SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81851, 26 September 1906, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25th 1900. Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper. The Supreme Court at New Plymouth opened on Tuesday morning, His Honor Mr Justice Cooper taking- liis seat on the Bench at n o'clock.. GRAND JURY. The following Grand Jury was sworn: George \Y. Arrowsmith, Joseph Asher, J: H. Bentley, Cholwill Billing, Thos. Blanchetc, E.J. Cartliew, Francis Cornwall, Ernest Alfred Ede, Alfred E. Fletcher, Eustalius Griffiths, Jas R. Hill, George Alexander Hill, Wharton L. Humphries, N. K. Mac Diarmid, Geo. E. Mannering, Jas. C. Morey, Leslie Pattie, S. Teed, Ed. H. Tribe, \Ym R. Wilson. Mr E. Griffiths was chosen foreman. True bills were returned in the three cases, except that the indictment against Carl Schicker was altered from murder to manslaughter. The grand jurors were then thanked by the Judge for their services and discharged. HIS HONOR'S CHARGE. Addressing the Grand Jury, His Honor said he was glad that on this , the first occasion of his presiding at L the Circuit Coart of New Plymouth

the criminal calander was very short, there being only three cases to engage their attention. The first was of murder, on which he would say something presently; the second, a charge of forgery; and the third, a charge of theft. The charge of forgery against a man named Gannon should present no difficulty whatever. The prisoner was charged with forging a cheque purporting to be signed by Wright, Ranish and Co., of Wellington, under stated circumstances which, if the jury found were true, were ample to justify them in returning a true bill against the prisoner. His Honer mentioned that a good deal of laxity was shown by business men in accepting cheques from perfect strangers, thus makingit easy to commit the crime of forgery. This cheque bore the name of a well known firm in Wellington, but was on a F'eilding cheque with the word "Fielding" scored out and "Wellington'' written in. That in itself should have made the storekeeper suspicious, for a Wellington firm did not usually write its cheques on the Fielding bank, or use Fieldingcheque forms marked "Wellington" in this way. But evidently the shopkeeper accepted the cheque in good fa'th.

The second charge was one of theft against a man named Gomrey, who was stated io have stolen a horse, saddle and bridle. The circumstan ces which would probably be placed before the juiy were that the accused borrowed the horse, saddle and bridle, and after keeping it for a short lime, sold it and converted the proceeds to his own use. If the circumstances alleged were true, in the opin ion of the Grand Jury, then they wculd return a true bill. The 'ei'eace set up would probably be that the owner sold the boise to the ac cused, but that was more a matter lor the consideration of the common jury.

Then there was the charge of murder against Carl Schisker, a Swiss, and His Honor reviewed to some ex lent the circumstances of the case. Culpable homicide was murder if the offender meant to cause .the death of the person killed, or if he meant to cause bodily harm or injury which in the opinion of the offender was likely to cause death, and was reckless as to whether death ensued t r not. Culpable homicide might am ount to the lessor offence of manslaughter if the person who caused death did so in the heat of passion, on provocation by any act or insult that would cause an ordinary man to temporarily lose his sejf-control.

