SUPREME COURT OPENING

Taranaki Daily News, 18 November 1930, Page 9

SUPREME COURT OPENING

SEVEN INDICTABLE CASES TRUE BILLS AGAINST PRISONERS. INDICTMENTS OF- MAORI WOMAN. JURY CHOOSES LESSER CHARGE. The Grand. Jurv was * empanelled as F-.S. Johns (foreman), A. E.’-Wiggins, R. T. McQuade, F. W. G. Amodre, G. T. Champion, S. F. BurDingle, H. ,W. Whitcombe, G. j Wyatt,' F. A. Avery, L. R. Little, U. < Rennell, H. Peterson, F. H. Masters, A../. E. M. King, W. Taylor, J. Ivlahaf,' A. Thorne, J. C. ’ W. Broad, W. P. Okey and M. J., Arm bills were returned in all the .even indictable cases which came oefore the grand jury at opening of the quarterly sessions of th ’ Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, preSl< Altogether eight indictable offences were alleged, but in.the cases of a Maori woman accused of killing her adopted .child two charges, one of murder and one of manslaughter, were lard. The «rand'jury returned no bill on the charge of murder, and a true bill on the charge of manslaughter. After -deliberations lasting the greater part of the day the grand jury returned true bills as follows: — Botterill, Thomas Alfred. —Alleged theft, of moneys..- ■ ■ Stewart, ■ Donald Alexander. —Alleged theft as a servant (10 charges); alleged omission to mak® entry in cash bbok (18 charges). ..Christian, Timothy Piciard.—Alleged indecent assault. 'Townsend, Alexander.—Alleged murder. Salam an, Abram Wally Mahomed.— alleged., manslaughter. Holmes, William.—Alleged theft of moneys (six charges); alleged forv, gery. (six charges); alleged uttering (six charges). " Kerehoma, Margaret.—Alleged manslaughter. Upon a true bill being returned against ? him,! William Holmes pleaded guilty on all count® and was remanded for sentence Mr. C. H. Weston appeared for the Crown and Mr. R. H. Quilliam for Holmes. .... , ’ • . ■ ' There yreije 18 countscaltogether. ’.The . first was that being a servant in the employ of Alex. McMullian, he did on or about July 19, 1930, at Stratford, forge with the exception of the signature, a cheque for £7 drawn on. the Bank of Australasia at Stratford by Alex. McMullian. The second count was that oh or about . July 19, at Stratford, knowing the /cheque to be forged, he caused John ■ Radich to act : upon it as if it were '•genuine. The third count alleged, theft of the £7- mentioned in the cheque, the money being the property of Alex. McMullian. Similar groups of three counts related 'to five other sets of circumstances where'in Holmes had written cheques,' with the exception of the signatures, for varying amounts at- Hawera, Inglewood, Stratford and New Plymouth.,

. CASES OF LOSS OF LIFE

THREE VERY SERIOUS CHARGES.

' ADDRESS BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Sir Michael Myers, in opening his . address to the Grand Jury, said: “There ■' will be presented to you for consideration eight indictments against seven persons. There will be one indictment against each of those persons, with one 1 exception, where two indictments will .* be presented. '.'--S'< : ; “I regret to say that of those seven i accused three are charged with ofj fences of a very serious nature in each 'of which a loss of life has occurred. It There are two charges of murder and f one of manslaughter. 7-. “Of the two charges of murder,” said S Sir Michael, “one is against a man who i* ■ is charged with having 'killed his wife l>y cutting her throat and wounding ,i her at the back of the neck so as all most to sever the head from the body. ’ The other is against a Maori woman Tawnsed of having killed, her adopted chifi by having punched it because it annoyed her.” - -All-he- needed- to say with regard to J 'the first' niurder charge was this: The man was charged with the niurder of- his; wife, from whom he had. been lining (apart for some time. It appeared that'he went several times to the house where his wife was staying. On the particular night she was out but returned. The man had visited the house - and the -woman had ultimately been found dead. The accused had been arrested next day and certain statements had been made by him. It was a clear |ase for trial by a common jury. More than that, said His Honour, he did not think it necessary to say. Plainly the ease was one in which they would ha\e no difficulty in finding a true bill. The second charge of murder was one against a Maori woman, but in that ease there were two indictments—one for niurder and the other for maneither with or without an amount ’*f assault. Murder was the charge on. which she. had been committed for?, trial, but 5 the Grand Jury was not bound because of that, to find a

