CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Evening Star, Issue 19784, 7 February 1928, Page 6

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

DUNEOIH FIVE CASES FOR TRIAL The quarterly criminal sittings of the Supremo Court commenced this morning before His Honor Mr Justice Sim. THE GRAND JURY. The following were empanelled as_ a grand jury:—William Alexander Wilkinson, Arthur Joseph Allen, Aubrey Charles Paterson, George 1 Slack. David Murray hastier, Leslie Douglas Coombs, William Sproul Culbert, Albert Sise, Percival James Priest, Percy William Breen. Alfred Ibhotson, Edgar Christopher Hazlett, Edward Henry Lough, Geoffrey Henderson, James Quailc, James Black, S. L. Do Beer, Robert Hanning, Thomas Reid. John Laurence 8011, Walter Speight, Sydney George Stychc, Robert M’Kenzie. Mr Hazlett was appointed foreman. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. His Honor, in addressing the grand jury, said there were five cases on this occasion, but none of them was very serious in character. The most serious was probably that against William M'Kinncl of committing assault, thereby causing bodily harm. It appeared that the parties were larmers near Ranfuriy. It was alleged that the complainant (Harry Bailey) was driving home in his cart when the accused got into the vehicle and attacked him. causing serious harm. Bailey had his nose broken, was bruised, and liad a fracture of the base of the skull. On the evidence the grand jury would be justified in finding a true bill. . There were two cases in which men wore charged with committing indecent assault on little girls. John Miller was charged in respect to two girls, one aged six and the other seven, and on their evidence His Honor thought the grand jury would be justified iu finding a true hill. George Thomas Burgess was charged with indecent assault on a girl eleven years of age. The girl said the assault was committed, and the- accused had made a statement admitting having committed the offence. There should he no difficulty iu returning a true bill in this case. There were two charges of breaking, entering, and theft against George Alexander Mason, money and goods haying been stolen. There was no evidence to connect accused with the money, but some of the goods found in his possession were identified as having been stolen from the shop. On that evidence there was justification for a true bill. . There was a charge of breaking and entering at Palmerston against John M'Kcan, and of the theft of money and goods. It was clear from the evidence that the shop was entered, and there was evidence that accused and another man named Hanning were in the neighborhood at the time. They were charged together, and Hanning pleaded guilty. The principal evidence against accused was a statement made by Hanning, who said that M’lvean and he were responsible for the offence. Hanning’s statement in itself was not evidence against M’lvean, hufy the lact that it was read over to M’lxean made it evidence. It seemed that a truo bill should be returned. TRUE BILLS.

True bills were returned in all cases REFORMATIVE TREATMENT.

Charles Alexander Moore, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court to the theft of money from the dwelling of Annie R. Irwin, was brought up lor sentence. Prisoner was undefended. Prisoner, on being asked if he had anything to say, said that his employer was present and would speak tor him. Ho (the prisoner) had behaved himself well since he had been out on bail, and stuck to his work. Further, ho had joined the Salvation Army, and now felt that, if given a chance, he would be able to make a man of himself and do well in future. His Honor: There arc a number of previous convictions against tho prisoner, are there not? The Crown Prosecutor; He has already been admitted to probation, and lias been brought up for a broach of the conditions and readmitted. The police report states that ho has been suspected of otjier similar offences which have been committed in districts in which ho has been canvassing.

Edgar John Thorpe, prisoner’s employer, said that Moore had been a staunch worker and been honest with witness. If given a chance he would, witness considered, make good. His Honor; He has already been given a chance. He was released on probation and did not take advantage of it.

Prisoner: I’m Sony for what I have done, and by joining tho Army I have made up my mind to stick to the right path. His Honor: You have had your chance, and have evidently not benefited by it. The only course is a term of reformative treatment. Prisoner lias already had three years of such

treatment on a charge of aggravated assault in 1322. He will now he ordered to he detained tor reformative purposes for a period of three years.

