SUPREME COURT.
NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS; T2ie quarterly sessions of Supreme Court in New Plymouth opened yesterday before 'His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. The following constituted the Grand Jury:—Messrs. F. W. Atkinson, 11. V. S. Griffiths, A. Alexander, R. Gribbon, H. J. S. Brookman, J. Hayden, E. Nops, C. H. Burgess, S. ,S. Grove?!, E. May, B. A. Morton, J. S. Connelt, 0. S. Renneil, H. Ba'ilv, It. O. Ellis, W. 13. Fussell. A. 11. Gibson, W. T. Hookhain, I>. J. Hugliea, F. Watson, E. Whittle, Goo. Fox, and A. Mellardy. Mr. C. H. Burgess was chosen foreman. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE.
In his charge to the Grand Jury his Honor said that the list comprised an unusually long one for New Plymouth. It was not the duty of the Grand Jury to tn- the cases. That they could not do because they saw only one side of the case. Their duty \fas to examine the cases and to ascertain if there was sufficient evidence to justify the persons accused being put upon their trial in open Court. His 'ftfnor said the charges were not of the worst character. There was a charge of making a false declaration, two charges of breaking and entering against, one man. a charge of theft, and a charge of incest against a Native.. One charge against a constable's wife of obtaining money by false pretences presented some peculiarities, but his Honor said he thought the jury would have no difficulty in deciding that the case should be investigated. After retirement the Grand Jury returned true bills in all cases.' His Honor flanked the Jury for their services and discharged tjiem. ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION. Edward Wm. Stockman was charged with making a false declaration on May 2-2, 10] 7, at Opunake, in order to secure a certificate of marriage anil with the intention of having a false entry made in the marriage register. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr. IT. R. Billing appeared for the Crown and Mr. A. H. Qnilium appeared for the accused.
The following Common Jury was empanelled: Messrs W. Coombes, J. T. Heal, F. 0. Smith, Chis. Haskell, Ndble W. Hill, Tlio?. Sefton, Joseph Ramsbottoni. H. Purdie. C. 11. Sampson, D. Murphy, T. A. Hook. F. W. G. McLeod. Mr. McLeod was chosen foreman.
Billing, in opening the case for the Crown, said tne facts were, fairly simple and clear. To constitute -an offence it would be necessary to prove that accused knowingly and wilfully made a false declaration for the purpose of securing the certificate of marriage and al>o of causing a false entry to be made in the marriage register. The point was whether the accused made the statements alleged and whether if he made the statements he knew the same to be false. He thought he would have little difficulty in proving to the jury that accused made the statements and that he knew the same to be false. The facts were that Miss Paul, to whom accused had been married, had previously resided at Sentry Hill but had been married at Opunake. The girl's parents had not, consented to the marriage. Mis* Paul was under 21 years of age at the time of the marriags. and it would be shown that accused ?(tde a declaration that Miss Paul was 21 years of age. Wm. Richmond Thompson, registrar of marriages at Opunakn, said he knew accused. He came to the office and asked fnv a marriage notice on the 22nd of May last. The marriage notice book was produced, showing the particular? supplied to the registrar when the application for the certificate was made. Before accused signed the register witness read the declaration over to him and accused then signed. Witness then issued a certificate authorising the marriage, and performed the marriage ceremony between accused'and Miss Paul. To Mr. Quilliam: Accused signed the declaration after it, had been read to him. Witness asked accused's father if the bride was 21' years ,of age. There were present at the marriage accused and Miss Paul, accused's father, and his brother. Witness would not swear positively that, lie had .seen accused prior to the time of the marriage. Neither could he say whether he asked Miss Paul her age before or after reading the declaration.
Mr. Quilliam pressed, for a rcnly regarding the reading of the particulars and the declaration, and witness said he did not read the particulars but, only the declaration. The girl's age did not, appear on the portion of the declaration read to the accused.