true bill for" inurder.. > ■ . • f The law... fetated- that homicide was ; the killing oi a human being, directly ’ or indirectly by another.. Homicide was ; murder when a person meant to cause the death of the person killed or cause bodily injury knowing that it was likely to cause death. The jury might think it conceivable that the woman intended to cause the death of the child ■.or to do her bodily injury so as to I cause death. It seemed from the evidence that the woman had punched the child on the chin. “There it is,” j -aid His Honour. “You may technically be quite justified in finding a true bill for inurder, but you have to consider, too, whether there is any jury who would find her guilty of murder. If you think there is no chance of any jury finding h'e.r guilty of murder you may find no bill ?or murder and find a true bill for manslaughter.” If the woman punched the child she was doing-, an. .improper and unlawful act. If she was doing an improper and unlawful act and death had followed,, that was either murder or manslaughter. INDICTMENT AGAINST INDIAN.

Next came the indictment against an Indian who apparently made it his busi- * ness to treat persons suffering from complaints. In this case the contention for the Crown whs he . took it upon himself to treat or advise a boy of :eight years old or sb suffering from diabetes,' who had been treated

by competent medical, men at Wanganui with insulin.- Insulin, which was the recognised modern treatment, w not a cur© for diabetes, but it(kept the disease down and prolonged the J, lfe the sufferer. The boy, it appeared, had been brought by his mother to New Plymouth and taken to the accused, who applied a stethoscope to the boy s neck and ordered or advised the ance of the insulin treatment. Just .before the boy died the accused restricted the quantity of liquid to be talcen. These two things, the Crown held, were most likely things‘ to bring about the death of. the boy. . The boy had soon afterwards fallen into a diabetic coma and died. .As to the application of the stethoscope, one doctor would tell them it was considered impossible to diagnose diabetes or kidney Rouble through applying a stethoscope to t neck. The doctors would say that noth in o- was known that could be through applying the stethoscope to the neck to indicate diabetes. . With-regard to- stopping tile insulin doses, medical evidence would be heard that it was certain to bring about the death of the patient. Evidence would also be brought to show that since insulin treatment had become the recognised treatment for diabetes the percentage of deaths of children from that complaint had gone down to about one. They would also be told that the boy need not have died.'and that m all probability he would not have.died if the insulin treatment had been conth‘Eet me tell you,” said His Honour, “the law to be applied m a case of this kind. Homicide is the killing ot a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means Homicide is culpable when it is caused by ah unlawful act or the omission to perform any legal duty. Then there is a section which says that everyone who undertakes, except in a case of necessity to administer a medical or surgical act is under obligation to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care and is responsible if death follows. Another section states that everyone is criminally responsible who by any act or omission causes the death of anothei, although the effect should merely hasten death arising from some other cause.” „ ~ , . For the treatment allegedly administered by the accused the law required him to have reasonable knowledge, skill and care, and if he failed he was guilty. “I shall say no more than that, concluded His Honour, “and shall make no comment now except to say that you should have no difficulty, in _ applying those conditions of the law, in finding a true bill.

CHARGES OF THEFT ANf) FRAUD.

“The clerk of the Normanby Town Board is charged with the theft of sums aggregating £300,” continued His Honour. “He is also charged with intent to defraud through making improper entries of sums of money received from the Government by the board. It is incompetence, as far as I can crather, that is the plea of the defence, thj incompetence Of the accused a 'book-keeper. AH I can say is this: The money reached the accused and it is missing, and that is sufficient for your purposes to say the case is one for a true bill.” . : Then there was a case in which a man employed as a drover and buyer by a stock agent was charged with forgery and theft. It appeared there were two men employed and one of them, Dodd, had pleaded guilty. A cheque book had been issued to Holmes containincr cheques to be issued only for stock received. The case for the Crown was that he had issued cheques, some to fictitious persons, but all to persons from whom no stock had been bought. The cheques were cashed mostly by Dodd and in one case by two men, one of them said to be Holmes. The cheques could not have reached Dodd without passing through Holmes’ hands!. They should 0 have no difficulty in deciding this was a case for trial by jury. Then there was a case of indecent assault of a child which should give them no difficulty. He understood the defence would be that it was a case of mistaken identity. That was a matter the Grand Jury need not consider; it was a matter for the common jury. The onlv other case was that of a. charge of'theft against a carrier who received money from a woman and was asked by her to order goods on her account. She gave him a cheque and asked him to pay for the goods and bring back the change. He brought back the change but the storekeeper was not paid. If a person received money to pay to another and did not do so that was theft.