SUPREME COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18555, 30 April 1930, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

TIMARU SESSION. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Adams) The quarterly session of the Supreme Court commenced yesterday morning. The calendar is not a heavy one, although the list included four criminal cases for trial. There are two civil cases to be heard before the Judge alone, and five cases in divorce. Three applications for discharge from bankruptcy are to be heard. Grand Jury. The following grand jury was empanelled:—A. M. H. Shirtcliff (foreman), G. Mcxutterick, E. Darroch, A. D. Oram, L. S. Abernethy, C. Noble, F. E. Hind, J. Moody, R. A. Holdgate, R. T. Turnbull, N. S. Cramond, M. Little, J. Caithness, G. H. Andrews, D. Byers, W. S. Tank, A. Clark, D. G. Sinclair, and G. B. Pike. Hi 3 Honour’s Charge.

In his charge to the grand jury. His . Honour said that three cases would be ‘ submitted for consideration, but in no . one case were there any difficult ques- ? tions arising, so that they should not be detained very long. The first case , was that in which a man named ! George Arthur King was charged with ! having been guilty of obtaining money , by false pretences. The facts of the case were rather interesting. Accused, according to witnesses for the Crown, j was a travelling salesman. Apparently , he was in Waimate on February 14 ( last, selling rugs. According to the j evidence, he w'ent to the house of a , prominent citizen, and produced a j number of rugs. On the evidence it ‘ would appear that accused repre- . sented the rugs to be silk Persian rugs, ; and on the faith of that representation he obtained £3B/10/- in money for five ! rugs. On examination, however, it was ' discovered that the rugs were cotton ( and not silk, and that they were of ( English manufacture and not Persian. , The next case was one against a young ’ man named Walter Smith, who was | charged with manslaughter. The facts . seemed to be that on April 3 accused ' was riding a bicj-cle at Gleniti in the ; evening, when there was not sufficient i light to clearly distinguish other persons. It was stated that accused had no light, and that he was riding on the footpath, instead of on the highway. There were two men walking towards the cyclist, and accused failed to see them. One was an old man named George Greaves, with whom the cyclist collided. Greaves was taken to hospital, where he subsequently died. The case was painful from the fact that Greaves had many of the infirmities which grew on men with increasing age. Probably he would not have lived long in any case, but the evidence showed that death was accelerated by the fall and the injuries caused by the collision. It was not the business of the grand jury to try the accused, but simply to ascertain whether, on the ' evidence, accused should be sent to trial. The third indictment was against Philip McLaughlin and George Tait, who were charged with forging a document relating to the marriage of a minor. Apparently, as the evidence stood, the father, George Tait, who was the consenting party, did not sign the document, but authorised McLaughlin to do so for him. Assuming the facts to be true, George Francis Tait was under age, and in that case the father, or in the event of his death, the mother would be required to sign the consent document. The father was afraid to go into town, because the police were looking for him in regard to a breach of a maintenance order. McLaughlin, therefore, consented to the marriage on behalf of the father. The jury would have to consider whether the facts would amount to the crime of forgery. No Bill. The grand jury returned a no bill in the case against Philip McLaughlin and George Tait. alleged forgery of consent to marriage of a minor. True Bills. True bills were returned against George Arthur King, allegedly obtaining £3B/10/- by false pretences, and Walter Smith, alleged manslaughter. Not Guilty of Manslaughter. Walter Smith was charged that, on or about April 3, at Gleniti, he did unlawfully kill George Greaves, thereby committing manslaughter. He was further charged with causing actual bodily harm under such circumstances that had death occurred, he would have been guilty of manslaughter. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr A. D. Mcßae appeared for the accused, the case for the Crown being conducted by Mr W. D. Campbell. The following jury was empanelled— G. F. Smythe (foreman), A. Sinclair, W. C. Richards, T. G. Denley, E. Fitzgerald, C. J. Martin, P. Coote, P. Dunnett, A. Duggan, W. J. Mitchell, J. Lough and W. D. Revell. Outlining the case, Mr Campbell said that the facts were very simple. Wai-iti Road ran due west from Caroline Bay, and on the south side, right to Gleniti, there was a footpath for the use of pedestrians. Deceased and a man named Medlicott were walking along the footpath, and accused was riding on the footpath. In a statement to the police, accused said that he saw the men. and went to go off the footpath. The two men also made to move out of the way, and a collision occurred. Greaves suffered a fractured skull, and was taken to hos- ■ pital. He probably would not have died from this, but owing to his age further complications set in and he died. Mi* Campbell then explained the law regarding manslaughter to the jury. James Medlicott. retired farmer, living at Gleniti, said that about 7.30 on the evening of April 3 he was walking along a footpath at Gleniti, accompanied by deceased. They were walking from High field to Gleniti. The night was fairly dark, and he did not see anything approaching. He and Greaves were walking side by side. He noticed that Greaves had left his side, and he turned back to look for him. Deceased was lyinj on the ground, accused also being there. Witness attempted to lift deceased, but he was too weak. The cyclist stopped a car, and deceased was taken away in it. The footpath was used a good deal by pedestrians. To Mr Mcßae: He did not see the cyclist. The injuries received by deceased were on the left side. Deceased and the accused, when they fell, were off the footpath. The collision must have taken place on the footpath, for they were walking together just prior to the crash. Deceased may have seen the cyclist, but witness did not. Further questioned in regard to the injuries sustained by deceased, witness corrected his former statement that tney were on the left side, and asserted that they were on the right side. If a witness stated that deceased saw the cyclist and jumped off the footpath, he could not deny it. Peter Parker McDougall, auctioneer, residing, in Timaru, stated that on the night in question he was proceeding in his car towards Gleniti. About a quarter of a mile from the Gleniti store he was stopped by a young man, who stood in the middle of the road. Witness was told that there had been an accident, and was asked ~ if he would take a man to the hospital