Continuing witness said that accused's father came to the office first and the next, day—in the morning—the father and accused came to the office. The declaration wa<f made in the morning when the father and son were present. Witness asked the age of Miss Paul. His Honor drew attention to the action of accused's father in the matter and witness said he was always particular to ascertain the age of people making declarations. In reply to Mr. Quilliam; witness said he asked accused's father the age of the girl.
Thomas Paul, farmer, of Leppcrton, said hp was the father of Myra Constance Paul, whose birth took place on the 17th March, 1900, and who was therefore 17 years of age. Witness did not give consent, to the marriage of his daughter with accused, and would object, to any snch marriage. Jessie Catherine Paul, mother of Myra Paul, said she had not consented to the marriage of her daughter with accused. Accused did not ask for her consent until July 1, after the marriage. 'Tie did not tell witness that they had been married until some time afterwards.
Mr. Quilliam; in opening the case for the defence ,said that the whole ease depended upon what had happened in the Registrar's office. He proposed to call accused, who would swear that he had not been to the registrar's office prior to the afternoon on which the marriage took place. Acr-iood's father would alst) be called and would corroborate his son's evidence. Mr. Quilliam said he was sure he would, he able to show that a mistake had been made. Accused being sworn =aid bis name was Edward Wm. Stotf-iman. During this sea c on he and his wife had teen milking for Mr. Tyrrell. The first.time he saw tte_ registrar at, Opunake was on Mav 22 in the afternoon. The first tiling tlie Registrar did was to read a pap"r which witness signed. The paper was ready to be signed when accused came to the office. The girl's ag l was not mentioned before the declaration was signed. Tt was mentioned bv Miss Paul after the signing of the declaration, in mply to the nuestion of the registrar. '*'!ie girl's age was not mentioned before that.
Tn roplv to Mr. TlillinT witness swore that the flrst. time lip saw the refjMriir was at liis office on the afternoon of t)h» '&a« of the marrlftse. Witness's father
asked no particular* as to the age ol" Miss Paul, and accused gavi» no particulars. His father simply told accused to bp at the registrar's office at 2 o'clock. Miss Paul had never been at the house of accused's father prior to the occasion on which they were married. Witness had told bis fatter three or four days before the visit to the registrar's office that he was going to be married to Miss Paul. Witness said he was married at Opunake because it was the district in which he lived. He thought- that so long as he (witness) was 21 years of egc the girl's age did not matter, 3'lc remembered 'Miss Pan! telling the registrar she was 21. Ho did not think (lie age of Hie girl affected the matter and lie did not correct the statement made by Miss Paul to the registrar. Witness and Miss Paul did not discuss the question of age before marriage. The only reason they were married at Opunake was because accused's home was there. After the marriage Miss Paul returned to her jfiunt's at Waitara- where she had lived previously to the marriage. To His Honor, witness admitted he did not know whether Miss -Paul was 'known by her own name or by the name of Mrs. Stockman, and he further admitted that the fact of the marriage was not disclosed.
Geo. Stockman, former, of Opunake, father of accused, said ha interviewed tlie registrar on behalf of his son on the '22 nd May. Witness detailed liis interview with the registrar whom he told his son's age. He told the registrar he did not know Miss Paul's age. The registrar told him to bring the couple along at 2 o'clock and the marriage would be fixed up. Witness swore his son was not with him at that time. When they went- to tlie registrar's office at 2 o'clock the registrar read from a paper which he asked accused to sign, and which he signed. The registrar asked Miss Paul her age after the paper was signed. Miss Paul said she was 21 and the registrar warned her that sflie would be under grave penalty if"she were not 21. No other words were spoken. Up till that time nothing had been said about Miss Paul's age. ' To Mr. Rilling: Witness did not look at the paper which his son signed. When witness visited the registrar previous to the time of the marriage hp gave the registrar fhe particulars asked for. He told t!he registrar that Miss Paul went by the name of "Connie," and witness did not, know any other particulars about Miss Paul.
His Honor questioned witness closely as to the particulars supplied to the registrar for the purposes of issuing n marriage certificate. Witness said he did not- know the girl's name nw i;er age. Witness admitted giving particulars to the registrar but not of the girl's name nor her age. Those particulars were given at the time of the marriage, after witness' son bad signed the declaration. Witness was quite sure iiis son had 'been to the registrar before t!»e time of the ceremony.
