CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9316, 17 August 1908, Page 3

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Monday, August 17. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.)

THE GRAND JURY

i The criminal sitting of the Supreme Court opened this morning, when tho following Grand Jury was empanelled : —Messrs R. Hill Fisher (foreman), E. Andrew, W. Bassett, C. Bowker, G; M. Daly, W. M. Gibb, R. Guthrie, H. Harris, Louis Hayman. J. A. lng-hs, A. Kincaid, M. J. O'Brien, H. R. Peel, J. S. Prebble, T. W. Reece, 0. E. Saunders, S. Saunders, P. Selig, W. E. Simes, G. H. Stanley, E: G. Staveley, F. G. Wilkinson and A. L. Wilson. HIS HONOR'S CHARGE. His Honor, iu charging the Grand Jury," said that there were only two charges of a sexual nature on the charge sheet, and none of the charges were of a very serious nature. He congratulated the district on the absence of serious crime. In the case against William Cameron, -far breaking and entering, tho evidence for the prosecution practically rested upon a fingeivprint. Expert testimony would , be foirthooaning as to the identity of ac- ! cosed' s nnger,-print-s with those found ] on the glass window of the warehouse j which was entered. There was a farther charge against Cameron of breaking into another warehouse. Evidence | would be given Ix> show that the accused, was found with some of the stolen goods in ihis possession. The charge against John Page, for perjury, I was a simple matter, arising out of affiliation proceedings. Page denied cer- ! tain things which were sworn to by several other witnesses. In regard to the charges against Johnston, Kegan [ and Bolton, these -were practically charges of highway robbery, including, in pne.^caae, a charge of having fired at a m-an with a revolver. The evi- ! dence for the prosecution consisted, firstly, of evidence of identification, j and, secondly, evidence that the ae- : cused lived together at Sumner. Evi- | dence would also be given that stolen | property and revolvers were found in the house, at Sumner. The evidence as to identification would probably be found' by the jury sufficient to send the j accused' to trial, while the identification I of stolen property was also sufficient to establish a prima< facie case. The j charge against a man named Harvey, of theft from the person, was supported by evidence sufficient to establish a pnma facie case. The charge of bigamy against a woman, named Moragan. was supported by evidence that the accused married for a. second time during the lifetime of her first husband, while the. defence was not sufficient to set the charge aside, so far as the Grand Jury was concerned. There was a charge against a woman, apparently of the prostitute class, for assaulting a man, which was supported by the evidence of the informant and circumstantial evidence by the police. The charge of forgery against Sutherland was a peculiar one, but the decision of it should be left to a common jury. He thought j the Grand Jury should find a true bill jin this case. The charge against Presdon and Gardiner was one of robbery from the person, and it was clearly supported by the evidence. The charge of perjury against Vickery arose out of a case in which the accused was prosecuted at tho instance of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His evidence in that case would be shown to be contrary to fact. The charge of horse-stealing against Bell was supported by evidence which must jbe met by the defence. The case against Pearson, a medical practitioner, for performing an illegal operation was supported by evidence, and. the Grand Jiiry would probably refer the matter to a common jury. Two additional charges were mad© against Pearson, for indecent assault, and the evidence here would probably justify a true bill being , brought in. The alternative charges were made to meet possible defences. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Leonard Sutherland, perjury. SENTENCES INFLICTED. William Roger Kells (aged eighteen) ancl Albert William Foot (aged eighteen and a half), who had been cowvicted in the lower Court on charges of theft from a dwelling, were brought up for sentence. There was a long list of thefts and escapes from Burnham against Kells, and the acting Crown Prosecutor asked that a term of imprisonment should be imposed. In reSard to- Foot-, jit was asked that he lOuld be imprisoned and then returned to Burnhanl Industrial School, and that he snould not be sentenced, to hard labour, as the closer confinement and poorer food which accompanied a sen* tence without hard labour were found very salutary in the case of young prisoners of this kind.

His Honor inquired from the senior warder present a6 to the meaning of such a punishment as lie was asked to inflict, and said he did not believe in sentencing a lad to imprisonment witho\it- any Avork to occupy his time. He sentenced Kell* to twelve months' imprisonment, am? Foot was ordered to return to Burnliatn Industrial School.