SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 110, 3 February 1920, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

SERIOUS CHARGE SILENCE OF CROWN WITNESS Tho criminal session of tho Supreiiio Court opened yejterdav morning. His Honour Mr, Justico iJdwnrds was on the bench. Tile following comprised the grand jury Charles Bainbridgn Trimnoll (foreman), Frederick Roberts, Francis Frederick Shalders, llohert M'fnlyre Virtue, William Turnbiill, Edward Vivian Piddifortl, Archil aid Richardson, Albert William Gray, Colin Munro, Aihol M'Caul, Joseph Parker, Allan Maeaskill, ' John M'C'ormnek, Horace D. Baker, Daniel Hurray Kean, Sidney Bernard Shortt, Arthur Edward Carver, Charles Beggs, Berkely Clark, William Fdmond Jack, son, Charles Elliott Weil, Charles Elder Brown. In addrosfing the grand jury, His Honour said lie regretted, that there was a very considerable number of eases to be considered, quite a few being of a very serious character, 'llie most serious of the charges was manslaughter. Fearon and Williams, two men charged with this offence, were drivers of taxicabs. The deaths of a man and a woman had given rise to tho cases. The offence of manslaughter did not of itself imply any intention to kill, or any intention to do wrong at all. The cases were governed by the law which declared that every person, in charge of a follicle was responsible for its being safely driven. His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper had given a decision to (ho effect that persons driving motor-cars were bound to display prudence ind skill, mid this decision had been .confirmed by tho Court of Appeal. Tt was the duty of the common jury to determine whether the prisoners were guilty of manslaughter. It was incumbent upon everyone driving a motor-car to have the' skill to enable him to exercise reasonable prudence. He thought there was reasonable cause for both eases to'eo to the common jury, nis Honour went on to deal with bigamy charge=. "Bigamy," said His Honour, 'like manslaughter,, might lie a very, serious or a comparatively trivial offence, according to the circumstances." Two caws of assault, in both of which n. knife w.ts stated to have been used, figured on the list, also;two thnrgeß of breaking and entering and theft, and four charges 'of thieving of the ' rdinnry type. There wore the usual cases of .falso pretences, and in nil tho cases thsre deemed to be suffiaient reason for sknd-, inp the persons'' charged before the common jury. A DUNEDIN CASE. Tho retrial on a change of venue rrom Dunedin of James Reynolds Hayiios and Norman Neylon was taken first. The accused were 'charged with vnlawfully using an instrument to procure miscirriago. Mr. W. C. MacGregor, TC.G., with him Mr. l'./S. IC. Mneasse.v, appeared for the Crown. T M. Wilford appeared for Haynes, end Mr P. IV. Jackson for Neylon.« Mr. Joseph Henry Fuller was foreman of jury. The case was hoard behind closed doors. ' Gladys Batchclor. 20 years of age, tho principal witness for the Crown, ibsolutoly declined to answer any question. She stood in' the witness-box lieavilj veiled, and refused to utter u sound. His Honour informed the witness that s'i" must answer, but nothing rould bo cot out of,.her. His Honour adjourned the Court until 2.30 p.m. to cive the witness time to consider the matter. On rosumptipn, the witness was again placed on the witness 'stand, and- His Honour informed her that she mjjst nnqwer •jestions. but that she could not be tiinoo to answer if she were prepared to swear that her. answers rould render her liable to criminal proceed iris. The airl remained mute. His Honour: Is this woman mad? (Turning to her). Again, I tell you that you need not answer any question put to yon if you first swear ' that your ivnswer to the question would expose yon to, criminal proceedings on a serious ,clvnrge. Do you understand that? The witness murmured "Yes." ■. Mr. MacGregor to witness- Bo you know Norman Neylon?—No answer. Mr. MacGregor: Do you decline to answer any question?—Wo ansiver. His Honour: You must answer or you must say that you refuse to answer because you are afraid of criminal proceed- . Mr. MncPrrcgor: Do von know Norman Ncvlon ?—Still no answer. Mr. MacGregor: You are' not prenared to answer any oiiestion put to you? ■•His Honour: If you will not .ansiver 1 must adjourn the Court until 2.30 p.m. ifo-morrow.' . Mr. Wilford immediately asked for bail for his client, but His Honour declined to grant it. Mr. Wilford: "Mv client has been held to bai! from Dunedin to Wellington, nrd lie surrendered to his bail. We are leady to defend the ease, and the delay is not nw fault. My client has submitted himself for trial as' ordered, and there is no reason fA suoposo that he will leave 'Wellington." There were persons present. said counsel, who .were ready to guarantee that the accused would bo present, His Honour: Will the sureties guarantee that they will not allow the accused to communicate- with this witness? (indicating the girl). Mr. Wilford agreed to do that, and suggested that all others should l.e varned against communicating with tho wit- ' ness. v Jlis Honour refused to grant bail, and before adjourning the Court gave a solemn warning to all not to communicate, with the witness in respect to the case. Turning to< the girl, His Honour said: "I will adjourn the Court until to-morrow, and if you persist in your present course I will liftvo no option mil to commit you to prison. That is tho law, and the law must bo carried out." Tho Court then adjourned. teuelhlls. Tho grand jury returned true hills against tho following prisoners on the . charges named Herbert Fletcher, indecent' assault; John Cairns Laverock, bigamy and false statement; Mary Ellen Wolland, bigamy; Frederick E. Bimmis, false preleiices; Martin M'Dongall, assault causing actual bodily harm; Bonet B. Williams, manslaughter; Ava Alley and Gertrude Martin, conspiring to procure abortion; Doming Carlos, assault, causing actual bodily harm; George Newman, theft; Ernest' Miles and John Millanta, theft; John Fearon, manslaughter; Howard Harold Armstrong, breaking and entering and theft; William C. Bennett. theft from the person; Daniel Stephen Foley, indecent assault; Robert Dixon Warden, breaking and (iitoring nfsd theft; Sydney Bushby, theft.; Walter AHibridge. theft; Frederick Palette and John Kirkland Watt, theft of motor-ears. AUCKLAND SESSIONS A REDUCED GRAND' JURY. By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Febrinry 2. At the Supreme Court criminal sessions, owing to sickness and other reasons, only twelve men were available for the graml jury. Judge Chapman commented on the unique circumstances, and remarked that complete unanimity \Wjuld bo necessary in their findings. Commenting on tho calendar, His Honour said there were two homicide cases. Two men were charged with' having killed another as the result of a struggle in an hotel, the circumstances not pointing to murder. If anything it-would be manslaughter, involving the question of an accused person justifiably defending himself. A jninfui case was one in which a woman, separated from her' husband was found in a stream with her child dead in the ivaler. The question of the woman's mentalitv was not for the grand jury to decide. Another painful case was that of a woman charged with the murder of her illeg : (:imatn child, in which the question was whether the r-hild vas deli," I '"'fnlv or eoeidentillv str.mcl-'d. Michael M'Cnnn, alias Langley, was' sentenced to s.ix months' imprisonment with hard labour and declared a habitual criminal. Daniel Minihnn, for theft, was sentenced to Ihree months' imprisonment and K.'ec years' reformative treatment.