SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1921, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

TARANAKI SESSIONS. •THE CRIMINAL CHARGES. JUDGE REVIEWS CASES. The sessions of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth commenced yesterday morning before His Honor Mr. Justice Reed. The following Grand Jury was empanelled: R. H. George, W. P. Nicoll, N. Balharry, L. C. Sladden, A. H. Beadle, F. Moverley, R. H. Bartley, R. H. Cattley, E. Dingle, C. S. Rennell, P. E. Stainton, W. C. Weston, F. Messenger, J. Austin, R. O. Ellis, C. Denny-Brown, A. Hasell? H. Baily, W. C. Nixon, ,R. J. Deare, J. Waddle, F. E. Orbell, J. Rollo. Mr. Baily was chosen foreman.

In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honor said there were four bills of indictment for consideration, but as far as he could see there was no particular difficulty in any one of them. There were two cases pf forgery, and in each one the allegation ivas that the accused had forged an order for liquor in a prohibited district. As the Grand Jury were probably aware there were strict regulations regarding the sending of alcoholic liquor into an area where its sale was prohibited. The person consigning it had to notify that he was sending the liquor and the name of the person to whom it was being despatched. A record of this was kept by the clerk of court in the district to enable the authorities to trace all liquor going into the district, so as to stop any possible sly grog selling. If it was found through this source that any particular individual was receiving more liquor than an ordinary person would consume the suspicions of the police would be aroused and inquiries would follow. Consequently it was very important to see that the rule was complied with and that the publican who sent the liquor in notified the name of the pers i to whom it was sent. In these circumstances if a person was indulging in sly grog selling it was important to conceal the fact that he was receiving liquor, and to give the name of some other person. THE ‘DRY” AREA. In the first case it was alleged that accused had forged the name of Rhodes to an order given to the Urenui Hotel, and the only man of that name in the district said the liquor had not been ordered by him. Evidence would be given by experts to show that the order was in the hand-writing of the accused (although disguised). The other case was somewhat similar. A man named Mercer was charged with forging the name of W. J. Avery to an order for liquor given to the Waitara Hotel. The order was not sent by the man whose name appeared on the paper, and evidence as to hand-writing would also be called. His Honor said there was no need for the jury to go minutely into the evidence of the hand-writing. If they were satisfied that the experts were not entirely wrong about the hand-writing then they could send the case on to the common jury. There was a charge of manslaughter which had some peculiar circumstances. On July 16 last a man named Barlow was driving a car from New Plymouth to Stratford, and the other occupants of the car were a man named Death and a man named Sutton. The car was carrying the ordinary lights and proceeding along at the ordinary rate when it collided with a gig coming in the opposite direction. The evidence was that the gig had no lights, and was travelling on the wrong side of the road. The night was dark and wet. The result of the collision was that the man Sutton, who was sitting on the left side of the car, received such injuries that he died. The injuries were caused either by the shaft of the gig or by his head coming into contact with the upright stanchion of the car. It was not material, however, as to how the injuries occurred. The only point, and one which seemed quite clear, was that the death was due to the collision.

A DRIVER’S OBLIGATION. In remarking that the charge was laid against, the person who was driving the gig, His Honor reviewed the legal position as affecting such a case. He said a man was guilty of manslaughter if by nonperformance of any legal duty he caused the death of any other person. If the jury was satisfied upon the evidence that the accused was driving the gig along the wrong side of the road without lights, it was plain he was looking for trouble. In such a case there was a failure to meet the obligation which everyone owed to the public generally to drive in a careful and cautious manner. Finally, said His Honor, there was a shocking case of a charge against a man of indecent assault upon two children, one 14 years of age, and the other one a baby. It was not necessary to trouble with the disgusting details, but he thought the Grand Jury would find that the evidence was clear and that they would consider it was a case to go before the common jury. True bills were returned in the following cases: James Albert Officer (alleged manslaughter), Stanley Herbert Mercer (alleged forgery), Herbert Shackleton (alleged in '■cent assault, two charges). The finding in the case against S. N Fincham (alleged forgery) was “no bill.”