AN ALEXANDRA CASE. George Alexander Mason pleaded not guilty to charges-of breaking, entering, and theft at Alexandra, and receiving stolon goods. Mr T. O’Shea appeared for accused. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr E. B. Adams) said there were three counts in the indictment. Accused was charged with breaking am! entering the shop of Robert Hewitt and stealing £2O 19s 3d i-i money, three pairs of socks valued at 15s (3d, and a necktie valued at Is (kl; the second charge was of the theft of the goods and money, and the third charge was of receiving the goods, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. If the jury decided to convict, they wci-o invited to convict on one charge only. Mr Hewitt was working in his shop till a few minutes before midnight on January 6, and it was alleged that accused entered the place belorc 7 o’clock the next morning. Accused was arrested on the Sunday (January 8), and his first remark to the constable was rather significant. It was tl Good God, mu I one?” When arrested he was -in the act; of boarding a motor car, no doubt with the intention of leaving Alexandra. It was also significant that accused had handed to the hotelkeeper with whom ho stayed an envelope marked << £2o. ,J Au explanation by accused that two pair sof socks found in his bag were sent to him by Ins sister could not he verified by the police, and learned counsel invited the jury to regard that statement as a falsehood. There was also au admission by the accused that he might have, rubbed tho brands off the socks when he rolled them in his hands. Where a man was found in possession of stolen goods shortly after a theft and could not give a satisfactory explanation, the jury- was entitled to take those fads into consideration in determining whether the accused stole the goods or received them knowing them to have been stolen. , r .. Robert Hewitt, storekeeper, of Alexandra, gave evidence as to the identity of the articles missing from his store. There were four casli registers m the shop, and money had been taken from three of them. Tho catch on a back door had ben forced. To Sir O’Shea: There were five employees in the drapery and mercery departments of his store. Witness had un record of the sale of four pairs of socks similar to those produced, which had been made from his latest consignment. This make of sock was stocked by mercers throughout_ the dominion, but usually by only one in each district. The type of tie produced might he purchased by anyone. Witness positively identified the articles produced as the articles which had been stolen from Ins Hewitt, employed by his brother as a tailor, said, he went to the shop about 7.45 on the morning of January 7. From the cash registers money- had been taken, and there was a box of ties disarranged on the counter. He assisted his brother to close up the' night before, when the doors and ■windows were locked. Tho goods produced in court were exactly similar to some which had been in the shop, Harold Scott, employed as a draper s assistant by- Robert Hewitt, deposed that there were socks and ties in tho shop similar to those produced. To Mr O’Shea; He positively identified the socks as having been in the shop. One pair had been there for over two years. Only one other tic of the same pattern had been sold before. Ho did not think he sold any socks on January 0. Richard Gordon Simpson, postmaster at Alexandra, said his parcel delivery receipt book did not show that the accused signed for any parcel between December 1 and January 7. To Mr O’Shea: The articles produced could be sent by packet post (which did not need a signature). Evidence was also given by William R. Waters, licensee of the Criterion Club Hotel. Alexandra, who said accused stayed with him from December IS till January 8. On January 7 accused handed him an envelope, which lie said contained £25, and asked witness to put it in his safe. On the following day, when accused was leaving, witness gave him the envelope. Constable Sorrell stated that accused was in Alexandra about three weeks before January 7. Witness did not sec accused do any work, hut ho was supposed to represent an Auckland photography firm. Accused was arrested at about 2.30 on the afternoon of January 8. Witness, who took accused to the police office, said he noticed that the tie and socks accused was wearing corresponded with those he bad been told were missing. In accused’s hag witness found two pairs of socks. Accused, when arrested, said: | “ Good God, am I the only- one? ” Accused stated that the socks were sent 1 to him by his sister, and that his signature for the parcel would be found in the hook at tho Post Office. A statement was signed hy accused. About £3 in money was on accused when he was arrested. He saw accused at the races on January 7. The case was adjourned till the afternoon.