SUPREME COURT.

Colonist, Volume XLIV, Issue 10137, 27 June 1901, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Befoke His Honor the Chief Justice (Sib Robebt Stout).

CRIMINAL BUSINESS. v The Supreme Court sittings opened before - his Honor the Chief Justice, yesterday, e The following constituted the Grand Jury : e Messrs J. A. Harley (foreman), H. Baigent, s A. Allport, P. Moore, W. Hoalker, E. S. I. Cresswell, W. G. Yining, C. L. Bell, G. M.' f Rout, J. Shields, W. Chaytor, A. Everett, t W, D^nt»ln«j, K. Cn.tley,- J. W. Marsden, R. r B. Jackson, T. Glasgow, aud L\ Best. t His Honor in addressing the Grand Jury, e said that he could not say that there was r absolutely no crime in the district, but the fact that in a large district with a consider- , able population there was only one criminal j charge, spoke exceedingly well for the _ district— and no higher praise could be given a district than to say that it was free from crime. s Continuing, his Honor addressed the Grand Jury upon the necessity for their being called together although it might s, appear that there was not any business for t them to transact. There were two reasons. In the first plnco a case might be sent to f the Supreme (jourt at the last moment, and s iu. the second place the Grand Jury had a very important office to perform in exercising a supervision over the administration of s criminal law in their district. In New v Zealand the English law was followed in ' this respect, and in the United States of 3 America, the power and jurisdiction of the ' Grand Jury was not only not being taken I from but increased. The Grand Jury were ; considered to have knowledge of what wag transpiring in their own district, and had ' the right to consider a criminal offence, 1 even if no indictment was placed before them, and present a bill to the Court. They bad a higher jurisdiction s than the Magistrate, for if they were of ? opinion that a magistrate had improperly r not committed a person for trial they could 3 present a bill themselves. This was one of 3 the most important reasons for the retention f of the Grand Jury, which stood between the 1 Crown and the people to see, in the first B place, whether persons were improperly 1 committed for trial, and in the second place r that a person improperly not committed by - a magistrate was placed upon trial. As an 3 illustration of the powers of the Grand Jury • in the latter respect, his Honor referred to ? what had been done in the State of New 3 York, where a magistrate had failed in his 1 duty the Grand Jury had sent a large 1 number of persons to trial for offences against the State. If the Grand Jury knew i that there was crime in the district not pro- ; perly prosecuted it was their duty to SR.e it r done, but he had no idea that this was the case in Nelson, for he knew the police per- , formed their duty well. He thought it I would be a great mistake to have this power \ standing between the Government and the , people abolished, for if no danger was at [ present apparent circumstances might arise to show that it was very needful. There . was a tendency at the present time to do away with juries altogether, and he thought this was a mistake. No doubt juries made i mistakes, bat without juries he did not think the administration of criminal justice 1 would be as satisfactory. His Honor then gave instances to show tbat decision by jury was more limited in New Zealand than in England ; first in the case of compensation for land taken by Government or public bodies in England the case would be heard by assessors and claims under the Workers Compensation Act would ba heard by a special tribunal. His Honor madejt clear that he was mentioning theses cases only to show the tendency, he was not expressing any opinion as to whether ifc was right or wrong. His Honor then thanked the Grand Jury for their attendance, and they were discharged. ' Rex v. Watson. Charles Frederick Watson, of Wai-iti, having pleaded guilty in the lower Court to a charge of having indecently assaulted hia own daughter, came up for sentence. Prisoner was not represented. Mr Fell, Grown Prosecuter, appeared for the Crown. His Honor held a statement forwarded by the prisoner, and asked prisonei*to call the evidence that he stated he could produce as to character. Evidence was given by prisoner's wife, her sister, her brother's wife, and Mr Campbell Ellis, a neighbor. - The evidence of the latter two witnesses went to show that prisoner was somewhat weak in intellect, it also being stated that he had two brothers who were mentally so week that they were unable to be left to their own devices. One witness stated that

prisoner's father was & drunkard, and Mr Elllis said that prisoner bad always been a good and honest neighbor. , N His Honor said that ,the case was one in which he could not allow probation, bat he bad to take into consideration the evidenoo as to hereditary taint, and if as was stated the father was a drunkard, it was perhaps a base of the sins of the father being meted out in panisßment to those who came after. Instead of prisoner taking that care of bis daughter, which was to be expected, he had done the opposite and treated her very inhumanly. Considering all the circumstances he would pass a lighter sentence than ev^r he had done before for a crime of the kind, and prisoner was sentenced to two years' with hard labor.