SUPREME COURT

Waikato Argus, Volume XXXV, Issue 5549, 5 March 1914, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

HAMILTON SITTINGS

THURSDAY, sth MARCH. The autumn sittings of the Supreme Court at Hamilton were opened in the Courthouse this forenoon, His Honor Mr Justice Cooper presiding. GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury were sworn as follows :—C. J W. Barton, Alfred Bullock, Albert Ronald Brown, John j Dalgliesh, Llewellyn Griffiths, Geo. j S. Henderson, Win. S. Higgins, j Fredk. W. Hunter, Sylvanus E. Jell's, Win. J. M. Nicol, Robert Parr, Jas. Benj. Scott, Arthur G. I Shand, Harry 11. L. Shaw, Fredk. C. I Smith, Fredk. Ernest Smith, Basil Totman, Cryil Towsey, J. W. Walsh, W. F. L. Ward, and Wm. White. Mr , F. Ernest Smith was elected foreman. i CHARGE TO GRAND JURY. Judge Cooper, in giving his charge to the Grand Jury, said there was not very much work for them to do. His Honor regretted that he was j unable to be at Hamilton on Monday, , and he hoped none of the gentlemen of the jury had suffered any incon- ' venience through the postponement of the court till today. There were charges of indecent assault a against man named Isaac Hunt. What the jury had to ascertain was whether there was prima facie evidence that the girl in this case was indecently interfered with. Whether or not there was sufficient answer to the charge was a matter for the common jury. There were three charges against a man named Tucker of indecently assaulting boys. It was quite competent for the Grand Jury, indeed it was their duty to act , even if the evidence of the hoys was uncorroborated The value of that evidence later on would be matter for the Common Jury, and there would be, His llonoi had no doubt, prima facie evidence to find a true bill There was a charge against Walter Davis of fraudulently converting money to his own use. The circumstances were peculiar. Davis was in partnership with a man named Jones, and it was alleged that he received the sum of nearly £OO from the New Zealand Dairy Association, practically half of which belonged to his partner, and that he had not accounted for his partner's share. If they were satisfied that it was a mere matter of partnership accounts they would throw the bill out. His Honor then referred to the peculiar circumstances affecting the charge against Ciarkson of fraud in connection with the sale of a motor-car to John Ross, over which there was a bill of sale. He pointed out to the jury that it was no answer to such a charge that tne accused subseI quently made restitution. What they had to ascertain was whether there was prima facie ground for believing | that when Ciarkson sold the car and | failed to disclose the existence of a ! bill of sale, he did so with dishonest I intent.

CONGRATULATION. Having referred to the sheenkilling case at Whatawhata, His Honor congratulated the jury on the small number of criminal charges. Hamilton district he said, was a very large one, and up till last Tuesday there were only three cases. He regretted that two out of the live charges were for sexual offences. On the whole, however, he was justified in congratulating the VVaikato district upon the comparatively small ! proportion of serious crime. TRUE BILLS. The Grand .Jury returned true bills against the following:—Thomas Henrv Tucker, Walter Davis, Isaac Hunt, and Clarkson. NO BILL The Grand Jury threw out the bill against Wm. Smith, who was charged with stealing the carcase of a sheep at Whatawhata belonging to Johnstone tiros. SEXUAL OFFENCES. Before being discharged the Grand Jury, through the foreman, submitted a resolution to the Judge ex pressing regret at the prevalence of sexual offences, and strongly recommending that (logging should, if possible, be administered to persons found guilty of such offences. Constable Bern was sworn in charge of the Grand Jury. The common juries were then Bworn. A SERIOUS CHARGE. In the case of Thos. Henry Tucker, who was charged with indecently asasulting boys at Frankton on 19th December, prisoner applied for counsel. His Honor said in cases of a serious charge like thh he made it a custom to assign counsel for the prisoner. Mr Rogers, wdio acted for the prisoner in the Lower Court, was accordingly assigned counsel by rule of the court. Mr Gillies appeared for the Crown, and the evidence, previously given in Hie Lower Court, was repeated. The verdict lias got yet been returned. ALLEGED FRAUDULENT PARTNER. Walter Davis, a middle-aged man, was charged with having about 25th November 25, 1913, stolen £27 19s lid, the properly of Sydney Jones, he having received the money from the New Zealand Dairy Association and failed to account for it to his partner, Jones. Accused pleaded not guilty. Sydney Jones said he was accused's partner in putting down foundations for the Dairy Company. They were to find the labour only, each paying half expenses and sharing the proceeds. The last cheque was £57 IDs lid, dated 21st November. The £3 accused said that he had only got 30s from the engineer at Ngaruawahia. He had previously said he had got £3. They went to the licensee of the Commercial Hotel at Hamilton to get the cheque cashed. They were asked to come back next morning. After having two drinks at the bar accused said he was going out to the back. He was away live minutes and on returning suggested that they should have another drink and go for dinner. Accused had dinner and came back. Witness hud no dinner, having lain down in his own room in

the hotel. He did not sec Uavia again till he saw him in Court, He had said nothing about leaving Hamilton. Cross examined by Mr Lundon: This was the second job he and Davis had been engaged on together. Davis was the business) man and dealt with the cash, 'lhey bad no profit out of che second contract. Witness got his full half of the proceeds of the first contract.On a second contract witness received £'2G. The contract price for the job was about £'B6. Witness gave details of various payments made ou of the contract money. Witness (ienied that he bad been drinking excessively proir to accused's .departure. A proposed trip to Auckland, and thence to Kawhia, had been discussed. A telegram had been sent to Mr Clark, tjovemment Inspector, intimating that the two were willing to proceed to Kawhia, to take up Government work. Accused sent the telegram, and only told witness afterwards that he had signed witness' name to it. Witness wanted to go to Wellington if he got his money. There was no difficulty about maintenance there. He was a married man, but this was the first he had heard of any such difficulty. U/Ifnoaa „„■■.,,. .hi, tko f„l. ,„,..,.„ i,.

witness never saw tne telegram 10 Auckland. It didn't take long to spend 30s at the bar, but accused had a pound out of the £2 10b. He did not know that Davis was arrested while in conversation with a detective. He did not know that in reply to a telegram from the Clerk of the Court at Hamilton, a reply had been received that there was sufficient money available in accused's possession at Auckland. Mr Lundon: It is a case that should never have come before a jury. Mr Gillies went into the figures anew, recognising that as originally put they were wrong. The Judge said it was impossible to convict on the evidence, Mr Lundon created some amusement by stating that the money was really in his (counsel's) hands, having previously been lodged with an