Criminal Trials Begin

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 420, 31 July 1928, Page 13

Criminal Trials Begin

VARIETY OF CHARGES TWO DIFFICULT CASES SEVENTEEN MEN ARRAIGNED Seventeen men wiil stand their trial during the third quarterly criminal session of the Supreme Court, which opened in Auckland this morning. The juries were sworn in with the usual brief ceremony of the administration of the oath. THE GRAND JURY The Grand Jury was empannelled as follows: Wilfred Bruno Colbeck (foreman), John Watson Andrew, Stanley Austin Carr, Robert Bert Young, Gavin Wallace, Alfred Taine, Arthur John Stallworthy, Arthur Ernest Smith, Robert Jones Sims, Leonard Edgar Rhodes, Leslie William Rainger. Frank Penty, Harry Oakley, Humphrey Kemp, George Ingram, Drummond Holderness, Alfred George Frankham, John Donald, Alfred Bernard Crocorabe, Charles Willis Coles and Harold Charles Moses. Delivering his charge to the Grand Jury Mr. Justice Blair said that there were only two cases which should give any difficulty. One case which was quite out of the ordinary was that of a young business map charged with the theft of a pearl necklace valued at about £9OO. The accused found the pearls at Ellerslie racecourse. They were lost by a woman wlio advertised but for £*:>od and sufficient reasons did not offer a largo reward. The young* man saw the advertisement and rang the address given. He then went to a dealer, stating that he had found them and asjted their value. Learning their worth he held them for a bigger reward. The law was clear on the question. If a finder of goods knows that the goods had an owner, and appropriated theta, he committed theft.

His Honour remarked that the Crown case certainly was weak. The accused, Michael Maher, had made no attempt to dispose of the necklace, and could not be convicted "unless he had an intention of depriving the owner of them.

Continuing, his Honour said that another peculiar case was one in which a man named Jack George Stewart was charged with demanding money with menaces and attempted theft at Parnell.

A man called Gilmei\ met another in town and took the stranger to his home. This man was supposed to be one McWilliam. It was alleged by Gilmer that his guest threatened him with a bottle and secured £4O. The visitor arranged to call the following Sunday.

However, the next day, Saturday, another man, the accused, Stewart, appeared by himself and used a little persuasion. He said that McWilliams was around the corner. Gilmer arranged that the pair should meet him at the bank on the following Monday. However, only one, Stewart, turned up. He wds then arresetd by waiting detectives. “The question for you to decide, gentlemen, is whether the affair staged on Saturday is part of the affair staged on the Friday, his Honour directed. • The police had not got McWilliam because he had not put in an appearance at the final meeting. Some interesting legal questions might arise. LAMENTABLE CASE “As far as the sexual cases are concerned, I think you jwill find they will present little difficulty,” said the judge. “Each seemed to have an aboundanec of evidence. There were two cases concerning carnal knowledge of a girl under 16. Both concerned the same girl. Another was one of those lamentable charges of incest, father against daughter. There were two charges of rape, one concerning a Maori girl, the other was that of an alleged assault in a billiards saloon on a Sunday night. The defence would be that consent was given. It was a question for the common jury. There was one case of indecent assault on a male. A boy was taken for a motor ride and the accused was alleged to have interfered with him. ’The charge depended on the evidence of the boy. Of the two cases of breaking and entering, neither would give any trouble. Both took place about the same time. The goods were found in the possession of accused. A simple case of burglary would be easily disposed of. “FORTUNATELY UNUSUAL” “There is another case which is fortunately unusual,” said his Honour. “It is a case of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime.” An intruder was caught bending over a girl in her bedroom at one or two fn the morning. An insurance agent was arraigned on a charge of failing to account. It should present no difficulty. Likewise a case of forgery seemed clear. Alleged false pretences was responsible for the appearance of an enterprising individual. He advertised for partners with £IOO. Three unsophisticated gentlemen answered and paid up. The evidence, would show that the accused had no assets “except a few pots of face cream.” He had got £IOO out of two “partners” and £7O out of another. His defence would be that he wanted to form a company. Ilis Honour anticipated that a case of bigamy would give no trouble. Regarding Buckley and Bailer, the prison escapees, the Judge had little to say. Their defence was that there had been some justification for the break. At the luncheon adjournment the foreman of the Grand Jury reported that no bill liad been found in the case of Hira Erai Pompallier, charged with carnal knowledge. The jury is still considering other cases.