SUPREME COURT

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 127, 24 May 1932, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

THE NAPIER SESSIONS THREE “NO BILLS” RETURNED The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court at Napier opened yesterday morning, when His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. The following Grand Jury was empanelled: Messrs. B. B. Creagh (foreman), W. P. Mitchell, J. M. Bruce, J. R. Morgan, W. W. Brooks, F. J. Madigan, M. S. Spence, T. B. Tweedie, S. L. Beer, C. D. Cox, A. F. Bowman, L. H. Deighton, W. Fletcher, W. G. McNab, R. Norman, W. G. Hay, W. W. Pirie, A. A. McDougall, J. H. Ringland, W. P. Finch, J. P. Woodson, H. McGregor, F. Lowe, H. M. Hunter and A. E. Renouf.

Addressing the Grand Jury, His Honour said that there were more cases to be tried than usual. There was a great deal more in the way of breaking and entering than formerly. This was, unfortunately, in keeping with other parts of the Dominion. However, there was perhaps something in the thought that if there is to be crime it is better that it should be crime involving property than that involving violence to human beings. The Grand Jury returned “no bills” against Phillip Cole (alleged grave assault), Arene Hiriwini (alleged grave offence), and Herbert Elsworth (alleged bad language). GUILTY OF THEFT CHARGE AGAINST NATIVE Hirini Tihema was indicted charged that (1) on or about February 1 last, at Westshore, he did break and enter the dwelling house of John Roland Warden and steal therefrom a table cloth and a quantity of fancy goods valued at £2, the property of J. R. Warden; (2) that he stole a table cloth and fancy goods valued at £2, the property of J. R. Warden, and (3) that he did receive a table cloth and fancy goods valued at £2, knowing same to have been dishonestly obtained. His Honour briefly outlined the facts of the case and pointed out that the law required that a man found ’n possession of recently stolen goods should explain how he came to have them. His Honour did not think it warrantable to suggest that Mason was deliberately lying when he said that he bought the goods from the accused, who, in his own statement, admitted that he had the g ods in his possession, at one time and did sell them to Mason. The jury was entitled to assume that the accused, if unable to give a satisfactory account of how he came into possession of the goods, was the person who stole them. If satisfied that there was no one else concerned in the breaking and entering or the actual theft then the jury was entitled to find him guilty on the first or second charge. After a retirement of 15 minutes the jury returned with a verdict of guilty on the count of theft. The accused was remanded for sentence until Friday. ALTERATION OF CHEQUE GUILTY OF FORGERY John Lewis, a labourer, was found guilty of altering a cheque drawn on the Bank of New Zealand at Napier by John Carter in the accused’s favour, for the sum of £6 Ils 9d to £6O Ils 9d. A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury and the prisoner was remanded for sentence. He was alternatively charged with receiving £6O 11s 9d, knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained by forgery. On this count he was found not guilty.

Judge’s Summing Up

His Honour, in summing up the evidence, stated that the jury was entitled to draw an inference from the fact that the accused had arrived at Mrs. Smith’s hotel stating that he had no money, announcing the fact the next day that he had lost his cheque and soon after that having in his possession a large sum of money, including some £lO and £5 banknotes. It was competent on the part of the jury to find the accused guilty either of forging or receiving. But if the jury found him guilty of something, then it was logical that he should be found guilty of forgery. Even if he had handed the cheque on to another person to forge and cash, then he was still a party to a crime and could properly be found guilty. The strength of the Crown case was the fact that Lewis came to Napier without any money and on the very next

day was seen in possession of a large sum of money in notes of the same denomination as those paid out on the forged cheque which was cashed. After a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of forgery, when the prisoner was remanded for sentence. NEW PLYMOUTH CASES CHARGES AGAINST MOTORISTS (Per Press Association.) NEW PLYMOUTH, Monday. Charged with driving a cai’ negligently at Hawera on February 26, thereby causing the death of Reginald Ernest Duggan, a Maori, Pikau Pokau, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court and was remanded for sentence. The car driven by Pokau struck Duggan, who was riding a bicycle. A charge of manslaughter through negligent driving, causing the death of Norman McLeod, laid against Arthur G. Walker, of Hawera, was not concluded to-night. McLeod was a passenger in Walker's car, which left the road and crashed into a pole and hedge. McLeod’s head was crushed by the capsized car. Walker said that' the steering gear locked when he was taking a bend.