for to a doctor. Witness saw Mr Medlij cott supporting a man who was lying lin the gutter. The injured man was olaced in his car, and he was taken ! t,o Dr. Ulrich first, and then to the hospital. The cyclist accompanied witness to the hospital. He heard the j cyclist say that he had been riding 'his bicycle on the footpath, without a ! light, and that he had run into a I man. The footpath was built up all the way to Gleniti, and was obviously for the use of pedestrians. To Mr ftlcßae: Accused made no attempt to conceal his identity. He could not recall that the accused had made any explanation as to how the accident had happened. Accused had blood on one side of his face, and he appeared to have been badly shaken.

Constable P. Swan said that he knew the locality where the accident occurred very well. There was a wellformed footpath on the southern side, and this extended right to Gleniti. In the vicinity of where the accident occurred the path was from nine to ten feet wide. There was no cycle track on it. Accused made a statement to witness, in which he said that he had been riding on the footpath without a light. He saw deceased, and swerved off the path to avoid him, but unfortunately deceased stepped into the gutter also, and they collided. Dr. W. B. Andrew, house surgeon at the Timaru Hospital, said that he admitted deceased to hospital. He was then unconscious. The only abrasions were on the right side of the forehead and on the right knee. Dr. J. C. McKenzie, medical superintendent at the Timaru Hospital, said that he saw deceased between 11 o'clock and midnight on the night of his admission. He was still unconscious at that hour, and witness considered that he was suffering from concussion. Deceased died on April 11, and although he regained consciousness, was never at any period normal. A post mortem examination revealed a fracture of the skull. Throughout the body there were degenerative changes such as were to be found in old men, and there was also hyperstatic pneumonia. The fracture of the skull could have been caused by a blow, such as a collision between two heads. The lungs were also in a water-logged condition, which could have been brought about through deceased having been confined to his bed in a state of concussion. To Mr Mcßae: Deceased was showing definite senile degenerative changes. But for the accident or an illness, deceased might have lived some years. During the first few days in hospital deceased seemed to improve, but after that he went downhill. The fracture on the skull was on the right side. He was still of the opinion that a younger man would have stood up to the injury. The immediate cause of death was not cerebral concussion, but other conditions obtaining. To Mr Campbell: But for the concussion. deceased might still have been walking about. This closed the case for the Crown. No evidence was called for the defence. Addressing the jury, Mr Campbell said that if a cyclist frightened a pedestrian and he jumped to what he thought was safety, and was struck, that was no excuse. Mr Mcßae, in opening, dealt with the first count on the indictment, and enlarged on the definition of man- ; slaughter, and'the law relating to it, 1 as indicated by the Crown Solicitor in 1 opening the case. He quoted numerous ■ judgments which indicated that the : degree of negligence required to be ; proved to establish criminal liability 3 was much greater than that necessary : to prove civil liability. Continuing, he 1 said that the onus of proof was on • the Crown, and they would have to } establish that proof to the full before • a conviction was entered. Mr Mcßae then went on to review the evidence 5 which had been placed before the Court, and, for the benefit of tne jury, reconstructed the accident. He said that the witness Medlicott could not 1 help them very much, but he had in--1 dicated that both the deceased and f accused were off the footpath and were

in the gutter. Accused’s statement to the police indicated that he swerved off the footpath to avoid deceased, and this went to show that deceased was

keeping a look-out. He strongly submitted that there was no£ sufficient evidence to establish criminal liability. Deceased, seeing the accused approaching, apparently became bustled and jumped to the side at the time the accused turned off the path. Mr McRae submitted that deceased’s death was the result of sheer misadventure. Accused was guilty of negligence for having without a light, but it had not been proved that he was guilty of manslaughter If the jury were satisfied on the evidence, and brought in a verdict of guilty on the first count,; they need not consider the second count. However, if they found him not guilty, he contended that it would be dangerous then to convict on the second count. There could be no denying the fact that the accused had caused bodily harm to deceased, but could it reasonably be said that he had caused injuries under the circumstances, which, had death resulted, accused would have been guilty of manslaughter. Summing up, His Honour said that the case had been put very fairly by both sides, and such being the case, it would not be necessary for him to speak at length, as he would otherwise have had to do. The case was purely one of fact. There was no doubt that Greaves had died as a result of something which occurred on the night of April 3. His Honour said that he did not desire to say anything ‘ which might indicate to the jury the proper verdict they should bring in. What they would have to do was to bring their common sense to bear on the facts which had been presented. The jury had been told that there was a difference in the degree of negligence necessary in proving criminal and civil liability. In criminal prosecutions the Crown had to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of negligence, whereas in a civil case they would have to be satisfied that there was something of a balance in tne probabilities. The jury retired at 3.40, and returned twenty minutes later with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was then discharged. Discharge From Bankruptcy. On the application of Mr W. D. Campbell, Thomas Adam Christie was granted a discharge from bankruptcy. In Divorce. Leslie Randle Regnault petitioned for divorce from Elsie Rachael Regnault, on the grounds of separation for three years and upwards. Mr W. D. Campbell appeared for petitioner. The evidence was that the parties separated by mutual consent in 1927, and since then petitioner had not seen his wife. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after three months.