TWO NO BILLS RETURNED

Taranaki Daily News, 14 February 1933, Page 9

TWO NO BILLS RETURNED

SUPREME COURT SESSION cite CBMMiNAL trial adjourned. SENTENCES . SATURDAY MORNING. THE CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. Of seven criminal cases set down for trial, two involving charges of conspiracy at Hawera were thrown out yesterday when the Grand Jury found “no / bills” at the opening of the Taranaki quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth before Mr. s Justice Ostler. The two men concerned were discharged. The grand jury consisted of Messrs. J. R. Cruickshank (foreman), F. A. Hooker, A. S. Hunter, H. R. Whitcombe, A. E. Wiggins, I. E. Watkins, F- A. Avery, J. SRollo, J. W. Robb, Fred. Jackson, R. S. HaUiwell, K. F. Kirk, W. H. Huggett, G. E. Cartwright, G. E. Dinniss, James Scanlan, George Ward, W. C. Gentles, O. S. Flyger, E. T. Holden, Henry Cook, A. J. Tunbridge and F. H. Masters. After a true bill had been returned against John George Coulson, • charged with indecent assault, his trial was adjourned till next session owing, it is understood, to ill-health preventing the attendance of the principal witness for the Crown. Coulson was re-admitted to bail. This left only four criminal cases for trial. His Honour indicated early that it had been necessary to arrange the business of the session in a rather peculiar fashion. 'Next Monday he had to commence the criminal sitting at Wanganui. After disposing of that he would return to New Plymouth to complete the civil business in Taranaki. A second jury panel had been summoned at New Plymouth for next week, but that did not help the position. It was therefore necessary for him to finish the criminal and civil jury cases at" New Plymouth this week in order to save the country expense. The first trial was that of A. C. W. Krause, charged with sheep stealing at Kotare. It had been conjectured the hearing of this case would occupy three days, but His Honour said he desired it to be completed in two days. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) said he thought that could be done. It was intimated that prisoners forsentence would be dealt with on Saturday morning at 10 o’clock. The Grand Jury found as follows:— True Bills.

Krause, Andrew Charles William; alleged sheep stealing. Lowe, Arthur William; alleged negligent driving causing bodily harm. Coulson, John George; alleged indecent assault on female. Dombroski, Lawrence Bernard; alleged causing actual bodily harm. Sullivan, James; alleged causing actual bodily harm. No Bills.

Robinson, Charles; alleged conspiracy • to defraud. Logie, James; alleged conspiracy to defraud. To the grand jury his Honour explained that there were seven indictments but none concerned very serious crimes, and only two were likely to give the jury difficulty. A charge of negligent driving, thereby causing bodily harm,, against a man named’ Lowe was the first on the list, and there was also a second count. Lowe's car had collided with a cyclist on the Opunake-Te Kiri Road on the night of June 2. It was not a bad case L in that there was no suggestion of speedand whether or not Lowe was on the wrong side of the road and, if so, whether he was thus negligent, were questions to be answered. The cyclist had said he had a light, and a lamp had been picked up after the accident. It was then out of action. Neither the accused nor anyone in his car saw the light, and it was a question whether it was burning. There was probably a prima facie case for the accused to stand trial before a jury. The strongest evidence against him was hid own statement that the cyclist had been on the correct side of the road, which implied that Lowe himself must have been- on the wrong side. ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING. Five counts of stealing sheep from three neighbours formed the charge against an Okau sheep-farmer named Krause, continued his Honour. There were also alternative charges of receiving. Long and complicated evidence, fl ’ chiefly from the alleged owners of the , sheep found on Krause’s property, formed the basis of the charges. On some of the sheep were the ear-marks of neighbours together with Krause s, which appeared to have been put on later as the scabs made by the marker were still on the ears. The jury would no doubt consider the evidence sufficient to send Krause for trial. A man named Coulson faced a charge of indecent assault on a woman, and two alternative,counts of assaplt. If the woman’s story were true it was not a very serious but a very, impudent assault. Accused allegedly called one afternoon when the woman was alone in the house to sell ladies’ underwear. It appeared that he had handled the tops of her stockings and pulled down her " clothes' in comparing the. goods he had to sell with those she was wearing. As soon as he had gone the woman complained to a neighbour that _he had pulled her about. Accused had been in- ’ terviewed by the police and had denied the charge. ; The’ fatt that the woman was so upset when she called to the neighbour was the only corroboration of the story. Because the woman was ill at present her depositions would be read. The jury would probably find that there was sufficient evidence to bring in a true bill and have the matter investigated by a common jury. “A LOVERS’ QUARREL.” James Sullivan was next charged that, with intent to cause bodily harm to Veronica McKelliget, he had done so. The woman was a dressmaker who had had some passages of affection with accused but had afterwards cooled off. Accused had turned up again and, on the day of the alleged offence, had taken her to lunch and hung about all day; She had refused to go out to tea with him, but, when he asked, had apparently permitted him to stay to tea with her. It seemed there had been some sort of lovers’ quarrel and Sullivan got . up. She had thought he locked the door and he had then frightened her by drawing what she thought was a razor case from his pocket. She had opened a window and dropped out on to the verandah without accused touching her. Thinking she was killed, the accused had given himself up to the police, stating at the time that it was all his fault. In his Honour’s opinion, there was sufficicnt evidence for the accused to stand The charge against Dombroski of doing actual bodily harm to a man named Tate arose from the freezing works dispute at Waitara. When Tate, a free labourer, was talking in the street about a dozen men had rushed over and some had assaulted him. It was alleged the leaders f were Dombroski and a man named McL Grcal. Tate had been knocked about » and his nose was damaged. McGreal

