SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 159, 17 June 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Judge Gillies.) THIS DAY. Grand Jury.—E. E. Knight, G. L. Sunderland, J. W. Johnson, W. Common, T. E. Shirley, J. Coleman, T. E. Bloomfield, A. Kempthorne, F. A. Hardy, J. Townley, T. W. Porter, J. Craig, A. W. Croft, P. Barker, C. Seymour, G. Scott, P. Bond, A. Newman, A. Croll, T. Adams) and C. P. Davis. Oapt. Porter was chosen foreman. THE JUDGE’S CHARGE. The Judge’s charge to the Grand Jury was as follows :—There were six cases of forgery to be considered by them against five persons. Of those five, four were of the Native race. The charges themselves were not of a very serious character. The charge of forgery in its common acceptation was that of signing another man’s name to a document with intent to defraud; but there were a great many different modes in which the offence might be committed by altering a document and making it of a different value than it really ought to be. There were a variety of ways, the most usual of which was placing the signature of another person to a valuable document with intent to defraud. In the present cases the charges of forgery were of that nature. The amounts were very small but the peculiarity was the offences had been committed mostly by Natives, and showed how they were advancing in civilization, being able to obtain money by writing. In all these cases the evidence seemed clear. He then explained the difference between uttering a forged cheque, and actually forging the same. There were two cases of assault and of grevious bodily harm. The evidence seemed clear enough in those cases, as to enable them to come to a decision without much difficulty. Their position was somewhat different to that of a petty jury. Where they had reason to doubt the committal of the crime by the prisoner, then they should bring in a bill against him, whereas a petty jury had to give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt they might entertain as to his guilt. The Grand Jury brought in a true bill against Hunia Teira, which case was immediately proceeded with. Regina v. Hunia Teira. The prisoner was charged with breaking into a store at Tologa Bay on the 11th April, and stealing a quantity of tobacco, to which he pleaded not guilty. Mr. Brooking acted as interpreter. The Common Jury were now called, being previously sworn. They were—W. Knights, C. White, T. Ryan, Cowen, Seddons, T. Green, J. Boniface, G. Forster, H. Fielder, C. D. Berry, W. Good, 11. Wall. Mr. C. D. Berry was chosen foreman. Mr. Nolan, the Crown Prosecutor, said the evidence in this case was very clear, the prisoner being caught in the act for which he was charged. He called— W. Milner, deposed—l remember the 11th of last April. I saw the prisoner on my premises at Tologa Bay, on the verandah, between 11 and 12 o’clock at night. Hone Il'anga was with him. I was in bed. Hone came up and rapped at the window and said, “ Get up ; I have caught the prisoner stealing a case of tobacco.” I had seen the case of

tobacco before in the store. The door of the store was fastened with a wooden bar inside* I left the door fastened and the tobacco wa« in the store. Two other witnesses were exan inea, who clearly proved the charge, and the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months imprisonment. Regina v. Epjha Parau. The prisoner was charged with the forgery of a cheque for £2 10s., to which he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. The Grand Jury now returned and found true bills in all cases. They were then dismissed; Regina v. Tamati Hautapu. The prisoner appeared with two charges of forgery against him, to which he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently. Regina v. John Heron. The prisoner was charged with assault on, one, Solomon Black, and pleaded guilty, fof which a sentence of six months imprison* ment was passed on him.