SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 192, 10 May 1921, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS COMMENCE WDGE OUTLINES FIRST OFFENDERS’ ACT ; ,I'll 9 second quarterly criminal sessions pf 1921 were commenced in. the Supreme tknrrt yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking. Fourteen prisoners will be dealt with. The grand jury was empanelled as fol- ' lows:— Norval Frederick Marley. Francis William Mountjoy, Lionel Septimus Bridge, William Edward Jackson, Rupert .Ashley Armstrong, Thomas Archibald, Eric, Albert Algar. William M'Donald, Arthur Young, William Pearce, 'William Cable, Bertram Yeats, Robert Swanson, 'Richard Stott, Francis Herbert Swan, Edward Ernest Stoupe, John William Stable, William Drummond Stewnrt. b. E. Stonobanks, John Morton Wilson, Ernest Batchelor. Arthur IV. Press. Mr. Arthur Young was chosen foreman of the grand jury. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey was Crown Prosecutor. CHARGE TO JURY. Tn his charge to the jury, Mr. Justice Hosking referred io recent changes in criminal legislation. He considered that the object of punishment for crime yas threefold; (a) it was meant to deprive the culprit of repeating the offence; (b) it was meant to instil fear of offence Against the law; (c) it was meant to promote the desire in the culprit not to offend again. His Honour made special reference to the First Offenders Act which provided that certain could, at the discretion of the Court, he admitted, to probation instead of being sent to gaol. By the jobation Act o 1886 certain offences only were included in its scope, and where a. prisoner was convicted of a previous offence, he could not bo brought under the provisions of the Act. In 1903, after the Act had worked well, it was extended further but it was. not until the recent session of Parliament that a complete measure was passed, whereby offenders might he admitted to probation although the offence for which they might be arra „ned should not be the first There is no limit placed by the Act," said Hm Honour. "Cases are left to the Courts discretion. ... All offences other than murder are subject to the provisions of the Act The term of probation, which used to he three years, is now five years. His Honour referred to the First Of- ' fenders Act as an "eminent success, and ' considered that the law as it now stands would be a further success. Referring to prisoners under sentence, the Judge spoke of the powers of the Prisons Board, which could deal with persons sentenced to indeterminate confinement as -nbitual criminals, or with those undergoing reformative detention. The board had power to revise sentences where prisoners thought thev were being too harshly dealt with. In addition to that consideration, prisoners could apply directly to the Appeal Court for consideration of their claims. "No prisoner need complain of too harsh a sentence under those circumstances.’’ concluded His Honour. Dealing with the cases before the grand tnrv His Honour commented on two manslaughter indictments, both of which had arisen through motor accidents. He reminded the jury that manslaughter was not the same as murder, as the one was punishable by death; the other, according to circumstances, by fine or substantial imprisonment. The Motor Regulations Act (section 8) was described by His Honour as defining “onre on the part of a motor driver, and in both the cases under review the jury would have to consider whether sufficient care was exercised. "I think, as I have said before” said His Honour, "that motorears travelling nt night should be driven in stic.il a manner that they could be pulled up within the cartwing distance ot their own lights.” His Honour briefly reviewed other cases. TRUE BILLS. True bills were, returned by the grand jury in tho following eases:— John James Monaghan, alleged indecent assault on a male. , Lewis Benjamin, alleged indecent assault on n male, (three charges). Robert Fox. alleged forgery and attempted uttering. Percy William .Solly, alleged false pietence. , ~ , Charles William Taylor, alleged manslaughter. i Edward Robert Stone, alms Ldwatd Jones, alleged forgery and uttering (ton charges). , , Guy Leslie Fulton, alleged manslaughtf,'[Tiomas Keen Cockburn, alleged false pretences and theft. , George William Thomas, alleged false pretence. .. Alfred Charles Morris, alleged theft. Charles Summerville Lennox. George James Gould. Alfred George Smith. AV alter Leslie Young, alleged theft. A SERIOUS CHARGE. John James Monaghan, a middle-aged man. was charged with indecently assaulting a lad at Wand Bay on March H last. Mr. IV. Parry appeared for the accused. The case was held in camera. Tho Crown Prosecutor said the accused lived at Island Bay hy himself in a cottage, and that tho My had been a frequent visitor. 'Tim crime had been committed in tho sight of deiectives. The lad was 14 -years of age, but told Monaghan he was 16. Tn answer to Mr. Perry, the boy said he 'had visited Monaghan's cottage Jhree times. Ho admitted to Mr. Perry that he had visited tho prisoner’s house late ono night, when he asked for some bead rings,” allegedly promised by the prisoner The lad, remarkably big for his ago, admitted to Judge Hosking that he sometimes smokod, and stayed out late at night. , .. Mr. Perry: Do your parents allow you out. at. night? Witness: Yes. . • But I’m suppo.-ed to he home by 9.30 o’clock. Several witnesses gave evidence. Attei a retirement of about an hour the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The jury recommended that the boy be kept under bettor control. Sentence will be given on Saturday.

CHARGED WTT.U FORGERY. Edward. Robert Stone, alias Edward ■Tones appeared on a charge of forgery »nd uttering, there being ten accusations against him. The case was one involving sum relative to ten’forged vouchers to the value of ovei X.lOO, pur porting to be bona fide cash allotment notes issued to H.S.S. Co. firemen by the c 0^ nn A y ‘ R _ gievwright appeared for the prisoner, and entered ft pl«i of , P Lewis Spiro, manager of the Citizens Loan and Discount Company. gave evidence ns to the payment by his <»V lp “ n I of money on the vouchors. He did not aeo any of the firemen named in the vouchors, b.e said. To Mr. Sievtvright: All tho vouchers —59 of them—were issued presumably in January and "February of this yeaT < , He added that tho transactions had been undertaken by his firm in conjunction with a third party. Counsel contended that although his client pleaded guilty to the charges, he had not received money from the forgeries. Counsel urged this point in mitigation. , . , His Honour: If Stone had received no monk would he have handed over the allotment notes? At this stage (here was some questioning as to Spiro’s keeping of books relative to the transactions. "It was a loose sort of method,” said Mr. Macassey. , Mr. gievwnght said that owing to Stilro’s pressing for "a few hundred

pounds” owing by Stone, the latter bad been induced to forge the allotment notes. It was denied by the witness vehemently. His Honour: You don’t suggest that tho witnosa induced the prisoner to forge the notea? Mr. Sievwright: No. The prisoner was remanded until Saturday, when Mr. Sievwright’s address will be heard. The Court will resume this morning at 10 o’clock.