SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 196, 14 May 1920, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

IBELL IN THE DOCK \ ' ACQUITTED OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER BUT CONVICTED OF THEFT The criminal sessions of the .Supreme Court, presided over by His. Honour Mr. Justice Herdman, were continued yesterday. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown. ■ Aubrey Ibell, a prisoner of very youthful appearance, was arraigned on a charge of attempting to murder William Murphy ("professional rat-catcher") and John Murphv (William Murphy's eon). There was also nn accusation of theft against the prisoner. Mr. H. H. Cornish defended. Mr. Macassey, outlining the case for tho prosecution, said that William Murphy befriended the accused when tho latter was without employment. On the date of the alleged crime, Ibell was'lcft alone at Murphy's home; and when the Murphys, father and son, returned, tnoy found indications of thoft from the house. They let their dogs loose,' and. caught Ibell. who was making away with certain property. They gave him in charge for stealing. On arriving home again thev discovered that a quantity of food in the place had been liberally besprinkled with such poisons as Murphy, senior, used in the pursuit of his calling. Counsel read to the Court a statement in which accused admitted poisoning the denied any intent to commit murder. His explanation was that ho wished merely to spoil the food because Murphy, senr., had occasionally locked the eatables away from Murphy, junr.. and him. ■ i ~ _ The evidence tendered by the Crown ycßterday was tho same as that which had been given in the Lower Court. In his statement from the witness-box, William Mlurphy said that lie had never locked food away from Ibell, Replying to a question asked by Mr. Cornish witness explained that he had locked the household provisions away from his own son. ~,,.„'., , , John Murnhy said that his father had treated Ibell particularly well. Witness remembered occasions on which he had staved at home whilo his father took Ibell to the pictures Mr Cornish submitted that the Crown evidence clearly showed that the accused had put poison nowhere except where it could easily be noticed. He suggested that the accused's action was performed simply with the intention of _. doing Murphy out of a meal." -, The Murphvs had: been handling for years the kinds of noison-nut aioon the food, and accused knew that they would be certain to notice at once.the essence of the deadly substance.'. In childish' netulance and boyish anger were to be found an explanation of the wholo affair. His Honour, in summing up, described the case ns extraordinary, but very serious. Ibell had admitted breaking a seachest and taking certain articles away. The charge of theft would, therefore give tlie jurv very little trouble. With regard to the more serious charge the iurv had to decide what Ibell meant to do when he put the poison in the food. The jury found the prisoner not gunty of attempted murder. ' They convicted him of stealing articles to the'value of £16 10s., but recommended him to mercy, on nceount of his extreme youth. His Honour promised to pay heed to the recommendation. Sentence was deferred. ■ INDECENT ASSAULT. . .. Ernest Dawes was placed in the dock to answer a charge of indecently nssnultiiiT a«liUle girl. r _. He was defended by Mr. K. Kirkcaldie. Tho Crown alleged that the offence was first committed while the accused was attending a picture show with the liMc girl; and that it was repeated m the accused's lodgings, to which the child was taken. It was by consent of- the parents, who were friends of the accused, that the child had gone out with Owes, to the pictures. Dnwes entered the witness-box. He agreed with the Crown witnesses statements regarding his movements on the day of the alleged offence, hut denied that be had behaved towards the child with anvthing but propriety Th 1 * jury returned a verdict of guilty, and Dawes was remanded till to-day for sentence. i AN UNUSUAL DEFENCE- . Grace Smith was arraigned on an indictment comprising eight charges ot withdrawing .money from post office savings bank accounts by means of forged withdrawal slips. The sums withdrawn were £10£12* £16,, fit. 10s., £16, £30, and .£lB respectively. Three different names were forged. Mr, Kirkcaldio appeared for tjho pnsMr Macassey told the jury that there would be no denial of the forgeries. For the defence 1 it would be alleged that Smith acted under compulsion from her husband. As the accused had set up an affirmative defence, tho onus would be upon her of proving it completely.. The evidence given for the Crown in the Lower Court was repeated. Sergeant Fitzpatrick said that when he arrested the acensed, and read to her the Gazette notice of warrant she replied: 1 got the money and spent it on baby in Wellington." She did not then suggest that'her husband had compelled her to commit forgery. Witness asked her where her husband (gazetted as a military deserter) was. She answered that' she knew nothing of his whereabout*. , , "Not n single penny of money has this woman had of all these. withdrawsaid accused's counsel, in opening tho defence. Evidence would be given to show that accused was compelled by threats of bodily violence to forgo the withdrawal slips. Her husband was present at the commission of each orfence. and accused was convinced that he would not hesitate Jo fulfil his threats. Accused's failure to mention her husband to the arresting sergeant would, snid counsel, *e .fully explained. Accused would, tell the jury.that at the time she.was afraid of having to meet another chargo-nainoly, one of sheltering a deserter. ' ... At this .stage the Court adjourned till this morning. SITTJNGS~ELSEWHERE B) Teleeraph-PreEa Association. Dunedin, May 12. At the Supreme Court, Thomas Henry Hotton (22), on a charge of forgery utterin" and theft, was admitted to probation for a period of three years. John William Qmirf, who pleaded guilty to theft of a watch and chain, was sentenced to three months' hard/labour and declared an habitual criminal. Charles James Eccles, for indecently assaulting women, was ordered to be detained for reformative treatment for a term not exceeding, live years. ■ New Plymouth, May Vi. At tho Supreme Court Winy the jury acquitted Ernest Pariitt on a charge ot theft of building material at Fitzroy. Charles Mngon and Frederick Magon, farmers, Wareu, pleaded guilty to charges of, breaking, entering, and theft at Warca. The former- was sentenced to two years' and the latter to one yeaj s reforoi|ative treatment.. Harold Gossago and Howard Gardner, who had pleaded guilty in tho lower Court to charges ot theft, breaking and entering, and arson, were sentenced to two years' reformative treatment on tho first charge, and to six months' imprisonment each en tho threo other charges, tho sentences to ho coilcurrent. Itov Godfrey Tippett (Hawera) , pleaded guilty to breaking, entering and I theft. He was admitted to probation for I 12 months and ordered not to attend a picture entertainment without the con{sent of the probation Officer. Samuel Benton Hunter, dentist, Stratford, was granted e. decree nisi against Clara Maude Hunter on the ground ol adultery with Charles H. lindger, taxi proprietor, Stratford. The parties agreed on tho amount of damages. £100, against co-respondent. Cost's were allowed on the highest scale. A decree nisi was granted in the case of Eveline Martin v. Thomas Martin (Waitura).