was not being charged at the same time because counsel for Dombroski wished the case to be disposed of. It seemed there was sufficient evidence for an investigation before a jury. CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. Careful consideration would be required in the two cases concerning men named’ Robinson and Logie, who were connected with charges of conspiring with’ persons unknown by deceit to dafraud a man named Wann. In all his experience of depositions his Honour said he found those in' this case the most difficult to understand that he had ever read. It seemed that Wann attended the Hawera show in 1931. Wann had been foolish and had played in a game where 3d. was placed on a billiard ball in a circle and the player was required to hit the ball with another in such a manner as to throw the 3d. out of the circle. There was no doubt that the chances were against such a fegt, and the showmen, aimed to get foolish persons to back' their skill. According to the, evidence Logie, and not Robinson, was running the stall. To assist in the object of “taking down foolish people” there was an accomplice in the crowd, and it was suggested that this was Robinson, whose job was to induce patrons to continue playing. If the evidence established that 'such had been done it was an offence, even if the game itself was lawful. There was no evidence that Robinson was running the game, and there appeared to be no evidence to uphold the second and third counts. There had to be a prima facie case against any man before a true bill could be returned. MORE CHEQUES DRAWN. Wann drew five cheques for £5, all of which he lost, but the man alleged to have been an accomplice playing beside ‘him also lost five £5 notes. In respect of two of the counts against Robinson there did not seem to be any evidence to show that he had received the cheques. A third cheque drawn to order had been endorsed by “C. Montague,” a name that Robinson had been using, and the jury. could take that for what it was worth as evidence against him. A hand-writing expert claimed that the writing on the cheque and the writing of Robinson were the same. That was the only evidence against him, “and mighty poor evidence it is,” commented his Honour. The jury had to decide whether the man should go to trial, but he did not think a common jury would convict on the evidence available. Logie was charged with conspiring with some unknown person to defraud Wann of £5O. It appeared that V&nn had finally been foolish enough to write a cheque for £5O, which he lost in trying to recoup his previous losses. The man to whom it was paid said he was a sport, and he would tear it up. Whereupon he had tom one cheque into pieces and returned the £5O in notes to the other player. The cheque drawn by Wann found its way to the bank, but Wann had stopped payment on it and the depositions did not say whether he had actually lost the money. It seemed that a gang of several people were running similar games, and there was no evidence against Logie; it was guesswork as to whether he had taken Wann down. In his opinion, the jury would be assisting the cause of justice if both cases were thrown out.