SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1759, 4 October 1875, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies and

the Grand Jury.) The Spring Sessions of the Central Criminal Court of Assize were opened this morning at the Supreme Court, before his Honor Mr Justice Gillies, and the Grand Jury. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 11 o'clock exactly.

The following gentlemen answered to their aiames, and were sworn as the Grand Jury • M. M. Taylor, W, T. Bassett, Frederick Bmp, J. L. Campbell, G. M. Mitford, Wm. Aitkin, Jno. Lawford, Jno, Buchanan, J. T. Boylan, A. Boardman, Edvsard Isaacs, ■Joseph E. Pounds, James Walmesley, James Baber, Arch, Wallis, J. M. Dargaville, O. B. Owen, J. P. Dv MouliD, Thomas H. Ivey, Jno. Gordon, G. S. Graham, Jno. S. Macfarlane.

Dr. Campbell was elected foreman. Silence having been proclaimed in the usual manner, his Honor proceeded to deliver his

Charge to the Grand Jury. His Honor commenced by stating that he had again to congratulate the Grand Jury upon the light character of the calendar, not because it had not a large number of offenders, hut because the crimes were not of an aggravated character. There were nineteen persons charged, and the crimes were of a great variety of kinds. A peculiarity about the calendar, which was noticeable, was that out of the nineteen persons charged, no less than five of the offenders were females, and four natives, constituting together nearly half the calendar, a feature which his Honor had not remarked in any previous calendar. There was also an almost entire absence in the sheet of what are generally known as the criminal classes that is of persons who were regular and constant offenders against the law. With one exception all were first offences. Another peculiarity was that the majority of the persons charged were under the age of 30 yeare, that was they were young. Thus they were not called upon to deal with persons confirmed in crime, but on the contrary with persons who were only ]ÜBt entering upon a career of crime. As bad been before remarked there was a great variety in the offences. There was one of .arson—three of perjury—two of them against women—two of forgery—one against a woman—two charges of passing counterfeit coin —an 'offence as they knew nearly allied to forgery, for it consisted of uttering the forged representation of money—six cases of assalut'— three natives were charged with assault and robbfery, and there were 5 thefts of various descriptions from housebreaking to obtaining money no false pretences. In the majority of the cases the evidance was of a very simple character and they would require nothing but their own common sense to guide them in their mode of dealing with them. There were however a few under which his Honor said he felt bound to make a few observations. The nrst he should remark upon was a charge of arson against a woman. That a crime of setting fire to a dwellingrhouse had been committed thrice, and was no doubt a most deliberate and wilful attempt1 but it was their duty to ascertain if a clear and prima facie case was made out against tne prisoner. It was very difficult to get evidence in a case of arson but f* *hat reason it would not do tor them to jump at the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence. The prisoner was the wife of the owner of the house. The difficulty was to understand what motive the prisoner could have had. ltxe house was insured for £200, but it was insured in the name of the mortgagee, who would get the money in case of the house &emg bnrnt down, bo that it could be no possible benefit to the owner or his wife. A peculiarity in the case was that there was no sufficient intention shown on the depositions, inirther evidence might te brought before wiem, but his Honor felt bonnd to direct their attention to the case, because it was nor! at all clear that accused was the person Who committed the crime. There were also two cases of perjury arising out of a charge against a publican of selling grog upon a Sunday The two prisoners seemed to hare SI 0?!- ,* they were Qot supplied with Wcokolic hquor on that occasion. They SEW***- ifc was not only necessMy that it *?onld be proved that the evidence of the pris™«*«;Waß untrue, but alao that it was material

to the charge. In giving their evidence the girls had sworn that they were not supplied, with liquor by the defendant. They might have meant that they were not supplied by the publican himself. There was evidence on the other siae to show that other persons went and got the beer. If the Grand Jury were satisfied that it was not by the publican that the beer was supplied, but by the people in the house, the evidence would not not be sufficient to warrant the charge. The prisoner also swore that they were not supplied with alcoholic liquor. It might be a question whether they would understand beer to be alcholic liquor. They might think it referred solely to spirituous liquor. In perjury there must be a corrupt intention, and the false statement must be material to the case before the Court. It was therefore a question for them to consider whether these girls had stated what was falsely corrupt. There was in the deposi tions an admission from one of them that she had made a false statement, and had been told what to say by the wife of the publican daccused. If this was so his Honor thought it was a great pity that the wife was not put in the dock with the girls. There was also a case of a woman forging a deed. His Honor went into very fall details of this case, and concluded his remarks upon it by saying it would be for the Grand Jury to consider whether the woman herself committed the offence, or whether she had herself been imposed upon by a third party. The other case upon which he thougt it necessary to comment was a charge of receiving a watch, which had been stolen. He need not inform them i that the offence consisted in the fact of their being a guilty knowledge of the property being stolen. As far as the depositions went there was no evidence even that the goods were stolen or that prisoner had anything to do with stealing them. There was only the evidence of one witness who had found the watch. If no further evidence was forthcoming than that contained in the depositions, it would be their duty to throw out the Bill. l^o further comment was necessary. The rest of the cases were so simple that they would be able to deal with them. His Honor then directed the grand jury to retire to their r^om, where the various bills would be sent to them. The Grand Jury then retired. At 11 35 the Grand Jury returned into Court and brought in a true bill against Frances Dwyer, charged with stealing from a dwelling house. STEALING TKOM A DWELLING.

