SUPREME COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 16 July 1929, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

SESSION AT NELSON COMMENCED TO-DAY LIGHT CRIMINAL CALENDAR The quarterly session of the Supremo Court at Nelson commenced to-day with' Mr Justice Ostler presiding. The following Grand Jury was empanelled : B. C. Robertson, A. C. Pago. \V. J. Tidd, W. H. May, Geo. Miller, M. M. Moncrieff, C. 11. Griffin. R. S. C. Gilbert, Wm. Houlker, J. M. Stringer. R. N. Harlev, P. E. Harnett, ,7. Anstice, J. B. Ivory,' B. C. Neal, A. F. Lees, J. Williams. 'E. R. Beecham, D. R. Edwards, L. Page, H. L. Cole, C. T. Wcb> ley, L. H. Graham. Captain M. M. Moncrieff was • chosen foreman. His Honour, in his address to the Grand Jury, informed them that their " duties were light because there were only two charges in which they would be asked to make a decision. His Honour then outlined the cases against the two accused—Robert Harrison Crone and Daphne,Hermansen. Crone was charged (1) with breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime and (2) with breaking and entering and committing a crime (assault). Hermansen was charged (1) with receiving the sum of £7 knowing it to have been stolen and (2) stealing £7. After a short retirement the Grand Jury returned true bills against botli accused on the respective charges against them. Five common jurymen were excused from attendance. ALLEGED THEFT AND ASSAULT The trial of Robert Harrison Crone was taken first. The charges against the accused were: (1) That on 6th May, ! 1929, at Stoke, he did break and enter the dwellinghouse of David William Anderson with intent to commit theft; and (2) That on the same date he did break and enter the same dwelling and commit assault. • The accused pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empanelled: M. Karsten, F. Jenner, J. P. Dice, jr., A. Simpson, G. A. Cotton, G. Henrv, F. C. Rawson, H. V. Rodley, G. Oldershaw, W. W. Lock, J. A. Scott, and C. C,Campbell. Mr-Hi V. Bodley was chosen foreman. Mr C. R. Fell appeared for the Crown and Mr S. H. Moynagh for the accused. Mr Fell, outlining the facts to be put before the Court by the prosecution, said that both charges arose out of the same occurrence. On-the day in question Anderson was in bed sick in a (fiont room of his house and after his wife had gone out to get some milk '-. Anderson heard a noise in the dining room. He went out and saw a man betiding over an open drawer in a sewing machine! Anderson asked the man what he was doing and the man said he was looking for Mrs Anderson. The man then came round the table and struck Anderson a heavy blow and made off. Anderson was unable to identify the man. Mr Fell indicated the evidenco as to identification of the accused which . would be brought. The first witness was Dr. H. E. A. Washbourn who described an examinaI tion of Anderson following the occur--1 rence. Anderson in addition to influenza had a "black eye." Mr Moynagh: "-Would you describe it as a mild black eye?" Witness: .."It was a good-black eye." Anderson was then called and refieated the evidence given by him in the ower Court (previously published in "The Mail"). Cross-examined by Mr Moynagh witness said he heard two knocks before he got out 'of bed. He was absolutely sure. that the man he found in the dining room did not'-say "I came to see Mrs Anderson about 'insurance." Witness denied that he was known to be a man of bad temper, or that he assumed , the aggressive' at once when he spoke to the man in the dining room. He ad-' . mitted making up to the accused to seize him. Witness had not grabbed the man 1 when he was hit. 'His Honour said that witness had every right to detaia the man when he found him.in his house and in such circumstances the intruder had no right to defend himself. . Witness adhered to his statement in the Lower Court that there was no ' sign of the man striking him until witness threw out his hand to grab, him. . The wife of the previous witness also gave evidence as in the lower Court. Before she went out to get the milk on the day in question she shut the back door and the front door. She had missed nothing from the house after the man's, visit. Detective Sinclair described interviewing the accused in 'company with Constable Lines on 7th May. Witness had asked the accused if he could give an account of his movements during the previous afternoon. The accused said he had called at three houses at Stoke. He said that Anderson's was the third house he had called at. The accused told witness that he thought he had been .foolish going into the house. Ac-

