SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1921, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. CHARGE TO GRAND JURY The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth opened yesterday morning, before His Honor Mr. Justice Hosking. A commencement was made on the criminal cases, of which there were three on the list. Thomas Knutsen wass arraigned on a charge of false pretences at Patea, and informations for fraudulency were concerned in the case against George Hinch. Wilful damage in breaking plate glass windows at Opunake was also set down against H. A. James. The following grand jury was empanelled:—A. S. Brooker, J. R. Hill, W O Sole, A. B. Gibson. F. J. Hill, H. J. S. Brookman, J Scanlan, P. Jackson, W. T. Hookham, E. T. Holden, W. G. Reid, R. Paul, R. Day, E. Ansford, C. S. Rennell, J. ’McLeod, F. 11. Robertson, E. Whittle, P. V. Stainton, E. May, G. H. Dolby, L. E. Hoffmann, J. McNeill. Mr. McLeod was chosen foreman. TRUE BILLS. In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honor said there were only three cases on the list of indictable charges. The first was an old and well-known offence, that of obtaining money by false pretences, by the issue of a valueless cheque. The issue of a cheque was regarded as a representation that it was a good document, and would be z duly honored, and when the man who issued a cheque had no account, or expectation of the bank ever honoring his cheque, he brought himself within the reach of the law. The grand jury, he thought, would have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that a prima facie- case had been established by the Crown. There was also a charge against an employee of having failed to account for moneys received on behalf of his employer, the ease being one of alleged embezzlement. There were five different sums of money involved. The defence which the prisoner appeared to set up was that he was entitled to make certain deductions on account of commission and expenses. Whether this was correct was a matter for the common jury. Concerning certain sums, the accused contended that there were moneys borrowed on his own account, and that they had nothing to do with the firm. Receipts he had given, however, showed that this was not the case, as the money was signed for on behalf of the firm. His Honor said that, on the face of this, the jury could draw a conclusion that, prima facie, the man was not behaving honestly.

The jury found true bills in the above two cases. CASE NOT ESTABLISHED. The third case. His Honor said, was a charge of damaging property, the occurrence concerned being the breaking of plate glass windows, a matter which very often involved the proprietor in very considerable expense. In order to bring it forward as an indictible offence it must be committed at night, and in this case it obviously happened at night. The incidents that night, so far as the accused was concerned, were that he was among a party of other men, and that i gathering took place opposite the sl/op in which the window was broken. About midnight half a dozen merry persons were singing, and drinking beer out of bottles. They were there for a considerable time, and apparently went away and came back again. All the witnesses for the Crown, and accused and his brother, were included in the party. , The witnesses stated that while all were drinking and singing none of them broke the window while they were there. They all separated between 12.30 and 2 o’clock, accused and his brother, who ha’cl bicycles, riding off. Accused himself made a statement in which he denied having had anything to do with the breaking of the windows. VALUE OF FINGER PRINTS. In this case, His Honor said, there was some interesting finger print evidence which the Crown presented. A bottle was found at the back of the window that was broken, and there were some prints on it. These were taken, and one finger print was found to correspond with the finger prints of accused. They were asked to draw the conclusion from this that the bottle was thrown by accused. Another finger-print, however, on the bottle had not been identified. The -finger-prints of all his companions had been taken, but it was not similar of theirs. Finger-print evidence was admitted in the courts as one of the best methods of idenU In this case, however, a party were drinking outsic' . the shop out of beer bottles without using tumblers. The fingerprints of various persons who handled the. bottle may have got on it without their being parties to throwing the bottle. The jury had to decide whether the gap in the evidence had been sufficiently made up to establish a prima facie case. In tfie above instance the grand jury reported no bill, and the accused (James) was discharged.