SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 May 1922, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. THE CRIMINAL CHARGES. .JUDGE’S ADDRESS TO JURY. The second sessions of the Supreme Court for the year was opened at New Plymouth yesterday, before His Honor, Mr. Justice J. R. Reed. The following Grand Jury was empanelled: Messrs. A. Veale, J. D. Sole, J. \Y. Abbott, L. M. Monteath, N. Balharry, W. H. E. Bendall, D. J. Hughes, Jas. Austin, F. IT. Robertson, C. Carter, F. Messenger, E. Dingle, A. Alexander, G. A. Corney, C. S. Rennell, Jas. McLeod, W. If. Cook, I. Waddle, G. M. Fraser, A. McHardy, -H. Cocker. J. C. Morey, R. Paul. Mr. Jas. McLeod was chosen foreman'. In addressing the Grand Jury, His Honor said that there were eight cases to be dealt with, one involving loss of life, a charge of manslaughter against a native; two sexual offences, one charge of carrying on the business of a bookmaker; one of assault causing actual bodily harm, and the others involving the theft of money. None, he thought, would present any grave difficulties, but there were some charges which he thought would require some explanation. There was one charge against an Eltham resident, of having made a fraudulent statement, in that she had posted a packet containing money, whereas she had not. That was a statutory offence under the Post Office Act. The letter had been registered, and after the department had made enquiries from every person through whom it had passed, without result, she had given a written confession that she had lost the money! The offence was a very serious one, for if no confession had been made, undoubtedly serious suspicion would have atached to each officer through whose bands the letter had passed, and though they would never have been able to sheet the' matter home, there was no doubt each one would have a black mark, against him that might prove detrimental in the future. , The next case was of alleged bookmaking. in which the evidence appeared quite clean, and, if satisfied, the Grand. Jury should return a true bill.

THE PUNIHO CASE. Regarding the case of attempted breaking and entering at the Puniho toll-gate for the purpose of committing a crime, His Honor eaid that the attempt to commit a. crime must be inferred from the manner in which the breaking and entering was attempted. If it was done by stealth, they could infer that it was done for the purpose of committing a crime. In the present case, the circumstances were peculiar. The men had knocked at the door and had, it was said, attempted to push it. When men came deliberately to force a door it would be necessary to infer that it was a violent crime they were about to commit, and the Grand Jury should be satisfied that the whole circumstances pointed to a crime of violence. The toll-gate keeper, however, believed they were trving to get in by force; but whether he was justified in believing so was the question’. He might be unduly nervous, and mav have placed a wrong construction on* a perhaps unduly boisterous knocking at the door. If the jury thought they did intend to force tfte door so as to commit a violent crime, they must return a true bill; but if they thought the toll-keeper bad magnified the act of boisterous and perhaps intoxicated men that inference would justify them in bringing in no bill. They would find no difficulty over a case or false pretences and obtaining a cheque by false pretences, or of commitmg an indecent assault. There was also the case against a native of carnal knowledge of a girl of twelve. The fact that the gir was a consenting party was no answer as‘the law enacted that the girl could not give consent. ,

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER. The last case was one of manslaughter arising out of a collision between a motor-car and an unlighted cart driven by a native, according to evidence, ou tiie wrong aide. The man who deliberately takes an unlighted cart at night on to a road where motor-cars travel is under the necessity of taking all care and precautions to see that life is not endangered. His duty is at least to keep his vehicle well over to the proper side, and where only the centre of the road is macadamised, as in Taranaki, his duty is to pull well over to the soft and* leave the macadamised road to the motorcars. That is only common sense, because the driver of a car is unable to see a cart without lights until it is too late to avoid a collision. If the evidence was as appeared to be the case, the jury should return a true bill and leave it to the common jury to decide whether, under all the circumstances, reasonable care was exercised in the present case. TRUE BILLS. The jury returned true bills in the cases of , Mabel Brooking, alleged fraudulent statement (two charges), and alleged intent to defraud; George William Clarke, alleged false pretences (two charges); Herbert Thomas Allen, alleged carrying on business as a bookmaker; John Dix, alleged indecent assault on a female: , , , . Simon Penny, alleged carnal knowledge (two charges); Edward O’Connor, alleged assault, causing actual bodily harm; Rangi Maha, alleged manslaughter. NO BILL. No bill was returned in the case of J. Martin and A. Lindsay, alleged breaking and entering at the Puniho toll house.