cuscd said he had knocked, called out. and then receiving no answer had walk- - ed into the house. He went on to say that a man then rushed at him and ho bumped him. He admitted losing his temper. Mr Moynagh objected to this evidence, but His Honour said that .the evidence was quite admissible. The accused was not arrested when questioned by witness and the constable. They were only seeking information. If constables could not ask questions then His Honour did not see how they could be much protection to the community. Witness went on to describe how a statement was typed out by him and signed by the accused who had previously been warned that if a charge was laid against him the statement would bo read out in evidence. The .accused was wearing a ring when interviewed. Witness suggested that it was the ring which caused the blow to have such a severe effect on Anderson. Cross-examined by Mr Moynagh witness said that he did not tell the accused before the interview that he need not answer any questions. Constable Lines giving evidence said he could corroborate what Detective Sinclair had just stated. EVIDENCE BY ACCUSED The accused was then called by -Mr Moynagh. lie said that on 6th May he was canvassing on the main road towards the Wnkatu Valley until shortly after 4 p.m., when he called on a Airs Russell (a neighbour of Anderson's) and eventually knocked on the back door of Anderson's place. Receiving no answer to his knocks or to n call, the accused pushed open the door which was slightly ajar and walked through to the threshold of the dining room when- he was accosted by Anderson. lie pushed Anderson away first and hit him when In' approached witness tin- second lime. The accused said he had no internum r.l Committing theft hut was merely canvassing for insurance. He did not open any drawers or touch anything In (he house. In answer to Mr Fell the accused denied that he had gone into the house

becauso he thought it was empty. Addressing 'I i jury Mr Moynagh said that tho blow struck "by the accused wa.s the work of :i moment, and was tho outcome of Anderson's aggressive alti- ! I'jule. He also considered that Detective Sinclair had not treated the accused fairly when interviewing him. The Crown Prosecutor briefly addressing the jurv said the ease was perfectly clear. HIS HONOURS SUMMING-UP His Honour directing the jury pointed out that the Crown must prove without all reasonable doubt that the man. was guilty. If the door wa.s shut and latched US -Mrs Anderson had stated then in law he "broke into the house." If he said that the door wa.s ajar but not wide enough for him to enter and he pusiied it open then tho accused .still broke in. Regarding the intention to commit theft His Honour referred to Anderson's evidence of seeing the man bending over a drawer in the machine. He had crossed from the back door across the kitchen into the dining room so quietly that Anderson did not hear him until the drawer was open. Anderson' came out and the man struck him and ran away. Why did he do that? His actions would have been explainable if he had gone into the house to commit theft. Referring to the second charge of assault His Honour said the only evidence lie had heard in answer to the charge was the rather naive suggestion that mo accused had acted in self defence. There could be no question of self-defence in such circumstances. His Honour had never before heard of a similar suggestion. The jury should not find the accused not guilty on the charge involving intention to commit theft merely because he had not taken something. GUILTY ON SECOND COUNT At this stage the jury retired and shortly afterwards the lunch adjournment was taken. The jury returned alter the Court resumed, and the foreman announced their verdict was not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second count. . Before sentence was passed Mr Moynagh briefly addressed his Honour and stated that the prisoner was a married man with one young child, and that nothing previous was known against him. He had a long war service. Mr Moynagh put in testimonials as to previous good conduct. His Honour said that in view of the jury's verdict he proposed to treat the case as trespass without authority, and j assault. Had the prisoner appeared be-1 fore a Magistrate on such a charge he j would probably have leceived a fort-j night's imprisonment, and that was the sentence that would'be passed upon him. The accused was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour. CHARGE AGAINST A WOMAN The remainder of the afternoon was taken up with the trial of Daphne Hermansen who was (1) with receiving £7 knowing it to have been stolen, and (2) with theft of £7. This case was proceeding when "The Mail" went to press.