SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 February 1922, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

TARANAKI SESSIONS. THE OPENING DAY. THE JUDGE’S OBSERVATIONS. In his charge to the Grand Jury at the opening of the Supreme Court* sessions at New Plymouth yesterday, His Honor, Air. Justice Chapman, said he was sorry to say that there was a considerable calendar. “No less than seven cases,” said His Honor, “which, according to my experience of this district, is a rattier high number—higher than I have had to try, as a rule, on other occasions. ‘Worse than that, I am sorry to say that a considerable number of these are very serious and very shocking cases. I don’t think, however, that there is anything alarming in that. It often happens in a district that there is a recurrence of crime without any symptoms of an epidemic of crime, anej. these cases are so different in character that there is nothing that need cause you any uneasiness of widespread crime in this district. They are really isolated cases. Crimes that ordinarily occur singly have occurred in rather greater number than we are accustomed to—that is all that can be said on the subject. “As io the kind of crimes, they are such, with one exception perhaps, that most of you who have served on Grand Juries have had occasion to consider before. There is an unfortunate case of carnally knowing, which shows that on the date of the crime the girl was some months short qj 16 years o-f age. She says herself that she was a fully consenting party, but that is not an answer; there is no answer so far as you are concerned. Whether a special defence can be set up does not concern you. There is the evidence of the girl as to the offence, and that does not stand alone.

“There is another case of a man, parently under the influence of liquor, charged with assaulting a very young child, a girl of five years of age. That is the sort of case you hear of more in the large cities; prowlers round the suburbs assaulting children playing in the street. You are fortunate enough ‘to escape them here, but this is a typical case. “There is a charge o-f a most grevious character—of indecent assault on a boy of 12 years. I won’t deal with the case. You will find ample creditable evidence so far as you are concerned. What the defence may be is another matter. There is another charge of a man similarly dealing with two lads, one of whom was twenty-one years of age. and the other twenty years. The evidence will show unmistakably that so far as j’our duties are concerned you will have no difficulty. In all those cases of a perverted sexual nature you will find no trouble in presenting an indictment. “There is a charge of breaking and entering a shop. A nightwatchman was employed, and he found that the door had been opened. He found the accused inside. The watchman and a woman who accompanied him on his rounds both say they identify this young man. The police vvent to his house, and there found him and his brother and two others in bed. They made some investigation, and in the pocket of one, but not the man found in the shop, they discovered a pi6ce of iron which is said to come off the same strip of iron as a piece which was found in the shop, which had been used for opening the window. So in addition to the direct identification of one of the youths there is that awkward fact that there is something which is said to be the piece of the tool which was used to open the window. Op the face of it this appears to be a continuous chain of evidence.”

Dealing with other cases, His Honor said there was a charge against a young fellow of stealing money. The peculiarity of the circumstances was that he was shown to have had no money; he was short of money, and then after a time he became flush of money. Again the man who lost the roll of notes said they were wet and the notes that accused was found paying were found to be wet also.

There was a charge against a Government official in the Defence- Department of stealing, or converting to his own use a cheque for £5O and other considerable sums of money. According to the evidence of those who investigated the case, accused, when faced with the facts, admitted that he was short of money, and that he had made away with the money involved. His Honor said he did not think either of these cases would present any difficulty to the jury. The Grand Jury was as follows: Messrs. David Penman, A. F. Alollison, W. H. Broome, H. B. Lepper, E. W. Garner, W. H. Beadle, A. H. Palmer, A. McHardy, R. O. Ellis, J. Rollo, J. Abbott. J.‘ S. Connett, A. Veale, A. S. Brooker, D. J- Hughes, F. W. Cornwall, F. H. Jackson, C. Denny-Brown, R. F. Cornwall. C. E. Bellringer, J. Scanlon, E. J. Pepperell, A. Alexander. Mr. Bellringer was chosen foreman. FOR TRIAL. True bills were returned by the Grand Jury in all cases. They were: — Henry Tan Douglas Mackay, alleged carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 years, at Stratford. Bernard Coulter and Arthur Coulter, alleged breaking and entering with intent, at Eltham. William A. Gustafson, alleged theft of defence moneys. James Collingwood, alleged indecent assault, at Opunake. Rangi Elers, alleged t'heft at Opunake. Arnold 0. Sturrock, alleged indecent assault, at New Plymouth (three charges). Ernest Edward Clarke, alleged indecent assault. His Honor thanked the Grand Jury before discharging them, and remarked that their task had been rather a heavy one on this