Frances Dwyer was arraigned upon an indictment charging her with having, on the 3rd July, 1574, stolen from the dwelling

house of Mr F. J. Bennett a number of articles of wearing apparel, valued *at £19, the property of the said Mr Bennett. The enumeration of the different articles occupied the Registrar nearly ten minutes.

Prisoner pleaded guilty in a low tone. On being asked if she had anything to say why judgment should not be passed upon her, prisoner returned no answer, but shook her head, which she supported with her arm on the front of the dock.

His Honor, addressing the prisoner, al

luded to the sad sight which it was to see a young woman so young thus blighting her character for life. His Honor remarked upon the singular circumstances connected with the robbery, more especially upon the fact that the prisoner had kept the articles in her possession. In the hope that the consequences of her first offence might be a warning, his Honor said he would pass the lenient sentence upon her, that she be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the term of nine calendar months.

At 5 minutes past twelve the grand jury came into Court, and returned true bills against James Axam alias Edwin Barkley on four charges of forgery and against .Admiral Jones Burton alias Jas. SutclitFe, for larceny on three separate indictments. LARCENY. Admiral Burton alias James Sutcliffe, a youth of 17, was arraigned upon an indictment in three counts for stealing from the store of Mr. George Sibbin various goods and chattels on the dates of the 4th August, 1875, 18th August, 1575, and the 27th September, 1875. The prisoner pleaded guilty. His Honor forcibly represented to the prisoner the fearful consequences of a continuation in the career of guilt which he had thus early entered upon, and then sentenced him to nine months imprisonment with hard labour. THE CASE OV EX-CONSTABLE AXAM. James Axam, alias Edwin BarkJey, was placed in the dock charged upon an indictment with forging the endorsement "JSeil Campbell" to a note of hand on the 11th June last and wilfully uttering the same aote to one William Lockhart, of Auckland. The Registrar asked the prisoner how he pleaded. Prisoner (in a husky voice). I dont understand upon which note I am charged there. Is it for £11 or £22?

Mr. Brookfield said it was upon the £22 note the present charge was founded. Prisoner then pleaded not guilty. (While the jury was being empannelled the grand 'jury was again announced and brought in true bills upon three other charges against the persons two of a simular character in connection with different promisory notea and one for forging a receipt purporting to be signed by Mrs. TV ells). The prisoner said before the case was gone into he asked to make an application to the Court to have the police visiting book brought into court to show that the signature of Sergeant O'Connor was genuine. His Honor said there was no charge against the prisoner of forging the signature of O'Connor —it was for forging Neil Campbell's signature he was now being tried. Mr Lockhart was then called, and gave similar evidence as to the negotiation of the £22-note to that he gave in the Police Court the other day. At the conclusion of his evidence the witness was cross-examined by the prisoner, who elicited the following replies : — Witness did not hear prisoner say that he had better see the securities before he advanced the money. He could not say whether such a thing was remarkable or not. Had he suspected forgery he should have gone and seen then whether prisoner asked him to or not. '■■■ Prisoner.—Have you had any conversation with O'Connor about thisgsince I was arrested.

Mr. Brookfield objected to the question. Prisoner to witness. —Did I not pay the greater amount of the bill. This question was also objected to but his Honor allowed it on the score that it might affect the punishment. Mr. Lockhart admitted that the greater part of the bill had been paid. Prisoner again asked if witness had had any conversation with Sergeant O'Connor about the case. >

On Mr. Brookfield again objecting, the prisoner said it was very natural to his case that the question should be answered. He wanted to show that O'Connor's signature was genuine. His Honor again insisted that there was no charge of forging the sergeant's signature. Prisoner hung his head and said he had nothing further to say. Neil Campbell was then called, and, as in the Police Court, steadfastly denied that he had endorsed the bill. Prisoner at the conclusion of this evidence said that he was ready to admit that the signature of Neil Campbell was in his (prisoner's) own handwriting, but he had received permission from Mr Campbell to affix his name to the bill. 1 Turning to the witness, Axam then in a most emotional tone of voice said : "Mr Campbell: I ask you if you did not give me your permission to write your name on that bill. Think before you .'Answer—for years of my liberty depend upon what you >ay. :'■ :', ' IMr Campbell said he dvl not give any such |perniiaß|jbij. : l;;.;.'', ',{\^yjye.ima.itm .<: fc .•*■•-'.

