SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 March 1919, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.

The Supreme Court criminal sessions ,ere continued yesterday. ALLEGED THEFT. James Bourke was charged with the heft of a horse valued at £l4. The censed pleaded not guilty. Air Joyce ippeared for the accused and Air Park or the Crown.

After hearing evidence at length, n addressing the jury his Honor said .hat the facts were exceedingly simple. Did the accused intend to steal the horse when it came on his property or was his actions those of a foolish man. Ho viewed the evidence generally. Burke when challenged with the ownership staled he had bred the horse and it belonged to the boy. Ilis Honour admitted that the evidence was not very strong against the accused, and perhaps in this part of the world people were not particular in letting their horses stray. The hoy’s evidence was plain and no secret had been made of the horse being on accused’s’ properly. The main thing for the Jury to decide was “Had the man any dishonest, intentions.” The Jury returned almost immediately with a verdict, ol not guilty. TTis Honour discharged the accused.

;\I.I.KGKD KAI.SE DKCI.A RATION. Alexander AlcOrncr was charged with making a false declaration at Rcefton Mr AT. Hannan appeared for the accused.

Air Hannan staled that before accused pleaded he intended to raise an objection which Counsel was prepared to argue. ATr Hannan's objection to the indictment was that, coupled with the Alining Act, it was not an offence. He quoted from Section IGS. According

to the Act in Air Hannan’s opinion, the accused had no power to make the application. After a deal of argument and explanation, His Honour said that

lie would turn Mr Hannan’s point over in his mind and give his opinion before the case canto to an appeal. His Honour slated the point seemed to be an important one .

The accused pleaded not guilty

His Honour in his address to the 'Jury, dealt tit some length with Hie witness, Wright’s evidence, and said that either that given at Reef ton, or what they had just heard was false. He informed the Jury that the law in perjury was that a person could not be convicted on one person’s evidence alone and that the evidence had to be corroborated before a conviction could take place. It was for the Jury to decide whether Wright’s evidence corrorobora L_ ed with that given by his wife. It was an unusual case and there was evidence on tiie side of the Crown which went” to show that some one had been round the pegging points before Gardiner and the surveyor’s assistant arrived there. He asked the Jury to retire and consider their verdict

The Jury retired and in a few minutes returned with a verdict of not guilty. The accused was (lien discharged. A RETRIAL.

The charge against Edmund Howe Shore, of theft of a motor ear, in which the jury at the first hearing disagreed, was heard for a second time.

Tile Jury after a retirement of ten minutes found a verdict of guilty.

I His Honour in passing sentence, remarked to the prisoner that while lie had been in tlie Main Body, lie had a bad record in that connection', being returned somewhat in disgrace. He was in fact, at present under two years’ probation in consequence of convictions for previous offences. Prisoner would be sentenced to two years’ reformative treatment. Being a young man, prisoner bad his future in his own hands still. If ho conducted himself well, his sentence need not he served in full. AN UNNATURAL OFFENCE.

L. C. Hill was charged that on 26th. January he did commit an unnatural offence. Accused pleaded guilty and wa3 ordered to stand down for sentence later.