SUPREME COURT SESSIONS

Taranaki Daily News, 15 August 1933, Page 9

SUPREME COURT SESSIONS

MURDER CHARGE NO-BILLED INDICTMENT AGAINST A MAORL CONCEALMENT CASE TO GO ON. FINDINGS OF THE GRAND JURY. ' . f* I The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court for the judicial district of Taranaki opened at New Plymouth yesterday, Mr. Justice Ostler presiding. The Grand Jury threw out the charge of murder against Bella Thompson, a Maori girl, but returned a true bill against her on a charge of concealing a birth. True bills were found on all the other indictments as follow:— Bicheno, Leonard; alleged negligent driving causing injury. Cowling, Frederick John; alleged theft. Putt, Percival Austin; alleged incest. Radich, Nedo; alleged perjury. In addition the Court will be occupied with the re-trial of Dominik Sisarich on a charge of bookmaking. The first case taken yesterday was the charge of negligent driving causing bodily injury against Leonard Bicheno. The evidence for the Crown having been completed the defence will be heard this morning. The Grand Jury was empanelled as follows: Messrs. S. F. Burgess (foreman), Dan Le Cren Morgan, E. M. King, A. D. Keeling, F. H. Masters, James Garcia, B. H. Chapman, J. S. Connett, H. E. Ayckbourn, H. G. Donald, R. T. Mark, E. T. Holden, C. Denny Brown, H. C. Collier, Montague Thomas, H. W. Plumb, W. G. Reid, Edmund Lash, W. P: Griffith, John Quirk, F. A. Avery, M. J. Armstrong, J. W. Taunt.

CALENDAR NOT LIGHT.

It could. not be said that the record of crime in the district, as disclosed in the calendar, was a light one, said his Honour in his charge. There wete five cases to come before the Grand Jury and another for re-trial, but a true bill having been found at the last session this would not trouble the present Grand Jury- In addition' there were four prisoners for sentence.'■ His Honour pointed out that the duty of the Grand Jury was not to try the accused person to find whether he were guilty or not, but merely to decide; whether there was a prima facie case. sufficient to put him upon his trial before a common jury. The first case was that against Leonard Bicheno, who was charged with negligently driving a motor-car so as to injure a pedestrian. On April 3 a man named Hill v/as walking home at night near Motonui. He said he was on his correct side, within about a foot of the edge, when he was overtaken, knocked down and injured by a car which, he alleged, was on its wrong side of the road. There was a good deal of circumstantial evidence that it was Bicheno’s car, and if that were accepted he must be guilty of negligence. His Honour did not think the Grand Jury would have much trouble in finding a true bill. The next case was one in which F. J. Cowling was charged with the theft of four doors and seven window-sashes. Cowling was building a new house to replace one burned. Nearby was a house built in 1925 by a man named Parkes, this being mortgaged to the State Advances Department. Apparently Parkes , had not . been able t 0... keep up the interest payments and Ije abandoned the house ’ to 1 ' the' department. It r had been lying empty for some time; 'On May 26 it was burned- and, Afterwards Cowling had a number :oh second-hand doors and windows in his house. He ’employed a man at day wages to do some work for him, but this man had been, foreman of work on Parkes’, house, and he swore that some of the doors and windows were the same as those installed in Parkes’ house.. If that were so it suggested they had been stolen by Cowling. * It seemed likely the Grand Jury would be able to find that a prima facie case had been made out. His Honour also suggested there was a prima facie case against P. A. Putt, charged with incest PERJURY ALLEGATION. The fourth case alleged perjury against Nedo Radich, who during judgment summons proceedings swore that he had no money; whereas it was alleged he ac-. tually had £2OO in one fixed deposit and £5O in another. There seemed to be no difficulty about this case for the Grand Jury. The last case mentioned by his Honour, was the charge of concealing a birttf’ and murder of her child, against Bella Thompson, a young Maori woman. He said that fhe evidence was quite clear on the charge of concealing. The child was bom when there was no one in the house and she allegedly wrapped the body in some sacking and buried it in the garden. On the murder charge, however, the evidence was perhaps not quite so clear. Two doctors said the child had been bom alive and must have lived and breathed after birth. The girl’s account of what happened was at first accepted by the doctor who was called, but he later became suspicious. The police were informed, and when investigations were made the woman admitted that what she had told the doctor was not true. She said the baby had been born dead and she had wrapped it up and buried it.

The question was, said his Honour: Did she honestly believe the child was dead when born? If the jury found that she honestly thought the child to be dead she could not be convicted of murder. The depositions did not throw any light on that aspect of the case. His Honour said both doctors were present and they should be asked by the jury whether it was medically possible for a tiew-bom baby to be so inert that the mother could come to the belief that it was dead. If that were medically possible the woman could not be convicted of murder as a common jury would have to be directed that she must be given the benefit of any doubt. If the Grand Jury found that such was possible, after hearing the evidence of the two doctorSj it should throw out the indictment relating to the charge of murder. If, on the other hand, the doctors should say that it was impossible' for the mother not to know that the child had breathed and lived after birth it looked as if a true bill ought to be returned on the murder charge. “My advice to you,” concluded his Honour, “is to ask the doctors that question specifically.”