SUPREME COURT. JUDGE'S CHARGE. Auckland, December 9.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 427, 11 December 1889, Page 5

SUPREME COURT. JUDGE'S CHARGE. Auckland, December 9.

His Honor addressed the Grand Jury as follows : — Mr Foreman, and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I regret to have to report that your labours on the present occasion will not be very light. When I last had tho ploasuro of addressing you the calender was unusually email, and the offences unusually light. It is just the contrary on this occasion, for thore are a very large number of charges — no less than 36 indictments, involving 30 persons— and some of the cases are of a very serious description. You have before you two cases in which the charges made aie merely unlawfully wounding, there being charges of stabbing in both cases, and it is almost to be wondered at that in either case the result was not fatal, and that, instead of being charged with the minor ollence of "unlawfully wounding," the parties have not been brought before you on charges of "murder." In one of these cases, the wounding appears to have been done during a drunken brawl, but the fact of all the parties being under the influence of drink is, of course, no excuse whatever for using a dangerous weapon. In the other cate there appears to be nothing of that kind, but a very serious quarrel botween two persons, which ended in one of them using a knife and inflicting a wound on another. As the charges preferred are " unlawfully woundi«gi" you will have no difficulty in these cases. There are three other cases of a class that always excites in my mind a feeling of horror— especially one of them — that is assaults upon women. There is one case in which the full charge of rape is laid against a man, upon the person of a child only eleven years of old. I think, gentlemen, if you credit the evidence of the child, you will have no difficulty in that case either, as a matter of fact. I am happy, while dealing with the subject, to remark that there has been an alteration in the statute during the last session of Parliament. Formerly, it was supposed — I may say continuously supposed — and allowed by law, that when about the age oi twelve years a child could consent to indecent actions of any kind on the part of a man. lam happy to say the age of consent has now been extended to fourteen years, and assaults of this nature upon girls under fourteen years of age, whether with or without consent, are punishable, and with severe punishment. In this case of assault on a child you may find that there was very little resistance made, how could a child of eleven years old resist a full-grown man 1 But, you will bear in mind that, resistance or no resistanco, consent or no consent, has nothing whatever to do with the ca.se, if you consider there was the act committed. There are two other cases of this character, one of more gravity than the other, both being assaults upon women. With regard to one of these charges, if you believe the evidence, you will have no difficulty whatever. With regard to the other, where all the parties were under the influence of drink, it may want more careful inquiry. I have referred to one statute altering the law, passed last year, and I may briefly refer to another, which is with regard to the hearing of evidence of prisoners. That, of course, does not apply to their being heard hoiare* you, buO merely as being an alteration of the law convenient to be mentioned ,on the present occasion. Formerly, as you are aware, a prisoner on his trial, either before the Lower Court or in the Supreme Court, could not, even if he wished, be examined upon oath. He might call other witnesses to give evidence on oath, but his own evidence could only be given as a statement. Now, the alteration of the law is, that he may be sworn, and in all respects be treated as another witness. I observed that, in some cases where persons have been charged on these indictable offences before justices, they have there been sworn and examined— of course, at their own request— and if they think fit to give evidence on oath, they shall be again sworn and examined if you find true bills against them. I doubt whether this is the intention of the law with regard to indictable oflences, for the Act, while it repeals section 80 of the Justices of the Peace Act, which gave accused persons the right of giving evidence on summary charges— which repeals that section, and extends its provisions to indictable offences, as well as to summary charges — it does not repeal another section of the Act under which the prisoner accused of an indictable offence is told that he may make a statement which may be used against him. Therefore, if the reading of certain justices is light — and I am not piepared to say it is wrong — when a person is charged on an indictable offence, he must be doubly addresssd by the presiding justices by being told, first that he may make a statement on oath. There is a reservation that, if he declines to make a statement on oath, it must not be the subject of adverse comment. 1 very much doubt myself whether it will work favourably to prisoners, because, if they do submit to gvie evidence on oath, thoy must submit also to cross - examination by the prosecuting counsel, and lay themselves open to a reply by the prosecuting counsel, and to comment upon any inaccuracies and discrepancies, just the same as in the evidence of another person ; whereas, if they decline to give evidenco on oath, although it would be my duty to prevent any hostile comment being made by the prosecuting counsel, or to make any comment upon it myself, still one could not prevent the jury who were trying the case from drawing some sort of inference from the fact that the man did not risk his oath in the matter. There are before you, gentlemen, two charges of arson — one, the burning of an unoccupied building ; another, setting fire to some flax. Although not of an aggravated character, I think you will probably find the facts sufficiently proved. There may be some matters of law raised with regard to the burning of the flax, but that will be properly discussed here afterwards. You also have two or three charges of stealing cattle in the country districts, and in one of them I see there is a very long case and a great conflict of evidence as to the alteration of brands. You will, of course, have to give that more serious consideration. Then we have another case something similar to one which I had before me last session, in which a person occupying a very good position in this town, being supposed to be a person of excellent character, is charged with a very long series of forgeries. I believe you will have before you no less than nine charges of the forgery of promissory notes and documents of that description, and obtaining money upon them. There are several other cases of forging orders, one in which i three charges are preferred against a I woman. These are of a very peculiar nature, and I think there will be some doubt expressed as to whether she was entirely responsible for her actions. That, however, is not a matter for you to deoide, it is simply for

you to say whether she is proved to have forged or uttered the orders. Wib regard to the other cases, they are more o the ordinary nature. They include certain charges of housebreaking, larcenies, and things ot that kind upon which I am sure I need not give you a word of instruction, because you are fully competent to judge. In most cases of housebreaking and larceny, it is not upon direct evidence of the fact, but more often upon possession of stolen goods, shortly after they have been missed, that conviction is obtained. In such cases it is held to be the strongest evidence that the person in whoso possession the stolen goods were found committed the offence. These are the cases, gentlemen, and you will favour the Court by sending some of them here as soon as you conveniently can." The grand j nry bhen retired.