SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 974, 15 November 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS OPENED. NORMAL CALENDAR. The quarterly criminal sessions opened at the Supromo Court yesterday, his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Kobert Stout, presiding. The grand jury was empanelled, as follows: — Messrs. William Thomson (foreman), F. Meadowcroft, \V. H. Fulton, J. Prouse, J. M'Queen, G. B. Christie, G. lorns, E. R. H'Lea'n Dyniock, F. Gormley, James <j. Bennett, J. Murdoch, W. 11. Plimmer, J. Dykes, L. Whitcombe, H. 11. .Lawrie, It. T. Badham, J. 11. Hunter, Jack, Alex. Webster, J. E. Staple, ■P. J. Narimn, James Oakley Brown, C. Bichardson, Thomas Markham Hardy. -.■"' His Honour's Charge.

Addressing' the grand jury, the Chief Justice first referred to the new. Crimes Act, which comes into force next year, and to the remedial and beneficial results which ■ the Act was likely to achieve. These remarks . appear elsewhere. His Honour then traversed the broad features of the case in which Arthur Wilson, a member of the Athletic Rugby lootball Club, was .charged, in connection with certain injuries sustained by another player named Duilio Calcinai, during the progress of a senior • grado match played at the Athletic . Park on August 6. These remarks are also reported on another page. Generally speaking (continued the Judge) , the cases to be brought forward were neither numerous nor very serious. There were included offences- of a kind that' must always be looked upon'as serious—sexual oifences—but those actually on the present list were not serious of their class. Another case turned upon forcible entry by a landlord. Because rent had not.beenpaid, a landlord had forcibly broken into premises. He. had, of course, no right to do so, and such action had been recognised as an offence, in England, for many centuries. Looking over the calendar generally, it would be seen that out of twenty-one persons, twelve attributed their offences to drink. Of course that was no excuse, but it was a fact worthy of notice. ' . True Bills. True bills were returned by the Grand Jury in- th'e case of , the following prisoners:—John Harrison, alleged assault and robbery; John Earnehaw, Henry Robert Hunt, and Leslie Ellis, alleged burglary at Levin; Thomas Duffy, no bill on a charge of forgery, true bill on acharge of obtaining goods by false pretences; Ernest Edwin Thompson, alleged criminal- offence; John Taylor, alleged criminal assault; Arthur Wilson; alleged assault; Cornelius Moleney, alleged arson; Ernest White, alleged criminal assault; John. Griffiths, alleged housebreaking, two informations; Robert Russell, alleged breaking ■ and entering into a dwelling to intimidate inmates; George Joseph Beasley, alleged assault; James Vincent Crimmins, Charles Cunningham, John Lewis, alias Lindsay, alias Newton, and Charles Reston, alleged breaking, entering, assault, and robbery; Alexander Taylor, alleged theft on the high' seas; William Wojtkins, alleged bigamy and false delOlaration under the Marriage Act; and Francis Joseph Lyons,- alleged carnal knowledge'. The jury were thanked for their services and .were then discharged..

To-day's- Business. The order of the cases to-day is to be as follows:—John Taylor, charged with an , assault on' a girl of eight years; Ern«st Edwin Thompson, attempting to procure abortion; John Earnshaw, Henry Robert Hunt, and Leslie Ellis, burglary. . ' '•■:'■.■ "A CIEAR CASE." CAMBRIDGE HOTEL AFFAIR; The case standing first on the calendar was one in which John Harrison was charged with stealing ',£5 6s. from Samuel Good at Wellington on August IC. It was further, alleged against Harrison that he accompanied the robbery by personal violence. Mr. R. B, Williams appeared for accused. ' . \ ..','' , Mr. T. ■ Neave, prosecuting for the Crown, stated that Good, a carter, went, into tho. bar of the Cambridge Hotel in Kent .Terrace,, on the day. stated., Prisr, oner-and another man were then already in the bar. The evidence, would sk>w that; Good took .money'from his pocket, when paying for drink, and it was material to know that Good then had in his possession a sum of £5 6s.—four sovereigns and,26s. in silver. When paying for his liquor he took out a sovereign and was given change. It would appear, .the Crown- Prosecutor continued, that prisoner and. a man in his'company were close to Good when.he paid for the iquor. Immediately afterwards Good went out to a urinal at the back of the. hotel. While there he saw the prisoner and another man approach. One of the men—he was not' sure which—struck him a-blow, on the, face. Then one man held him while the other searched his pockets and relieved him of J25 6s. Good was clear that prisoner was one of the men. who attacked him. He was not able to seize either man, but he did secure a hat belonging to one of them. It was a■- "hard" hat and the barman at the hotel would swear that such a hat was worn by the man who accompanied Harrison on the day when Good was robbed. Evidence for the prosecution was given bv the plaintiff, Samuel Good, and others. No evidence was led for the defence. Mr. Williams, for f the defence, contended that the evidence for the Crown was insufficient to cast more than suspicion, on his client; ... ■' ■ ■ His Honour, m summing up, said that the case, if the witnesses were believed, seemed very clear. The defence hatl not ventured to assert tnat Good had not been robbed, and it had been shown that the accused had been in tho hotel at tho time that the robbery occurred. Good also, had sworn positively that accused was one-of the men who had followed him into the urinal, and, moreover, Good's evidence had not been shaken in any important particular. Then, too, Harrison had been found, after the offence, hiding in a smithy. If the prisoner had been an honest man, why had he not called the man who was with him in the Cambridge Hotel? And why should he. have lied in snying that he was not in the Cambridge Hotel on the dnv.in question? The jury, after an p.bsenoe o£ about 40 minutes, returned with a verdict of "uiltv o? assault and robbery. His Honour remanded Harrison for sentence until Wednesday next. ~. SERIOUS CHARGE. : Ernest White was charged with having- assaulted a girl, eighteen years of age in Wellington, on September i. White pleaded not guilty. The jury found that. accused was guilty of common assault, and his Honour remanded prisoner till Wednesday for sentence.