SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16611, 8 December 1919, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

’ NEW PLYMOUTH SESSION. The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened- this morning before the Chief Justine, Sir Robert Stout. GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury wqs empanelled as follows; W. E. Bendall, E. Ansford, J. Bennett, A. W. Weoster, W. C. Weston, A. S. Brooker, D. J. Hughes, J. Hayden, T. M. Avery, E. J. Pepperell, H. Bayly, C. Denny-Brown, M. Healy, W. Ambury, T. C. List, F. S. Johns, Geo. Fox, A. Veale, R v F. Cornwall W. H. Broome, H. B. Pepper, A. F. Mollison, F. H- Robertson. Mr. List was chosen foreman.

HIS HONOUR’S CHARGE. Addressing the Grand Jury, his Honour sain he was glad_ to be able to congratulate the district on the fact that there were not many prisoners for trial on the present occasion. There w'ere only three persons for trial, but this did not show the total number of crimes l committed in the district, because several other persons had pleaded guilty. None of the charges, however, was of a serious nature, The main crimes were those of breaking, entering, and theft, and there seemed to have be’en an outburst of this in the district, mainly apparently by jVumg men. None of them seemed to be old or, apparently, accustomed to crime. His Honour proceeded to outline the circumstances of the charges to bo tried, there being two of breaking and entering and theft against a young man, a charge of breaking and entering by night against another young man, and a charge of bigamy against a Maori woman. The Grand Jury retired at 11.30. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned true bills in each of the cases referred to it, they being; Jack Johnston, breaking, entering and theft (two charges): Neville James Grozier, breaking and entering by night; Mary McLean, alias 'Mary Christian, alias Marina Preston, bigamy. ALLEGED BIGAMY. The charge of bigamy preferred against a Maori woman, Mary M’Lean, was first proceeded with. It was alleged that tne accused at Kew Plymouth on March 31, 1917, while the wife of Paul M’Lean, went through a form of marriage with Cecil Percy Perrott Henrickson; also that she made a fake statement to the registrar by saying that she was then a spinster. Mr. H. R. Billing prosecuted for the Crown. Mr. S. W. Fitzherbert appeared for accused and entered a plea ot not guilty. The following jury was empanelled:— C. Oliver, N. Batharry, H. C. M’Ewen, Alexander Davidson, J. G. Boulton, A. A. Mace, W. Scott, R. E. Jackson, E. Shaw, E. J. Sole, E. Francis, J. H. Gibson. Mr. Scott was chosen foreman. Wm. Buchanan, registrar of births, deaths, and marriages at Napier, deposed that on May 24, 1912, he performed at Napier a marriage ceremony between Mary Christian and Paul M’Lean. ’The woman signed with her mark. _ Witness could not now recall the circumstances, but produced the register. The parties must have been sober, as he would not have married anyone showing signs of drink. There w r as no reason to suppose that he did not follow the usual custom of inquiring from the Maori whether she understood the ceremony. Cross-examined, witness said he could not identify accused as the woman he married to M’Lean. Martin Rowe, driver, Napier, deposed that he witnessed the marriage in Napier and bad identified accused as the woman when she appeared in the Magistrate’s Court in August. So far as ho had been able to see the parties were in their right senses and were sober and knew what they were doing when the ceremony took place. Paul M’Leau, labourer, Nuhaka (Hawke's Bay), was then called and, in reply to a query from his Honour, Mr. Fitzherbert said he desired that M'Lean should be directed that, being the husband of accused, he was not obliged to give evidence. On a point being raised regarding the law on this question, Mr. Fitzherbert agreed to withdraw' his objection. Mr. Billing said that practically all he required was proof, that witness was the. husband.

M’Lean then deposed that he was married under the circumstances already mentioned and then lived, with accused at Nuhaka for about two months.

His wife then loft him and he had not seen her again until proceedings were taken against her in the ’Magistrate’s Court. She could talk English alright. In reply to Mr. Fitzherbert, witness said that it was not correct that he put accused’s name down as Mary Christian and told her that, as that was not her name, the marriage would not be a proper one. His’ Honour remarked that even had witness done this it could not have cancelled the marriage. The court adjourned for lunch.