SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2240, 17 February 1921, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON SESSION,

Criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were commenced in Palmerston North on Tuesday, before His Honour Sir John Salmon, BRITISH JUSTICE.

Addressing the Grand Jury, His Honour said that six cases would be brought under their notidt', but none should cause them much difficulty. There were two charges of theft, one of jewellery from a dwelling, and the other of benzine from a commercial establishment, and there was another more serious charge of a hind that is unfortunately occurring continually in cities —indecent assault on a small girl. There were also two charges of false pretences, and then there was a very serious case, (he most serious iii the list. That was the case in which a man was charged with having attempted to influence jurymen at the time when Easton stood his trial on a perjury charge. His Honour, referring to the indictment against Thomas Martin, of having attempted to -influence jurymen in (he recent Easton case, when the latter was acquitted of a charge of perjury, said The jurymen were four in number, and the charge against Martin was laid under section 138 of the Crimes Act, which laid down a penal tv of a maximum of two years’ imprisonment for anyone who attempted to influence jurymen or otherwise pervert the course of justice. Evidence would be brought to show that Martin had attended the' Court and had interviewed the four jurymen on separate occasions, and had let, fall suggestions to the effect that it would be worth their while financially to acquit the accused. No specified sum was mentioned, but His Honour was sure that if the Grand Jury reviewed the evidence they would find no'difficulty in deciding that a bribe had actually been held out. I

“The administration of criminal justice,” continued His Honour, “in British countries has long been an example to the rest of the world for purity, strength and efficiency. Any attempt of bribery or other corrupt means to destroy these qualities lor which our laws have always been distiniftiished is a serious attack. I hope it will be a long time before it can he said in New Zealand that it is more difficult to convict a rich man than a poor man.” PRISONER SENTENCED. John Edward Sullivan came up for sentence on charges of having forged the name of Coley Bros, to cheques for £lO, £lO and £5 at 1 extern. Mr Abraham, who appeared for accused, stated that the man had a clean sheet otherwise except for a conviction for drunkenness, which was his besetting sin. At the time when the offences were committed accused was indulging in a protracted drinking bout, and a cheque hook had very foolishly been allowed to get into his possession. Accused had no recollection of the offence, and when coining to his senses he had offered the police every facility in their investigations. Counsel suggested that the small amounts indicated that the man had not acted out of criminal intent, but that the actions had been the freaks of a drunken brain. Therefore he asked that accused be admitted to probation. For the Crown Mr F. H. Cooke ngreed that the actions were those of a fool rather than of a man with criminal intent. On one occasion lie had actually signed the name of Coley Bros, before the man who had cashed the cheque. Accused was the step-father of the Coley brothers.

These statements were home out l>y one of Ibe brothers, who slated from the box that accused had worked for them, and had been industrious except for drinikng bouts, whit'll he frequently indulged in. Witness would not be prepared to take charge of accused if he was admitted to probation. His Honour said the ease was not one to lie met by probation. He was sorry that ininrisonment would have (o be imposed because drink bad no doubt caused the man to so far forget himself, but it was not in the public interest •to allow accused to go scot free. It had to be considered that he was a man of mature years, and there was no place where he could go if! he was admitted to probation. Accordingly lie would lie sentenced to three months imprisonment.

REMANDED FOR SENTENCE. •Tames Thomas Bcrrett, a youth previously employed in the Post Office, who had pleaded guilty to having forged the name of J. Brown to a cheque of £64, and having attempted to utter the document, appeared for sentence. He was represented by Mr 11. R. Cooper, who stated that the lad had previously been of good character, but lmd got into extravagant habits of life, and bad taken to drinking. At the time lie committed the offence be was under the inHuence of whiskey, and the nature of the crime was idiotic. He had gone to Brown’s shop, and, taking a cheque book, had signed J. Brown's name without making the slightest attempt to imitate the signatifre. Of course, the forgery was immediately detected when accused had attempted to utter it. His people were very respectable, and counsel asked Unit accused be admitted to probation. His father desired to take, him under his control and keep him on a farm, and would make any payments required. The father, a farmer near Huntcrville, entered the box and expressed his desire to take the lad to the farm and keep him under control. His Honour stated that he would

interview the probation officer on the subject, and, in the meantime, would remand accused in custody _ until Thursday morning, at 10 o’clock. ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. A true bill having been returned in the case.of William Snow, chained with having committed an indecent assault on a female child, the j case was proceeded with, and the ( Court was cleared during the ing. . true bills. True bills were returned by the Gtai d Jury in all other eases as under:— William Joseph, ’O’Dwyer, alleged false pretences; Thomas Martin, alleged embracery (influencing a jury); Valentine Joseph Owen, alleged theft: William Henry Grant, alleged theft from dwellinghouse; Alexander Alfred Jesse Burling', alleged false pretences.