NO TRIAL FOR FOUR MEN

Taranaki Daily News, 19 February 1935, Page 5

NO TRIAL FOR FOUR MEN

EIGHT TRUE BILLS FOUND SUPREME COURT SESSION OPENS. JUDGE’S ADDRESS TO GRAND JURY. True bills were returned by the grand jury in eight of the ten indictable cases brought before Mr. Justice Blair at the quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court for the Taranaki district yesterday. The grand jury returned no bills in charges of forgery and uttering against R. Bennoch and W. J. Pycroft and against W. H. Cosbrook and A. E. Lewis. After beginning its deliberations at 11 a.m. the grand jury completed its work at 5.30 p.m. True bills were returned in the following cases:— Leo Stuart Sydney Farmer: Alleged assault causing actual bodily harm. James McConville: Alleged obscene exposure. James Guild Richards: Alleged cattle stealing (eight charges). John Henry Thomas Curran: Alleged incest (two charges). Jose Toss (Toahu Tohia Harawira): Alleged sheep stealing. Stanley Cross; Alleged indecent assault on female. Gilbert Henry Kirker: Alleged indecent assault on a male (two charges). Levi Bunn: Alleged attempted fraud and making a false statutory declaration. No bills were returned in the following cases;— R. Bennoch and W. J. Pycroft :Alleged forgery and uttering (46 charges). W. H. Cosbrook and A. E. Lewis: Alleged forgery and uttering (46

(charges). The grand jury was empanelled as follows: Messrs. R. W. D. Robertson (foreman), A. L. Low, J. J. Lomas, J. C. Maxwell, G. E. Cartwright, O. E. Cook, P. F. Burrows, F. W. Amoore, F. C. Walton, C. C. Ward, C. B. Webster, A. J. Way, H. W. Broad, E. W. Garner, W. G. Reid, J. Quirk, G. S. Millar, A. C. Downes, E. B. Davies, G. E. Dinniss, J. R. Cruickshank, J. Lobb and W. Taylor.

“A bill of indictment in 10 cases involving 12 persons will be presented for your consideration,” said His Honour in his charge to the grand jury. “I am afraid that is an undue proportion of criminal cases as far as this town is concerned. Your labours will probably be more prolonged than usual because some of the cases have features that require more than cursory consideration.” After explaining that the duty of the grand jury was not to try the case but to see if there was a case for trial, His Honour said that of the 10 cases there were four of a more or less sexual nature. As to each of those cases, he did not think any would give them much trouble in reaching their decision. There was a charge against a man of indecent assault upon a little girl, and if her story remained the same as that she gave in the lower court, they should have no difficulty in reaching their decision. There was also a charge of obscene exposure and one of those unfortunate cases of incest, involving two daughters of the accused. Both cases should present no difficulties to the grand jury. There was also a charge of indecent assault on a male.

ALLEGATION OF ASSAULT. Another case would come before them of a man charged with committing an assault causing actual bodily harm. The circumstances were that the- accused s sister was being pestered by the man assaulted and she had gone into a telephone 'box, to avoid him, shutting the door and blocking it to prevent him from getting in. He was trying to force his way in when the accused came along and truck the man with his fist—there v/as no Question about tha<.——and the man fell down, suffering a fractured skull. It looked from the circumstances of the case as if there was no intention on the accused’s part to inflict such injuries as the man actually sustained. These appeared, from the medical evidence, to have been caused by the fall. JThe man struck had taken liquor, which“ possibly would account for his conduct on that evening. It might be that their verdict would be there, was a case to go before the common jury. They might perhaps decide that Farmer had intended to strike a blow that would cause serious injuries. “Then,” said His Honour, “we come to cases not uncommon in agrisultural and pastoral districts, cases connected with stock. There are two cases of alleged cattle stealing and one of alleged fraud concerning a bill of sale over stock. There is the difficulty that these cases are tried by a jury of townspeople who sometimes find the evidence concerning markings and identification of stock difficult. This is taken into consideration at the hearing and the evidence, is full and unhurried. As you know, however, stock men can readily identify their own stock and the stock of their neighbours.” ALLEGED CATTLE THEFTS. In the bigger case of alleged cattle stealing, the accused was a farmer in a fairly substantial way who was charged with misappropriating several of his neighbour’s cattle, also a sheep and. a lamb. There were eight or 10 cattle involved. The accused had an earmark consisting of a quarter of the ear. Earmarks, said His Honour, were usually punched, much as a ticket was punched by a tram conductor. But the accused, instead of using that instrument, had been marking certain of his sheep by means of a knife. The Crown suggested he adopted that method because he was thus able to take out more of the ear than was really necessary, and cut out the previous marking on the ear. The Crown suggested that he had done that to remove the earmarks of other persons, and alleged further that in some of the cases there were still traces of markings on the stock which, according to some of the witnesses, showed the markings oi other people. It was also alleged that the accused had put his brand on the cattle of other Crown’s case depended on their establishing' that the accused had superimposed his marks on top of the other markings. The accused explained that he had bought some of the stock m ques- “ "So and S».” "So and So" as witness, would say that the stock he sold were weaners and the Crown alleged that some of the stock accused said he had bought from So and So Xre now too old to have been weaners at the time accused said he had bought * them Further, evidence would be «£d for the Crown to identify the proXny of certain stock as the progeny of stock that had been stolen. It was alleged that one of the beasts, which had previously escaped being branded, could - be identified by its markings. i - The same man was also charged with a sheep and a lamb, alleged to be the lamb of the stolen sheep. As far as the sheep was concerned, it was said gat V soon as it was discovered the Xer claimed it, and there was.no disnute about it; but as far as the lamb was concerned, since it had only the accused’s mark on it the owner-with needless generosity, the Crown suggest-ed-had let it go. The Crown suggested that several instances gave evidence of the system adopted by the accused. Another case was the charge against a Maori farmer, found in possession of a

