SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 387, 11 April 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly.) The half-yearly sittings of the Supreme Court opened yesterday before Hib Honor Mr Justice Conolly. There was a large attendance of witnesses, jurors, and the general public, the calendar being one of the heaviest seen in this district. GRAND JURY.

The following grand jury was empanelled Messrs 0. P. Davies, R. Sherratt, \V. U. Tucker, A. L. Muir, E. Murphy, J. B. Kells, G. R. Wyllie, R. rJohnstone, R. H. Mason, G. Palairst, L. T. Symes, W. S. Lunn, J. T. Evans, ' ,J. E. Foster, \V. H. Clayton, F. Parker, W. Adair, A. T. Hookey, J. King, F. J. Shelton, W. Morgan, J. W. Bright, A. F. Kennedy. Captain Tucker was chosen foreman.

HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. In his address to the grand jury His Honor pointed out that the number of cases was larger than ho had seen for some time, and some of the charges were of a serious nature. Continuing, Judge Conolly said, “ There are eight indict* inents which will be presented to you, of which five are against persons of the Native race. Of these five charges one of horse-stealing is very bare-faced. A horse was borrowed, and also immediately sold to another person. One of the charges is perjury, the perjury being making a false statement in the judicial Courts—an offence I am sure very common, but not often brought to trial. Certainly, with regard to many witnesses in cases they are criminally negligent with regard to the solemnity of the oath which they take. In this case the person now charged, charged another with theft, and it was in the course of the evidence that he gave upon that charge that he is alleged to havo committed perjury. Passing on, His Honor said that an assault causing actual bodily harm appeared very clear, and, in fact, he might say would seem to be admitted. The prosecutor sustained very severe injuries, being knocked down and violently kicked, the consequence being that he was in the hospital for* 1 a fortnight.. The case was somewhat peculiar, as the evidence would show. The assault appeared to bo entirely unprovoked, and no reason was given. The other two charges were of a kind too frequent, and especially so amongst those of the Native race. The charges were rape, one bemg on a girl of . 13 and the other on a child only four years old —a very sad case. The first case principally depended on the evidence of the girl herself, and she would swear that the offence was committed without her consent. The other case was that of a child only four years, and was a disgusting one. He would say as little as possible about it. Out of the three cases against Europeans, one admitted the offence, the evidence being clear, the prisoner being seen to put his hand in a drunken man’s pocket. In the other case r a drunken man was also robbed, this time of a large sum of money. If the evidence was to be relied on, in this case it appeared as if no other persons but the ‘accused could have taken it. They were arrested early the next morning, when just about to take their departure for Auckland. Then only a very small sum of money was found upon them. .His Honor said in this case he would advise the jury to examine all the witnesses, and probably they would find enough evidence to send the case for trial. There was a general rule that Grand Juries should not ignore bills until they had examined all the witnesses. It might be found sufficient to find a bill without the evidence of one person, but before the course was taken of throwing a bill out, all witnesses should be examined. In another case the prisoner was charged with administering to a boy a noxious thing. For administering a noxious thing, even if no injury was caused thereby, punishment was provided by the Criminal Code. In the present case the article administered was beer, which, if unadul-

terated and in moderation, cannot be called a noxious thing ; but in this case it was alleged to have been a little boy ten years old. The boy was persuaded, His Honor did not know if they could go. as fjjr as to say compelled, to drink a considerable quantity. The exact amount was not known, but it affected him seriously for a time. He was not only suffering in the way which persons did when intoxicated—not being able to stand or walk, and being seriously sick —but also there was a state produced, according to the medical evidence, which was for the time dangerous. A peculiarity of the case was in the use of the words “ a noxious thing.’ 7 If it had been entirely new matter His Honor would have been disposed to hold that no offence had been committed, or at all events no more than couldbe contained in an assault, because from the definition | of “noxious thing " jt would appear to apply to something in the same nature, as poison. His Honor said he found that another Judge had decided otherwise. It had been held that anything harmless, in moderation, might be a noxious thing in excess. Therefore the thing administered by the prisoner to the boy, and administered in excess, might be deemed “ a noxious thing.” In this 'case it was not assumed that there could be any possible intent to do the boy any particular harm, nor had he been done any permanent barm, but simply a stupid and wicked desire to make the boy drunk. If it was decided by the jury that a quantity of beer was given to the boy by the prisoner, and that quantity seriously affected him, they would find a true bill, and any question raised on the point of law by the prisoner’s counsel would be considered in open Court. It was suggested by the evidence that the prisoner did not cause the boy to take the liquor at all, but that the boy, who had been sent to fetch liquor for some men, drank the quantity of beer himself, and was himself wholly responsible for what happened. f That might or might not be proved by the evidence before them. The case was a peculiar one, and he had not had a similar one before him. He hoped the jury would give it their oarefu consideration