SUPREME COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17492, 28 August 1928, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

HAMILTON SESSIONS. FEW CRIMINAL CASES. CONGRATULATIONS FROM BF^ r " T T. The Hamilton Supreme Court sessions opened this morning, his Honour Mr Justice Blj.ir presiding. The Grand Jury was empanelled as follows: Messrs John McKinnon (•foreman), Claude Roy Dean, Robert Kay, David Andrews, William Ranstead, John Bernard Pomeroy, Francis Egerton Peacocke, Archibald iMcDonald, William Maurice Sexton, Harry Campbell Ross, William Denis Ross", Joseph Varney, William Henry Fry, William George Fabling, John William Lewis, Ernest Masters, Frederick William Kemp, Arthur Robertson Menzies, Samuel Clothier, John Edward Chitty, Sinclair Arthur, John Prenton, Joseph Adam Clark. Judge's Comments. In his -charge to the Grand Jury his Honour 'Congratulated the district on the lightness of the calendar. There were only six bills, involving Ave persons. Three of these cases were charges of breaking and entering, while the remaining charges concerned a breach of the Licensing Act and charges of negligent driving of motor motor cars, causing death. None of the other cases in any way involved dishonesty. The breaking and entering cases should not cause the jury much trouble. John Leslie Buckley was charged with breaking and entering two premises at Taumarunui on the same day. His Honour briefly outlined the circumstances of the case. A man named Thomson was also charged with breaking and entering. This case would not be so simple. The next dealt with what was colloquially termed "sly-grog soiling." The charge against the man was that of keeping liquor for sale within a proclaimed area. The Crown's case was that the accused had whisky on his premises. The onus was on the accused to satisfy the jury that he did not expose the liquor for sale; the Crown was not obliged to prove this. The reason why the Supreme Court was bothered with this case was because the man had been twice previously convicted, and for a third offence, which exposed accused to twelve months' imprisonment, he had a right to be tried by jury. He had elected to be tried this way. With regard to the negligent driving cases, these were becoming unfortunately frequent. The mere fact that a motor accident happened did not necessarily imply negligence. The accused was driving with only one light, while an examination after the. accident showed that circumstances pointed to him being on his wrong side. This evidence constituted negligence. The subsequent flight of accused after he had discovered a man had been killed was not covered by the charge, and did not concern the jury. True bills were found in each case. Application for Adjournment. Mr H. T. Gillies, Crown Solicitor, asked for an adjournment of the case in Which Robert William- Browne was charged with indecent assault, adjourned from last session. The accused was in a poor state of health, and might collapse in Court, tie said. Medical opinion had been obtained to the'effect that accused's health was in a very precarious condition. His Honour decided to make a recommendation to the Attorney-Gen-eral that the case be adjourned.