recently killed sheep and the sheepskin with the complainant’s brand on it. The accused, when taxed- with the matter, said he had killed the sheep because it had been worried by dogs, but the Crown disputed the story and the Crown would bring forward evidence to discount the accused’s explanation. They would probably conclude it was a case to come before a common jury. The remaining cattle case was a charge against a man of making a false declaration and another charge of making away or attempting to make away with stock under bill of sale. The stock of the accused was under bill of sale to Newton King Ltd and, the position being unsatisfactory, Newton King Ltd. decided to take possession of the stock under the bill of sale, and close the account. When possession was taken of the stock Newton King Ltd. was dissatisfied about the numbers. The accused came to' Newton King’s manager at Stratford and asked for a clearance as far as the stock was concerned. Newton King’s manager said he was not satisfied, but he was assured by the accused that there was no reason for dissatisfaction. However, the company insisted that the accused should make a statutory declaration that he had given up all the stock. The accused did so but the Crown would call witnesses who alleged that there were other cattle belonging to the accused which were not given up but, at the time, were in the charge of one of the accused’s neighbours. The accused would be charged therefore with making a false statutory declaration and with attempting to defraud under a bill of sale. The case was important because a great deal of the farming finances in the district depended on the sanctity of instruments such as bills of sale over stock, particularly in the Taranaki district, where there must be so many of these kinds of security. UNUSUAL CASES. The two remaining cases, said His Honour, were of an unusual nature, consisting of two bills of indictment against four persons. In each of the indictments one of the accused was a time-keeping foreman and the other was a relief worker. The charge in each case was that an arrangement was made between the foreman and the man so that credit was given in the time sheet for relief work alleged to have been done by the worker on certain days, but the Crown would call evidence to show that on those days the man was not working there at all. As the grand jury was aware, the unemployment funds were raised by a tax on the wages of the people so that unemployed persons might receive a minimum of a certain number of hours of work per week. The men were registered under the Unemployment Act and were classified according to the number of their dependents. As far as the worker charged under each indictment was concerned, he was represented as having worked so many hours in a particular week, but the Crown’s case was that in this week he

actually did not do such work at all. He was employed instead at the Fertiliser Works. The consequence was that the worker received payment both from the Fertiliser Works and for relief work.

What was ■ suggested did happen was that, by arrangement with the foreman, these workers were given in previous weeks extra work to which, said His Honour, they were not entitled by regulation. For instance, say a man entitled to 12 hours’ work a week did 24 hours in his week. He was thus credited, under the arrangement, with this extra 12 hours. When he had a full week’s work outside he would go to the foreman asking to be credited that week with his extra 12 hours, although he would not appear on the relief works that week. “This,” said His Honour, “is contrary to the whole meaning and spirit of the relief regulations. You will be told there is no harm in it because the inen did the work, but that is not the point, because the Government regulates the relief work for a certain number of fixed hours a week. If this is allowed to go on tire men would be entitled to work a whole week on relief work when they are really entitled to only one day; four days could be held over to credit, and they could get outside work for a full week and draw their full relief pay at the same time. The Crown’s case is that these men made an arrangement with the foreman that he would represent them as having worked at a time when they had not worked. It is my duty to tell you that in these circumstances you should have no difficulty in deciding there is a prima facie case for trial.”