At this reply prisoner gave vent to a deep groan and repeated that he acknowledged it was his writing. The Court asked prisoner if he wished to call any witnesses.

The prisoner said he had intended to have produced witnesses to show that O'Connor's signature was genuine. He presumed O'Connor had admitted his signasure and that was the reason that portion of the charge had been withdrawn.

fe^His Honor asked prisoner if he had anything more to say. Prisoner: JNo, your Honor the case seems pretty clear against me I have this to say that I did have Mr Campbell's leave to write his name, and it was written in his own shop, and on his own counter on the 11th June last. His Honor said the prisoner would have an opportunity of making a statement presently. lhe jury having consulted without leaving their box,

The Eegister asked if they were agreed upon their verdict.

One of the juryman said he wished to ask a question. Had the prisoner any witness to show that when he took the note to Mr Campbell and showed him O'Connor's signature, Mr Campbell gave him leave to use his signature.

His Honor said the prisoner had already said he had no witnesses.

The jury then returned a verdict of guilty."

On being asked if he had anything to say, prisoner, in a voice choked with sobs and evidently labouring under strong emotion, begged the Court to be lenient to him aa he had a wife and family who were totally dependent on him for support, and were quite penniless.

The second and third indictments were read to the prisoner, in which he was charged T v-,, glßg the Bamo name> Neil Campbell, to bills of exchange for £25 and £11, with intent to defraud

Prisoner pleaded "guilty" to both these indictments.

The charge of forging on the 9th August, a receipt or acquittance for gocdi to the amount of £5 Is Cd received from Mrs Wells of VVyndham-street. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. The same jury was then re-sworn, and Mr brookrield having opened the case, Anna Bnrgoyne Wells was called, and deposed that in June and July last the prisoner was in the habit of dealing with her. She recollected rendering the account produced. The account had not been paid and she had authorised no one to receive it. bhe recollected prisoner telling her he was going away to Christchurch. She afterwards found out that he was going in the brig Moa to Newcastle. She went down to the brig in a waterman's boat, and asked for her money. The prisoner laughed at her, and produced the receipt now in Court. It had her name upon it It was not her signature, nor was it like it.

In response to the prisoner, the witness made the following ststements :— " You told me to wait for the money till the mail came in on the 12th. You never paid me the money. When I came down to the brig I was accompanied by the waterman and two friends. You were on the vessel. !fod looked over and said you had paid me." The prisoner asked this witness a number of questions, which elicited nothing material to the case.

Constable Tapsell was called by the prisoner, and in examination said he heard prisoner say at the brig that Mrs Axam had paid the bills. He did not see Mrs Axam, because prisoner said she was ill below. By the Jury : When Mrs Wells asked for her money Axam replied: "What, old woman,—do y i want paying twice 1" Prisoner naaue a short address to the jury in his ewn defence, maintaining that his wife had assured him the bills were paid. He was thunderstruck at the charge being brought against me. He knew nothing whatever abeut the signature, and was totally innocent of the charge. "Hif Bttn summed up briefly, after which the jury expressed a wish to retire. Before they went out the prisoner asked that an undisputed signature of Mrs Wells might be given to the jury to compare with that in the bill.

The jury returned after an absence of fifteen minutes with a verdict of "Not Guilty."

His Honor in passing sentence said that prisoner had pleaded guilty to two of the charges and was found guilty on a third by the jury, His Honor, however,, would not give him the full penalty which the law allowed, acd in consideration that this was his first offence, the sentence upon him would be but two years'imprison, ment with hard labour for eatih of the offences, the sentence to run eoDOiurrentlv.

BREACH OF COINAGK A€T. Robert Thompson, aged 10, William Wilson, aged 19, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them with uttering a piece of metal and passing it fco Denis Rubie, of Queen-street, as a half-sovereign, on the 19th day of August of the present year. T he prisoners pleaded guiity, and had northing to say why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon! them. His Honor referred W the youth of the prisoners, and thinking tlbe act did not proceed from a wicked disposition, sentenced them to three months' fciard labour. ASSAULT ON a' CONSTABLE. Frederick Reeves, p9, and John Smith, 26, pleaded guilty to a4i indictment charging them with assaulting. Constable James William Moar. / .

Sentenced to 9 mo.nths imprisonment with hard labour.

THE ALLJEGED PEEJT7RY. The grand jury found no true bills against Annie Absolom anfd Harriet Podeßia, charged with perjury in a |publichouse.; y.