SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10086, 6 September 1910, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

MASTERTON—MONDAY.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards.)

GRAND JURY. The following Grand Jury were empanelled :—Messrs J. M. Coradine (foreman), H. G. Williams, Walter Cameron, M. C. O'Connell, V. E. Donald, F. C. Lewis, W. H. Booth, A. P. Whatman, E. R. Cameron, J. M. Lightfoot, J. H. Pauling, O. J. Percy, W. H. Buick, C. J. Monro, 11. J. Francis, F. W. Carey, W. T. Mansfield, E. J. Rose, J. Judd, A. Caselberg, Alex. McLeod, D. M. Graham, and E. E. Harper.

HIS HONOR'S ADDRESS. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury, congratulated them on the lightness of the calendar, and the apparent immunity from criine which the district enjoyed.. He was. sorry he could not congratulate them on the accommodation provided iti the Courthouse. It was evident that if the sittings of the Supreme Oourt we're to continue.in Masterton, the present huilding would have to be speedily replaced with something better. There was only one criminal case on the calendar, and he did not »think the Grand Jury would have much difficulty in arriving at a decision in this. The evidence was fairly direct, and there was practically no option but to return a true bill. However, that was a matter J for the Jury.

TRUE BILL. After a retirement of. twenty-five minutes, the Grand Jury returned a true bill in the case in which William Hammington> was charged with indecency.

ALLEGED INDECENT EXPOSURE.

William Hammington, a middleaged man, was charged with having, on June 10th, indecently exposed himself on a bridge at GladstoneAccused was' further charged with having used obscene language on the same date, and with, having ted an indecent act:

Accused, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded net guilty to the whole of the counts:

The following jury were empanelled :—Mesrs W. G. Lamb (foreman), J Scorrar, A. Lewin, H. W.' "Buttrey, E. Welch, W. L. Joy, W. H- Donovan, C. D. Fendal, G, L Joy, G. Bowman, F. J. Staples, and B. Ive-

Mr A. R. Bunny appeared for the Crown.

His Honor asked what authority there was for the indictment on the second count —that of using obscene language. ■ • , .

Mr Bunny said that the. only authority was-the, order of committal.

His Honor: There is ho use in troubling the Court unless authority can be shown. Accused: I was not tried in the lower Court.

Mr Bunny: The accused was committed under the 42nd Section of the Police Offences Act. ' , His Honor: Section 156 of the Crimes Act would cover it. As far as I am a.ware, this is not an indictable 'offence. The accused is not represented by counsel, and I must protect him.

Mr Bunny: I submit-to your Honor's decision. His Honor: The count need not be read to the jury. I'must quash it.

The hearing of the remaining counts was then proceeded with, Mr W. lorns acting as interpreter. Evidence for the Crown was given by Peraonaki Rawiri, Paroangi Raw-, iri Pohutu, Raiha Pohutu, and Constable Ingram. The latter said that, when arrested the accused said he did not remember having committed an act of indecency. He said he had been drinking whisky. The accused addressed the Jury in his own behalf. He claimed that the evidence did not show that he had wilfully committed an act of indecency. If there was a doubt, as there must be, he asked that he should be given the benefit of it. His Honor summed rip briefly. He said that the whole question turned upon whether the accused was responsible for what he was doing. If the jury thought the accused was drunk when the act was committed they should find him not guilty. The jury, after a retirement of a few minutes, returned a verdict of not guilty. His Honor said he was not sur- | prised at the jury returning the verI diet of not guilty, because they did not know as much as he did. The accused had already served four lengthy terms for a similar offence. He was exceedingly fortunate that the jury did not know this. He did not blame the jury for the verdict. He thought that, qti the evidence, he would have returned the same verdict. He warned accused to mend his ways, and leave the town. Accused would be discharged.

A DIVORCE CASE. The case was called on in which Joseph Sheridan, of Gisborne, applied for a dissolution Of his with Pikfhuia Sheridan, on the ground of adultery with Thopias Carroll, who'was cited as co-respondent.

Mr Jordan (instructed by Messrs Gawith and Logan) appeared for petitioner, Mr C. A. Pownall for respondent, and Mr A. R. Bunny for co-respondent Carroll.

Mr Bunny stated that the co-res

pondent could not appear, as he was ,11 and had forwarded a doctor's certificate. He had, however, filed an affidavit. His Honor said the affidavit could not be admitted without' the consent of counsel.

Counsel for petitioner stated that, in the circumstances, he was preoared to admit the affidavit.

Sir Jordan briefly reviewed the evidence in support of. the petition. Joseph Sheridan, the petitioner, on oath, deposed that he was a Civil Servant living at Gisborne. He was married to respondent, Pikihuia Manihera, in May, 1895. He was then 20 years of age, and the respondent was eighteen. After living with respondent for two years she went back to her parents in Mast'.:rton. She had subsequently written Lq him, saying he had better get another wife. He had since leaned that she had been living with co-J'i-s----pondent. Under cross-examination by Mr Pownall; petitioner, stated that the Judges of the Native Land Court had objected to his wife attending the sittings of the Court with him. She had consequently returned to her home in Masterton. Witness left her in Wellington without money, and made no provision for her support. He had only written her two letters in thirteen years. In these ,he told her he intended to apply for a divorce, and asked her to consult a solicitor. The respondent had made an exhibition of herself on the wharf in Wellington, where she assaulted him. He thereupon abandoned her. Three years ago he heard that respondent was living with the co-res-pondent Carroll. He had also heard that she had been living with a Native. He made no attempt to interfere.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, if, at that time, the petitioner had paid the costs of respondent on the lowest scale. His Honor pointed out that no judge or jury in New Zealand would allow costs to the petitioner.