LITTLE CRIME.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17953, 24 February 1930, Page 4

LITTLE CRIME.

DISTRICT CONGRATULATED

ONLY FOUR CASES FOR TRIAL,

SUPREME COURT OPENS.

His Honour Mr. Justice Smith presided at the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court which opened at Hamilton to-day. The Grand Jury comprised the following gentlemen: Messrs A. Bullock (foreman), C. G. Blake, F. H. Ibbotson, R. G. Anderson, F. B. Hall, G. Speight, L. G. Hemus, P. E. Wiley, M. J. Belgrave, K. Prince, R. Hlggott, H. E. 'Card, W. Ranstead, H. S. Blackman, C. Lafferty, J. G. Lucas, E. €. Day, A. Macdonald, W. Christie, L. W. Favile, S. J. Blackmore, D. D. Wilson, A. Newby, and 11. E. Gaze. In his charge to the Grand Jury His Honour congratulated the district on the fact that there were only four criminal cases for consideration. The position, he thought, could be regarded as very satisfactory in view of the large area which the Hamilton judicial district embraced, extending as it did in the north from the mouth of the Waikato River, to the east at Matata, south to Tarawera, and west to the mouth of the Mokau, including the towns of Mercer, Rotorua, Te Kuiti, Taumarunui, Hamilton and Cambridge and the surrounding districts. The four cases for consideration were, however, of a somewhat serious nature. A local bookmaker named Samuels was charged on two counts with bribing police officers by giving each £lO and a ease of pipes. It was an offence for anyone to give a police officer money or consideration of value with a view to interfering with the administration of justice. In the present case there would be the evidence of two detectives that they had received through, the post the money and pipes and they would also speak of a conversation which they later had with Samuels. His Honour thought the Jury should find no difficulty in returning a true bill in this case. There was an unusual case of forgery against a man named Ritchie, from Rotorua. Ritchie was charged with sending to the editor of the Rotorua Chronicle, with intent to induce him to publish it, a letter casting aspersions on the Forestry Company. The letter was signed with a nom de plume, but beneath this, encircled, was the name Robert Yule, purporting to be the name of the writer, and as a guarantee of the bonafldes of the writer. The editor, however, happened to know the handwriting to be that of the accused and could not And the person in whose name the letter was signed. Had the editor been induced to publish false statements in this way, he would doubtless have left himself open to an action for libel. His Honour then explained to the Grand Jury the law bearing on the crime of forgery, which, briefly, he defined as the making of any false document with intent that it should be acted upon as if it were genuine. In this case His Honour thought the evidence was of such a nature as to warrant the case being left for the common jury to decide. There was also a case of rape and one of indecent assault, which His Honour thought the Grand Jury would be justified in sending for trial. True Bills were returned in all cases.