SUPREME COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19783, 26 April 1934, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

QUARTERLY SESSION LIGHT CALENDAR The quarterly session of the Supreme Court in Timaru commenced on Tuesday before His Honour Mr Justice Johnston. The calendar comprised three criminal cases for trial, one civil action before the judge alone, and four undefended divorce cases. Grand Jury. The following grand jury was empanelled:—Messrs W. H. Hall (foreman), H. Gould, L. S. Abernethy, H. G. Naylor, E. D. Fleming, G. Murdoch, G. Hadlee, W. I. Tait, F. Metson, R. L. Eames, R. A. Holdgate, J. T. Hunt, T. R. Rhodes, R. C. Littlejohn, C. H. Coxhead, A. N. Leslie, J. C. Mason, T. Rose, R. Parr, L. E. Eaton and O. Hutchison. His Honour’s Charge. In his charge to the grand jury, his Honour said that the jurymen had come to the Court to take part in the administration of justice. In a sense, they were the guardians of the public, and their duty was to make such recommendations as they saw fit concerning any part of the administration of justice. If they thought they should comment, and if actually they made any recommendations, such were bound to be taken notice of. The function of the grand jury was not to try cases, but to say whether in such cases as the Crown proposed to send to the common jury, the Crown had sufficient and reasonable evidence to send a man for trial.

His Honour said that op this occasion, though he did not, from experience, know this part of the district, or what the normal amount of crime was, it appeared to him that there was a very light calendar. There were no cases which one could describe as serious, and there was no charge which was part of an epidemic of crime in any particular place, and the district was to be congratulated on the light calendar. His Honour said that there were three indictments which would be placed before the jury for consideration. One case was an unusual form of false pretence, another was a simple enough case of carnal knowledge, and the third was alleged manslaughter. In the carnal knowledge case, there might be a defence, but all the grand jury were concerned about was whether there was corroborative evidence of the girl’s statement. His Honour outlined the facts in the manslaughter case, and said that whether there was a defence or not need not concern the jury. All they were concerned about was whether they were satisfied that there was a case to go before the common jury.

His Honour said that the third case ° was a rather unusual one. It was 1 against a farmer named John Simmons who was charged with false pretences. The alleged false pretence was that he had so packed 13 bales of wool, fine wool worth 21d being placed at the ends and coarse wool worth 9d being in the middle of the bales, that they would be acted on as containing fine wool. It was an unusual type of false pretence, and did not succeed because it was discovered. Under the criminal code of this country it was a crime to attempt to commit a crime, just as much as to actually commit the crime. The case was of some importance 1 , because so many people were engaged in the selling of wool. Wool was sold in a c sense by sample. All the wool could not be looked at, and growers were i aware of this. It was open to buyers to i inspect all the wool, but it was their i practice to examine the wool which ] was displayed at the ends of the bales. ( In this case, the jury had to consider whether the accused had so packed his wool that the buyers would be deceived j and defrauded. The evidence seemed 1 to point to system, not in one case, but ■ in many. True Bills. ! The grand jury returned true bills j against Harry Kammerly, alleged manslaughter; John Simmons, alleged false pretences; and Leonard Thomas Irons, alleged carnal knowledge. Divorce Cases. Vyvian Lloyd LeCren (Mr W. H. Walton) petitioned for divorce from Angela Mildred LeCren. Petitioner in evidence said that on September 12, 1911, he was married at Tunbridge Wells, England. After the marriage he resided first in England and subsequently at Tekapo and Fairlie. In May, 1932, his wife and family left for England with the idea of having the boys and girls educated. At that time he had no idea that his wife was unlikely to return, but subsequently, from correspondence, it became apparent that she did not propose to do so. Petitioner commenced proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, an order being made in 1933. His wife had not returned, nor had she obeyed the order. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months was granted. May v. May, Bertha Emily May (Mr N. Knell) petitioned for divorce from William Roy May. Petitioner said that in December 1928 she was married at Rangiora to William Roy May. After her marriage ' she lived in Kaiapoi. On May 4, 1930, i she and her husband agreed to separate, as her husband gave her insuffi- , cient money to keep herself and her children. ; Evidence regarding the separation was given by petitioner’s mother. : A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted, peti- . tioner to have the custody of the , children.

Sims v. Sims. Olive Sims (Mr A. D. Mcßae) petitioned for divorce from William Andrew Sims. Petitioner said that she was married on February 14, 1928, at Timaru, and after her marriage she resided at Fairlie. On or about Auugust 2, 1928, her husband deserted her. This was 11 days after her child was born. An order for maintenance was made in the Magistrate’s Court, but respondent had made default, and an order for his arrest had been issued. The police, however, had been unable to trace respondent. A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted, petitioned to have the custody of the child. Hore v. Hore. Eliza Hore (Mr G. F. Watters) petitioned for divorce from Joseph Edmund Hore. Petitioner stated that she was married on April 23, 1924, in Waimate. On March 2, 1931, petitioner entered into a written agreement with her husband to separate. Since that date she had not lived with her husband. A decree nisi to be made absolute after three months, was granted. Criminal Offence. Leonard Thomas Irons was charged with a criminal offence against a young girl at Waimate on August 26, 1933. Accused, who was represented by Mr L. M. Inglis, pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs C. Campbell (foreman), J. A. | Clarkson, G. C. Allen, G. Benyman, J.

Cassidy, D. H. Newlands, G. D. Maxwell, F. B. Knight, H. C. Bradley, A. Jackson, E. L. Jones and J. C. Ford. After the evidence had been heard, and counsel and his Honour had addressed the jury, the latter retired at 4.30 p.m., and returned at 4.55 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. Accused was discharged.