he booked a room at the Metropolitan Private Hotel, which he left about 6.10 p.m. He then went to the railway station, where he met Moar and went for a walk with him, calling at a fruit shop near Antigua Street, where Moar tried to start a row. Thence they went back to Colombo Street, and Moar, who was rather drunk, knocked him down and began to kick him. Bystanders intervened, and he got up. Moar attacked him again, but he defended himself, and eventually Moar made off. After the row a girl handed him a hat, which proved later not to be his own. This he was wearing when the police arrested him. Commenting on the evidence, the. accused declared that Moar-'s story was contradictory and deliberately untrue. He intended to sec that Moar was prosecuted for perjury and malicious prosecution. The accused criticised the Crown's evidence at considerable length. After a retirement of about, two > hours, the jury acquitted the accused on all counts. When told that he was discharged, Kcr asked that his hat, which was in court as an exhibit, should be returned to him. "And I also want that man arrested for perjury," l' e added. His Honour replied that that" was a matter for the police.