His Honor: I warn you to be very careful.
Witness: It's the God's truth, your Honor.
His Honor: Let us have the King's truth and something that we can rely upon and not what, you arc pleased to call "the God's truth."
Continuing the witness made what appeared very contradictory statements. Mr. Quilliam, in addressing the jury, said that, the otTence on which accused was indicted was not a. light one, and was one .'or which heavy penalties were provided" for people found guilty of snch conduct. The object, of the Act wan to prevent the marriage, of minors without, the consent of their parents. Mr. Quiliiam pointed out that the registrar said he did not read the particulars but only the declaration which did not contain anv reference to tin age of tlie girl. Mr. Quilliam pointed out that the matter to lie divided wis whether the accused gave the particular?, and the evidence was •to tlie effect that accused did not give the particulars and if anyone else gave the particulars accused could not be held guilty.for that.
Mr. Billing replied briefly, traversing the facts as stated and the story as given bv witnesses.
His Honor, in summing up, said the case was one of great, importance. Tt was admitted that the prisoner made the declaration, but it was claimed that, he did not know the meaning of the same. Either he did know its meaning or lie knew nothing. Tte declaration meant nothing apart, from the particulars. The stories of accused and bis father regarding the furnishing of the particulars to the registrar were contradictory. The evidence of the rcgistr,"''. which was supported by the documents, was apparently quite straightforward. Tt was for the jury to decide which account was to be believed. Tlie jury found prisoner guiltv, but. recommended him to mercy and he was remanded till to-day for sentence. A SIMILAR CHARGE. Walter Sutton was charged with making at l-lawera a false declaration for tlie purpose of obtaining a certificate of marriage for the purpose of solemnising marriage with Paulina Leet. -knowing at the same time that he was then already married; also that he made a false declaration regarding his place of abode. Accused pleaded guilty, and was represented by Mr. A. A. Bennett. Counsel pointed out that the case had arisen out of another case in which accused had been charged under the Military Service Act. The facts were admitted, bnt accused had left his first wife in England by her own consent about eight years ago, and, though he lvad tried, he had failed to get any communication from her. Accused was of good character, and was employed .by the Kaupokonui Dairy Company, who were prepared to keep him in their emplby. Accused had not deceived Miss Leet as to his position. .Counsel asked that prisoner should be admitted to probation.
Harry Loot, farmer, of Manaia, who was called, said he was the father of accused's wife. His daughter kftcw that accused was married and that his first wife was said to be in England, but that, there was no 'knowledge of her whereabouts. Prisoner was admitted to probation and ordered to pay the costs of the case. TITEFT OP OELIGXTTFI. Frederick Alfred Bridgman was charged with the theft of (loll) of gelignite, valued at £7, from the Cinvernmcnt quarry at Mount Egmont, on Ist February. 1917, and with selling the same, knowing it to have been stolen. Accused, who pleaded guilty, was represented by Mr. A. IT. Johnstone, who pointed out that at the time of the offence accused was living in a lint on the slopes of Mount Egmont, near the quarry. It was stated that considerable quantities of gelignite were stored at the quarry, and various amounts had been missed. Counsel suggested that the gelignife was of no use to accused, but would be of use to those who had blasting work to do. •His Honor suggested that such a statement was a reflection uopn tho rest-
dents of the district. Mr. Johnstone admitted that was so. hub said there was evidence that gelignite had disappeared from t-ho quarry store. He then detailed the proceedings in the lower court, and asked his Honor to extend the provisions of the Probation Act to .'prisoner. 'Mis Honor ordered aceu.-ed to pay the expenses of the prosecution, and to coine up for sentence at any time if called upon. CHARGE OF INCEST.
On a charge of -incest, Tama Kawau Runranji, a '.fulftblooded Maori, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19171205.2.43
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1917, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,444SUPREME COURT. Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1917, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.