SUPREME COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17704, 7 May 1929, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

THE WELLINGTON SESSION. CHIEF JUSTICE ON BENCH. PRESIDES FOR FIRST TIME. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The quarterly criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened to-day, the Chief Justice, Mr Myers, taking his seat for the first time. In addressing the Grand Jury he said that he would have liked on the first occasion he sat on the Bench to be able to tell them that the calendar was a particularly short one, but unfortunately he was not in the position to tell them that, because the list of indictments was longer than at any sitting during the last few years. It would be an improper however, to assume from that thyt crime was increasing. He congratulated the district on the fact that there was not one charge of outrage against women or children or any act of Indecency. PALMERBTON NORTH SESSION. MOTHER’S MAD ACT. ALLEGED MURDER OF CHILD. PALMERSTON N„ Tuesday. The - criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened this morning. Mr Justice Ostler, in addressing the Grand Jury, said there were only three cases for trial and one for sentence. The record of the district this season was light. The first charge %vas a serious one, being one of alleged murder./ This was a sad case, in which a married woman of Te Horo was charged with killing her four-year-old child- According to the evidence there was no doubt that she did commit the act. The defence was a plea of insanity > at the time, but that was for the common jury to determine. Referring to a case against a young man named O’Donnell, charged with recklessly driving a car, thereby causing the death of his brother, His Honour said, after traversing the facts, that no man should be put on a criminal charge of negligence unless it is of a gross character. It is quite wrong for a man to stand trial because a human life has been lost through his inaccuracy. Gross neglect means something more than an error of judgment. The question was whether the other party could accurately observe and record accused's speed. If that was considered impossible—and that seemed the only evidence of negligence— accused should not have to stand his trial. If the version given by the other party was thought to be reliable as indicating excessive speed then a true bill should be returned.