SUPREME COURT.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 479, 11 June 1890, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

criminal SITTINGS. Auckland, Juno 7. (Before His Honor Mr Justice C'onolly.) Forgery. —ln the case of John Damont charged with forging an endorsement to a cheque with intent to defraud, the evidence of which we gave yesterday, the jury, after a brief deliberation, brought in a verdict of o-uilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.— His Honor asked Detective Hughes what character was borne by the accused, and the detective gave him a very good one.—Mr O’Meagher suggested that the case might be met by the accused being bound to appear for sentence when called on.—His Honor then sentenced him to enter into his own recognisances of £loo.to come up for sentence when called on. Nothing more would bo heard of the mutter if ho behaved himself.

Carnal Knowledge of a Child.— Edmund George was arraigned on an indictmentcharging him with defilingagirl named Catherine Young, between the ages of 12 and 14 years, on the 21st March at VVaiorongomai. —Mr Tole, who appeared for the defence, raised an objection to the indictment, that there was no statement in it that the girl was then under the age of 14 years.— His Honor said he thought it was not essential.—Prisoner pleaded “ Not guilty.”—The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said it was brought under art Act passed last session, in which it was mado criminal to have carnal knowledge of a girl above the age of 12 years and under 14. It would be sufficient defence if the person accused could prove that ho had reasonable grounds for believing that the girl was over 14. Prisoner had admitted that he had connection with the girl, but stated that he thought she was over 14. Accused was married to the girl’s sister, and had frequent communication with the family and opportunities to know her age. The girl is over 14 now, and at the time of the ofl'ence was within three weeks of that age.— Catherine Young was called and deposed to the circumstances. She resided at Waiorongotnai with her parents. Accused was her brother-in-law, and he lived in Waiorongomai with his wife, about 100yds from witness’ home. On the 21st of March last there were races at Te Aroha, and accused was at her father’s house. Witness was in the house by herself. Prisoner came up fora bucket of water at midday, and about one o’clock camo back, when witness was washing the dishes. Prisoner went into one of the bedrooms, and as witness passed along the passage he pulled her into the bedroom. He then com-, initted the offence, and went outside. She was sure that she never told him that she was fourteen. On another occasion her sister said, “You are 14 next April, ain't you?” and witness said, “ Yes.” Prisoner was present on this occasion.-—Catherine Young, mother of the last witness, was next called and deposed that on the 31st March, she accused prisoner of having illtreated his wife. He threatened that there would be worse than that soon. Afterwards when she went home, Katie told her of what prisoner had done to her. She then went to him and accused him of tho crime. He denied it, but she told him Katie had confessed. He said, “ You can’t do anything to me. 1 ' She said her husband would shoot him when he came homo. She said the girl was barely thirteen. To Mr Tole : She had no suspicion that there was anything between the child and prisoner, or she would have knocked her head off. Prisoner’s wife had said she thought there was something between them.— David Kerr Young, father -in - law of the accused, deposed that accused had resided in hie house for four months. —To Mr Tole : Had one quarrel with accused. Accused had boasted of the crime he committed since the trial in tho lower Court, and witness had threatened to give him a sound thrashing.—William Emerson, sergeant cf police at Te Aroha, deposed to the arrest of tho accused. —This was the case for tho prosecution.—For the defence, Mr Tole put the accused in the witness box, and he swore that he understood from the girl herself that she was over fourteen. —May George, wife of accused, remembered a conversation about age, when her sister said she was just fourteen. Afterwards Katie admitted having told witness’ husband that she was over fourteen. There was some ill-feeling between her father and her husband. This was the evidence for the defence.—Mr Tole then addressed the jury. He said he could not defend the prisoner on moral grounds, for his crime was too black, but on legal grounds he must say that he could defend him. The prisoner clearly had reasonable grounds for supposing that the girl was over 14.—Mr Williamson did not address the jury for the prosecution. —His Honor then summed up, referring in unmeasured terms to the blackguardly conduct of accused in deliberately planning the ruin of a child, his own sister-in-law, whose honour he should have been the first to protect. Then reviewing the evidence, he summed up strongly in favour of the supposition that prisoner had reasonable grounds for believing that the girl was over fourteen. If the jury believed so they must acquit.—The jury retired, and after an hour and a hall’s deliberation came back to ask His Honor if the prisoner being a member of the family was not bound before committing the crime to make certain of the girl’s age. —His Honor replied that he did not think such an obligation rested on him. —After a quarterof an hour’s furtherconsideration the jury returned at 7.45 with a verdict of “ Guilty.” —Mr Tole then asked that His Honor should reserve the point as to whether, in the proviso of tie Act, the words “the Court or jury ” did not mean that the Judge himself might take upon himself the acquittal if he believed the accused had reasonable grounds. His Honor said he had no hesitation in saying that his own opinion would be that the person charged had reasonable cause for believing, but the jury had found the contrary, and the question in his mind was whether notwithstanding their verdict he could direct acquittal ; but he would not take upon himself to decide. He did not know any authority on the subject. In the Queen v. Packer the question was left to the jury. It would be a singular introduction to the criminal law if the judge under this Act should have power to override the verdict of the jury. He thought “the Court” might mean the Committal Court. He would reserve the point for the Court of Appeal, and in the meantime prisoner would be bound over in his own recognisances for £IOO and two substantial sureties of £SO each to appear for sentence on the Ist December.

The jury were then discharged, and this being all the criminal business the Court was closed.