SUPREME COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 263, 6 November 1934, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

THE WANGANUI SESSION THREE CRIMINAL CASES PLEA OF GUILTY IN ONE His Honour, Mr. Justice JSmith, presided at the quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court which opened at Wanganui yesterday. Three true bills were returned by the Grand Jury, that number of cases, which His Honour described as being a normal total so far as this district, was concerned, being presented to it for consideration. The Grand Jury comprised: William J. Rogers (foreman). Ernest D- Bennett, John M. Allen’ Ernest H. Frankish, Francis S. Taiboys, Francis H. Bethwaite, Roy D. Thomson, William L. Burgess, Harold H. Smith, John D. Brechin, Francis H. Caddy. Leslie W. Chisholm, Edgar A. Marchant, William Hutchens, William Curtis, Leslie W. Hob-en, Joseph Gopperth, John Goldstone, Thomas L. Sperring, John McFarlane Fred J. Nancarrow, Leonard V. Kerby, Walter N. Willis. His Honour, in his direction to the Grand Jury, briefly stressed the salient facts in each case as elicited by the evidence. He reminded the Grand Jury that its function was not to consider the defence, but to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to place the accused person on his trial. Nons of the cases would present much difficulty. One case concerned that of an elderly man charged with indecent assault on little girls. At their age, even if there was consent, the act was an offence. Another accused was charged with robbery and robbery was theft accompanied by violence. The complainant’s evidence was that he was walking along Victoria Avenue and was accosted by the accused and another man. They accompanied him as far as Maria Place and there, according to complainant, he was assaulted and robbed of 2s 6d and a scarf. Accused was faced with the alternative charges and the question of

parties arose. If a person did anything to assist another to commit a crime, that person became a party to i it. The third case was one in wh’ch i a man was charged with negligently '•hiving a motor-car and causing bodily j harm. A collision had occurred near i Wes I,mere, at night, between a car | drived by the accused person and a I motor-cycle ridd-en by the person injured, who had his fiancee behind him as a pillion rider. There was evij dence to show that the lights and | brakes of the car were in good order, but that the light of the cycle was not functioning- The driver was using a torch, which was held under his arm by the pillion rider. According to her evidence, the light from the torch was shining on the road when the collision occurred. The fact that the colhsion occurred on the motorist’s wrong side of the road required explanation. The .second point was that a passenger in the front scat of the car had called • out, “Look out!” and the collision took place at almost the same time. His Honour then intimated that the law prescribed that the negligence of the other party did not constitute m offence in criminal cases of this type. The Grand Jury returned a true bill in all three cases—against Michael Ansley, seven charges of indecent assault and one of attempted indecent assault; against Alfred Leslie Brown, negligent driving and causing bodily injury; against William Garforth. robbery with violence. Plea of Guilty Michael Ansley pleaded guilty to alt charges preferred against him and was remanded for sentence until the en« of the criminal session.