SUPREME COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18349, 8 June 1931, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS OPEN. SIX CASES FOR TRIAL. TWO OF GREATEST GRAVITY. Six criminal cases are to be presented for trial at the June sittings of the Supreme Court, which opened at Hamilton to-day, before His Honour, Mr Justice Hcrdman. The Grand Jury was composed of the following gentlemen, Messrs F. J. Farrell (foreman), C. Barrell, V. E. Blomfleld, R. P. Bond, G. H. Chesterman, F. H. Glapham, J. Cleary, A. C. Dimock, W. G. Fabling, F. C. House, F. W. Luxford, S. Meadow, R. McCrae, W. Newell, K. G. Paterson, J. J. Baynes, E. Russell, A. E. Sandforri, C. E. Shalceshaft, J. Treloar, C. G. Wadham, G. E. A. Willces.

In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honour told them they would be called upon to consider six cases. He regretted to announce that two of the casts were of extreme gravity. In one case a man named Rickard was charged with murdering an old man named Ilossiter. In another a man named Kerr was accused of attempting to murder a girl named Gertrude West. His Honour pointed out that it w f as not the duty of the Grand Jury to consider whether an accused person was guilty or not. All they required to be convinced of in order to return a true bill, was that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the accused person appearing before a common jury for trial. His Honour then outlined the evidence in Rickard’s case, and said there was undoubtedly sufficient to warrant a true bill being returned. The plea of insanity might be raised in defence, but the onus of proving this would be in the defence. In the case against Kerr, of attempting to murder Miss West, His Honour thought that here again tho evidence was of such a nature that the jury should have no difficulty in returning a true bill. A man named Williscroft was charged with, so negligently driving his motor car as to cause the death of another person. His Honour pointed out that it was the duty of tho driver of a motor car to exercise every care in driving his vehicle. He was bound to have regard for the safety of others using the road, whether drivers of vehicles or pedestrians. The evidence in the present case went to show that accused was driving on his wrong side of the road when the accident which caused death occurred. Tho jury should have no difficulty in arriving at a decision in this case. His Honour also briefly reviewed a case of an unnatural offence, one of house-break-ing and one of theft, and expressed the opinion that in each the jury would be warranted in returning a true bill. True bills were returned in all cases.