SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Post, Volume XIV, Issue 9, 11 July 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

(Before his Houor the Chief Justice.) The sittings of the Supreme Court were resumed to-day at ten a.m. SENTENCES. His Honor proceeded to pass sentence on three of the prisoners convicted on the previous? day. In the case of John Osborne, convicted of arson, his Honor took into consideration the jury's recommendation to mercy, and tha peculiar circumstances under which the prisoner, according to his own confession, had committed the crime, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment with hard labor. John Buchanan, who had been convicted of stealing a vest and pair of trousers from the store ot Mr. Jas. Smith, Te Aro, addressed the Bench at great length in arrest of judgment. His argument was that Coyne had, by his own confession, been the thief, and the sole thief, and that all he could be charged with was being accessory after the fact. He asked for judgment to be stayed until the next sitting of the Supreme Court, so that he mieht employ a solicitor and prove his innocence. His Honor, who had patiently listened to the prisoner's rambling remarks, asked—" Is there anything known of this man previously ? Had he been convicted previously, and in this district? Inspector Atcheson: Here only for small offences ; but on more serious charges in Auckland he was convicted, and got two years and afterwards three years. In 1875 he was convicted in Canterbury. He is one of the most notorious thieves we have got in New Zealand. I have evidence to show that he underwent penal servitude in Auckland. The prisoner made another statement-ds to his previous sentences. '"R His Honor said some error seemed to prevail as to Jndges taking into consideration previous sentences upon persons convicted of offences. If a prisoner called evidence to show that he was a person of good character, and it was shown that he had previously been convicted, then juries took the circumstances into consideration. But after a prisoner was convicted, it was clearly the duty of the Judge to allot such sentence as was suitable. If he had been leading a proper life, it would be wrong to pass such a sentence as would be passed on a notorious thief. It was therefore the duty of the gaol and police officer s to inform the Court of the character of persons who were about to be sentenced. The prisoner in this case did not deny those statements. Prisoner : I deny the broad statement that I am a notorious thief. His Honor, who had given the prisoner every latitude in his address to the Court, said : I ask you keep silence while I pass sentence. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept in penal servitude for three years. Remove the prisoner. Francis Coyne had nothing to say. Inspector Atcheson, in reply to a question from the Bench, said the prisoner was known to be connected with a gang of thieves in town, and he believed he had been con/icted in Canterbury. He had formerly been bandsman in the 18th Regiment. Prisoner : I never did a day's imprisonment in my life since I left the service ; I did some days when I was in the service; I served twelve years in the British service, and was never before a court; I did not know these people were thieves. Hi 9 Honor : If there had been more definite information of your conviction your sentence might have been different, but I shall give you the benefit of the inadequate information. The sentence of the Court is twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor. LARCENY. Elizabeth Jane Williams, a girl eleven years of age, was clmrged with stealing a quantity of property — a watch, jewellery, and articles of clothing and furniture— from the house of Francis Loudon, Foxton, in whose service she had been. The prisoner's father and mother had been committed on the charge of receiving the goods stoien. Mr. Allan appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. His Honor, referring to the substitution of the name "Lundon" for "Loudon," took occasion to remark that some of the depositions presented to the Court were very carelessly written. Francis Loudon identified a large number of articles found in the house of the prisoner's parents, who admitted having received them, but said they thought they had been presented to prisoner by him or his sister. Several of the articles were taken from goods in store ; others from the witness's private house. The witness's sister, Elizabeth Loudon, also identified the property, which bad been taken during the ten days the prisoner was in service, and which had been found in her parents' house. Tne watch and rings so found were j hers; books and other articles her brother's. ' Constable Purcell deposed to the discovery of the articles in the house of the prisoner's parents, or in the neighborhood, where parts of the caseof the watch were found, according to the prisoner's own information. Before closing the case, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Bell, asked that the indictment should be so altered as to lay the ownership of the watch and rings in Elizabeth Loudon, and of the other articles in Francis Loudon. Objection was taken by Mr. Allan, and Mr!. Bell then applied that the ownership should be altered to Elizabeth Loudon. Objection was again taken, and it was decided to allow the case to go t» the jury as upon the indictment, but as a case of simple larceny. Mr. Allan, in addressing the jury, laid stress upon the circumstance that the girl, while stating that some of the articles had been given to her, had confessed to having taken the others, and by her information led to their recovery. His Honor, in addressing the jury, pointed out that they could not consider the theft of the watch aud rings, which were the property of Elizabeth Loudon, but the othpr articles were, as in the indictment, the property of Francis Loudon, and with regard to these the case against the prisoner was one of simple larceny. Should the prisoner be found guilty, there might be diffieulcy in dealing with a child of such years; but that was not a question by which the jury should be influenced. The jury, after retirement, returned a verdict of guilty of larceny, recommending the prisoner to mercy on thescore of her youth. His Honor dererred'sentence. *

RECEIVING STOTEN GOODS. - " Arthur Henry Williams and Elizabeth Williams, the parents of the last prisoner, were charged with receiving- the above named property, knowing the same to have been stolen. Both pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr. Gordon Allan. The evidence was mainly the «ame as in the last case. [Left sitting.]