CRIMINAL COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20537, 12 February 1935, Page 7

CRIMINAL COURT.

Fifteen Persons Before Grand Jury. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. Fifteen persons, involving twentytwo charges, comprised the calendar for the criminal session of the Supreme Court which commenced before Mr Justice Johnston this morning. In his charge to the Grand Jury, his Honor expressed the opinion that little trouble would be experienced in finding a true bill in each case. The Grand Jury was composed of Messrs W. R. Heney (foreman), F. Kibblewhite, F. G. Dunn, A. S. Tench, P. S. Nicholls, H. S. Stubbs, H. E. Otley, J- I. Smaill, A. S. Howard, F. Hobbs, C. F. Glasson, E. V. M. Phillips, W. R. Crompton, A. Johnston, C. L. Green, W. S. Mac Gibbon, W. H. Nicholson, A. H. Vale, L. J. Taylor, R. Reakes, A. L. Matson, J. E. Bates and H. T. Stubberfield. Analysing the list of cases for trial, his Honor said that five persons were indicted on what might be termed sexual cases, two for breaking and entering, five for theft, one for discharging a firearm with intent to do bodily harm, one for receiving stolen goods and one on a charge of false pretences. Although the list was somewhat lengthy, he did not think that the jury would have much trouble in returning true bills in these cases. His Honor said that in the sexual cases the evidence was, as one would expect, generally of a similar ‘ nature. The Grand Jury had to see that the evidence was there and that the charges were not trumped up ones on the part of the persons making the charges. Once the Grand Jury was satisfied that the complaint was made in good faith and that there was ample corroboration, it was its duty to return true bills. The indictments against each person were briefly reviewed by his Honor, who stressed the fact that the guilt or innocence of each accused person would be determined by the common jury. Referring to the charge against Edwin Joseph Feron of receiving stolen tobacco, his Honor said that the Crown would have to prove that the accused got the goods knowing them to have been stolen. That was properly a matter for the common jury. Even if the accused could, show that, at the actual time he received the goods, he did not know they were stolen, but subsequently discovered that they were stolen and he retained them, then according to the law he was guilty of theft. Hence ,there was a second charge of theft made against him. “ Taking it all in all, you will find no difficulty in this case, for, as in all the cases before you, there is no suspicion that the charges are trumped up or that they come from neurasthenic or mentally unstable persons,” said his Honor.