SUPREME COURT

Taranaki Daily News, 13 November 1934, Page 11

SUPREME COURT

SESSIONS AT NEW PLYMOUTH. ONLY THREE CRIMINAL CASES. ¥ The Supreme Court sessions for the judicial district of Taranaki opened yesterday morning before the Hon. Mr. Justice Smith, when the following grand jury was empanelled:—Messrs. S. F. Burgess (foreman), A. M. Purser, J. G. Morgan, A. J. Tunbridge, S. M. Cottier, A. G. Ross, V. Duff, C. Hannan, A. N. Allen, L. B. Webster, H. Cook, W. M. Thomson, C. E. Morshead, T. M. Avery, A. S. Clark, J. H. H. Holm, M. Thomas, J. Mahar, L. W. Lovell, W. N. Stephenson, J. Somerton, F. S. Johns and A. Patrick.

In his charge to tire grand jury, the judge remarked that there were only three criminal cases to be considered at the sessions which he understood was well below the average and a matter for congratulation. All a grand jury was asked to do was to satisfy itself whether or not there was a prima facie case against the accused persons sufficiently strong for it to come before a common jury. He did not believe that any of the three cases which would come before them that day would present any great difficulties. The first was a case in which a man was charged with breaking, entering and theft. There were alternative counts, theft from a dwelling, theft and receiving. Evidence would be presented that when the accused was accosted by a constable he threw a sack containing the two blankets alleged to have been stolen into a hedge and remarked that he had been caught “just in time.” The second case was one of alleged forgery in which the prosecution produced evidence that signatures had been transferred on to share transfer forms and that the signatures were not those of the persons whose names were written. The additional charge of uttering in each of the nine cases referred to was connected with the presentation of the forms to the office of the registrar of stamps. . The third case was one in which nine charges had originally been preferred against a man foi’ alleged unnatural offences. Three of these charges related to a boy over 17 years of age and had come forward from the Children’s Court. As that court had not had jurisdiction to try for an alleged unnatural offence against a boy over the age of-. 17 years, those indictments relating to; him had been struck off, and could not be considered at the present time. °On the evidence to be presented, His Honour remarked that he did not think the jury would have difficulty in deciding that the case was a proper one to come before a common jury. After a brief retirement true bills .were returned in the following cases: The Crown v. Richard Albert Dailey, nine charges of forgery and uttering; the Crown v. Henry Brunsden, charges of breaking, entering and theft; the Crown v. Neill McFagden, six charges of having committed unnatural offences and indecent assaults on males. The Grand Jury was then thanked for attendance and discharged.