The circumstances of the case w<re> no doubt, peculiar. It was said that the prisoner had mad'' some observation concerning- a girl named Uirich, and was charged with having done so by the deceased man Rollins'. The prisoner denied it, an-.l there was a row. Immediately after the denial Rollins was said to have "shaped up" to the prisoner, who struck Rollins on the head with an axe-handle and killed him. or, rather, so injured his skull that the man died a short time afterwards. The jury had to consider whether this was a prima facie case of murder, or whether the prisoner should be placed on his trial charged with the lesser offence of manslaughter. If they considered the evidence showed that the prisoner when ho struck the blow was tecklcss as to whether he killed Rollins or not, ar that he intended to kill him, then' ,|,av w ° u!c ' return a true bi'l of murder.' If bought, however, that this was not a NS.ck" less or malicious act, they would find a bill for manslaughter instead of murder. A man would not be guilty if he struck a blow in selfdefence when another threatened 10 do him grievous bodily harm. It depended largely upon the nature of the weapon used. For instance, a man would not bo justified in shooting or striking with an axe a man who threatened to hit him. But unarmed he might be justified in using a waljiing-stick to defend himself. When one man threatened to fight another, the latter was not justified in using a lethal weapon. In this case the prisoner had used an axe handle, which had been suliicieiu to cause death. If the jury thought there was no prima facie evidence ot malice, but that the blow was struck in sudden passion, as the result of passion, and immediately upon provocation, then they should f!>!lirn a true bill of manslaughter rather than ijturder. If they thought the blow had been struck with intent to kid, then thole should be a true bill for murder. The jury should in these casus tafio into isti.ch facts as these; that the offender immediately after the blow was struck, went for assistance, 01 for medical aid; such tuitions might be taken as a reasonable inference that there was no malice, but was a sudden acl, 'he result of which was a serious crime, but not that which constituted niur der. The jury had to decide whether the case presented features warranting a trial on a charge of murder, or for the lesser uflence of man-j slaughter. They must return either onr bill or the other, that was quite el-lain. I The Grand Jury retired. ! ATTEMPTED RAPE. Marry Skecn came up ror sentence on a charge of having attempted to commit rape ac Matoro road, near Urenui, on September 3rd. The prisoner had pleaded guilty in 'he lower court, The accused, when asked if ho had anything to say handed in a written statement. H : s Honor, having perused ch*s. asked if tin 1 gaol surgeon. Dr. McCleland was in Court. He was not. Mr. Millington, the gaoler, .stepped forward, and in answer to His Honor, said lie could bear out the prisoner's statement that he was partially par j alyM-d and a physical wreck. I The judge, addressing the prisoner, referred to the statement handed ; in. There was there a suggestion ' against the woman, which he (the Judge) declined to accept in the face of tin- depositions of the woman, and ol others which showed that the woman bore an entirely good character, lie eoukl not accept any such suggestion from t!i<* prisoner. JJut for the fact that the gaoNr had slated the accused was practically a physical wreck, he wou'd haw ordered him to be flogged, and flogged seven;'v. rmW the circum:j.iaines he would omit the hogging. The pris ovnr had abused the hospi tality of the people with whom he had been staying. In his statement he claimed to have used no violence, bat according to the statement of the woman, and of those who examined her subsequent to the occurence, there had been vio'ence used. He did not succeed in his purpose, pnssibly owing to his physical infirmity, and also because the woman was capable of defending herseT It was clear f hata man < f hscharacter was incapable <>f c-ntr :l ] ing his pa-"si r n«. Had

a shorter term of imprisonment would have been inflicted, with a flogeing added, In tho interests of the public, and of the prisoner him.se.lf, he

should bo l:«pt from indulging his passions. "That is why 1 will have you locked up for the tu 1 term allowed —ten years, with luird labour. It is not right that a man of your character and your want of self control should be at large. Had I the power of inflicting an indeterminate sentence, I would sentence you to remain in gaol till the authorities saw fit to release you. In the interests or the pub'ic, and of yourself you should noc be at large again." The prisoner, who seemed almost stunned by the sentence, was then re moved from the dock. A FORGERY CASE. Stephen Gannon, was indicted with that on or about 23rd. August, 1906, at Hawera, did forge the name of Wa'son, Ranish and Co. to a certain false document, to wit a cheque putporting to be signed by chat firm in favour of W. Mitchell, knowing the same to be false, and at the same time and place did utter the said cheque to Timothy Sexton and obtain from him goods to the value in all of ,£9 13/. He pleaded guilty, and handed a statement to the bench. In sentencing the accused, His Honor said that this was an unfor-

tunate case. He was evident'y a man of good education. It was not the first time he had been before the court, by having been convicted by [lie Supreme Court, last year, and twice in 1903 by the Magistrates Court. If accused would not give way to drink, the .probability was that he would not commit crime. It was evident that the twelve months' sentence had not been sufficient deterrent, and on this charge the pris- ■ oner would be sentenced to two years' 1 hard labour. At the end of that time 1 he hoped that, as the prisoner said, - his brother in America would send

1 for him and receive him. On the application of Mr. Kerr, - an order was made for the restitution - of the goods purchased from Sexton, f and also for the restitution of the - cash found on him, evidently the proe ceeds of the cashing of the cheque.