HIS FIRST SESSION.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20223, 6 February 1934, Page 7

HIS FIRST SESSION.

New Judge Presides Over j Supreme Court. COMMENT ON THE CASES. Mr Justice Johnston, successor to Mr ; Justice Adams as resident Judge in Christchurch, took his seat in the Supreme Court for the first time this J morning when the criminal session j opened. There was a large attendance of members of the legal profession and I the public galleries were filled. In his address to the Grand Jury, his j Honor pointed out that the majority! of the charges referred to crimes of a sexual nature. He added that the proportion of such charges seemed to be unduly high and might be a matter for comment by the Grand Jury. His Honor said that the Grand Jury had an important part to play and in common with the officers of the Court had two functions to perform. The first was that in any matters relating to criminal administration they might advise the Judge and make such representations as they thought fit if there was any matter relating to criminal . law or the prevention of any class of crime of which they thought notice should be taken. As for himself he had the privilege of addressing them on any matters relating to the criminal administration of the country. As far as he was concerned he was not aware that there was any great change either in the criminal law or on the administrative side since the last session in the city. Crimes of Sexual Nature. He had nothing of a general nature to say except that in the list of the bills of indictment, numbering nine, there were a majority of crimes of a sexual nature. Without saying that that was an exorbitant or abnormal number in a district of such a size the proportion seemed to be unduly high and might be a matter for comment by them. At the same time he wanted them to remember that when the}'- had done their duty considering the bills of indictment he would be only too pleased, and indeed it was his duty, if any presentment or representation was made to him, to forward it to the proper authorities. As for the bills of indictment he did not think the members of the Grand Jury would find any real difficulty in carrying out their duty. As they knew, the duties of a Grand Jury wire some years ago of a more onerous nature than at present. Now, all the cases, generally speaking, that came before a Grand Jury had been examined by a competent Magistrate who had found reason to commit the accused for trial and he had in a sense done the work the Grand Jury was called on to do, although the jury was a check. Nevertheless they had to remember that they were not to try the cases but to find out and say whether there were cases to be tried; to say whether there.was evidence justifying the bringing of the charges and whether the cases demanded inquiry. All he could do was to indicate the nature of the offences. Safeguarding Children. “ There are three charges of indecent assault against girls of very tender years,” declared his Honor. “ The facts speak for themselves and you will have no difficulty. The necessity to safeguard young children is great, and the only means the children have of protecting themselves is to report such matters. “ There are also two cases of indecent assault on boys, and in both instances there seems to be some corroboration. The nature of these offences is not at all dependent on the consent of the person assaulted. Murder Charge. “ The other cases are of some importance—indeed, of first importance—from the nature of the charges and to the people accused, but they are simple from the consideration that you have to give to them. In a sense, at an> rate, in regard to the charges of murder, manslaughter and injury to a person while driving a motor-car, the facts speak for themselves without any evidence at all. “ The facts raise the issue and demand trials, for the rights of individuals are to be protected. What I mean is this: Take the murder case against Merriman. He is a man who was a motor-driver in the service of the Post and Telegraph Department, and he is charged with murdering his wife and three children—two girls and a boy.” His Honor traced the facts of the Merriman case, and commented that it appeared that Merriman was a man who was very distressed and was passing through an acute mental crisis owing to family trouble. The facts spoke for themselves, and the circumstantial evidence pointed to Merriman as the man who had committed the crime, in addition to which he had made a statement. The nature of the defence that might be raised, good or bad, was not for the consideration of the Grand Jury. Hospital Patient’s Death. A case that might present difficulties to a Common Jury was that against the matron of the Kaikoura Hospital named Francis, who was charged with manslaughter in that, having charge of a patient, she did not exercise reasonable care and, as a result of her negligence, the patient died. In that case the patient died from carbolic acid poisoning, and the only way the acid could have entered her system was by means of an enema. From the facts he thought the Grand Jury could find that there was evidence from which negligence could be inferred. Injury to Woman. There was a case where a man Cockburn, a taxi-driver, was accused of causing bodily injury to a young lady who was on the back of a motorcycle when a collision occurred at thintersection of Fitzgerald Avenue and Ferry Road. It was alleged that the speed of accused and his neglect to give way caused the accident. There was independent evidence of witnesses who would say the car gave way, but again there was evidence that supported the charge, if it was not refuted. “ The only other case in which there is anything that I can say to you that i can be of assistance is that where a j man named Batchelor is accused of perjury, of attempting to pervert Ihej

course of justice and of fabricating evidence,” concluded his Honor. “ Perjury, of course, is a very serious crime that goes to the root of justice, and so again is fabrication of evidence and attempting to interfere with witnesses. “ There are seven counts which radiate from a well-defined central fact. From the evidence available you will not have much trouble in regard to the facts of the case. If you are satisfied that there is evidence about the central facts I do not think you will have much difficulty in saying that the central facts give rise to the other counts ” The following Grand Jury was empanelled: William Machin (foreman), George William Drayton, Clarence Meredith-Kaye, Walter Andrew, Charles Phipp Agar, James Ainger, James Murphy, William Robert Heney, Maurice Cuthbert Cooper, George M’Leod, Sylvanus Loxdale Partridge, William Henry Downer, James Alexander Blvth, William Schneideman, Geoffrey Ernest Kingscote, Douglas Allen Adams, Leonard Farr, Alfred Evelyn Brown, Maurice Ballantyne Warren, Charles FlavelJ, Neil M’Gilfivray, William Hare Simpson, Reginald Sladen. True bills were found in the following cases:— Harold Seddon Cockburn, alleged negligently driving a motor vehicle so as to cause death. Reginald John Merriman, alleged murder (four charges). Walter Baker, alleged indecent assault on female. William Eldred, alleged indecent assault on female. George Frank Toon, alleged indecent assault on female (two charges). John Black Batchelor, alleged attempting to pervert course of justice (two charges); alleged perjury; alleged fabrication of evidence, alleged Statement amounting to perjury. Frederick William Whittington, alleged carnal knowledge of girl under the age of ten years. Edith Laura Francis, alleged manslaughter. Arthur Gladstone Polkinghorne, alleged indecent assault on male.