SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1922, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki sessions. THE CRIMINAL CHARGES, K HIS HONOR’S COMMENTS. * The last of the quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court for the current year was commenced at the Courthouse, New Plymouth, yesterday, His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman, being on the bench. The Grand Jury was comprised as under: Messrs. N. A. Allen,’ C. E. Bellringer, J. C. Morey, O. N. Firth, T. M. Avery, E. J. W. Carr, H. Cocker, C. D. Brown, P. Douglas, C. Waterston/ C. S. Rennell, J. Bennett, W. H. J. Cook, G. Ward, F. Moverley, J. McLeod, F. J. Hill, T. Furlong, J. Garcia, E. W. Wheatly, G. M. Fraser and E. P. Webster. Mr. C. E. Bellringer was chosen as foreman. In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honor said: “The bills for your consideration on this occasion are fairly numerous; more than I have been accustomed to in former times to send to the Grand Jury in this district. In the last 12 months or thereabouts matters do not seem to have been so satisfactory as in the past. Here are nine Bills, and I cannot help recollecting that on many occasions in the past there were very much fewer eases than that. There are also three cases in which the accused persons have pleaded guilty, but they do not concern you. However, there is nothing in the character of the cases that is very exceptional. Perhaps one or two of them are of a serious type, but, in a general way, most of the cases which you will have to consider are crimes of the ordinary type. There are no cases of violence and I do not know that the number, which is considerable, need cause any concern to the inhabitants of this district. The district is happily free from crimes of violence.” Continuing, His Honor said that it was not necessary for him to go into details of the cases, especially as in most of them the depositions were necessarily somewhat lengthy. It was undesirable that he should explain them at length when they would have the important duty of examining the witnesses. “You will always bear in mind that you have to say whether a prima facie case has been made out,” he said, “rendering it fair and proper that the man should be put on his trial. ’’

Referring to the charges, His Honor said that there waa a case of indecent exposure which was proved by eyewitnesses, while there was a very peculiar case against a young man of breaking into a store by means of keys with which he opened'the locks, the methods of detection reflecting very creditably on the parties concerned. Then there was a somewhat disagreeable case of a man pretending to be unmarried and imposing on a girl and her father, and obtaining 6s from them by means of an alleged false pretence. The charge against a man who managed to obtain a ease of whisky by means of an allegedly forged order would require some watchfulness. There was a charge of perjury against a man arising out of evidence he had given in the lower court concerning moneys he had received. There were two chargee which might be grouped together, although they were not actually connected. Two settlers, named Slight, were charged with stealing, and? with another man, were also charged with attempting to defraud the King of a stock mortgage. His Honor doubted if the cases could be actually connected, but very much of the evidence was the same. The two young men. who were returned soldiers, had been financed on to the farm and had received advances from the Government, and they were charged with having fraudulently disposed of the security. There was also a distinct charge against them of having stolen a Jersey bull from some other quarter. The Grand Jury would probably have to examine the witnesses at considerable length, and some of the evidence was somewhat remarkable, but their duty was to say whether a primie facie ease had been established. The only remaining case was a charge of furnishing false returns. It was an offence under the law when a man was charged with the duty of collecting and receiving money, whether it was for a borough council or the Government, and was under the obligation to make a return of the money received, and he was liable to be tried in that Court if he made a wilful false return. He did not know whether the case involved any particular duty required of him or whether there were any legal difficulties in the other cases which it was his duty to point out. He would, therefore, content himself with the remarks he had made. TRUE BILLS. True bills 'were returned against George Ferguson (alleged forgery), Herbert Cedric Jepson (alleged furnishing of false returns and theft), Alexander Spence (alleged perjury). James Richard Slight and Charles Arnold .Slight (alleged theft of cattle and alleged breach of the Chattels Transfer Act), Robert Arthur Parkes (alleged false pretences, two charges), and Andrew Leslie Young (alleged 'breaking and entering). The Bill against William Charles Joseph, who was cited with the Sligh;: Brothers on their second charge of an alleged breach of the Chattels Transfer Act, was thrown out.