SUPREME COURT.-Criminal Sessions.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 67, 21 March 1887, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.-Criminal Sessions.

THIS DAY.

(Before Ifia Honor Mr Justice Vv'ird ). Tin: uoual quarterly sessions of th e Supremo Court for gaol delivery wefe oponed at 10 o'clock this morning.

THE GRAND JURY.

Thefollowir.g gentlemen weroempinnelled as tho Grand Jury :— William Buchanan, John Frederick Churton, Charles Edward Cooke, Samuel Harding, Arthur Heather, Alfred Edward Isaacs, Cottenhatn KiDgaford, William Lambert, William Swinton Laurie, Daniel Henderson Luck, James Macfarlane, David Nolan, Henry Olive, Samuel Vaile, William Ware, Charles Williamson, William Scott Wilson, and Thomas Charles Williamson. Archibald Clark and Henry' William Heath were also called, but did not appear, Mr Buchanan was chosen foreman.

THE JUDGE'S CHARGE,

His Honor delivered the following charge to the Grand Jury : —Mr Foreman and gentlemen of theGiand Jury,—l regret to have to commence my'charge by having to express my concern that through a mistake of tho Piegistrar you should have been brought here earlier than ueual, more especially on the preeent occasion, whe,n, I am happy to say, there is lees ocpaeian for a lengthened sitting on our part than has lately been the case. lam very happy to be able to congratulate you on, the brief number of cases that will have to be : brought before you at tho present. sitting. I am told that there are seventeen charge? in all, but four or livo of these charges are against the pame individual, and Ihexo are- no charges of ;v vory heinous description. Some of them are serious onougli, but thoy uro serious enough .also, Aa 1 hay« just raid, there are 17 chargoe, and throe of thorn are. cuseß of assault mid robbory. Of tho latter, thoro aio but otio or two cafiO3 of a serious nature In ono of thofo, howovcr, vjis., tho case of Kegina v, King, Hardy, and Coloman, tho ovidonco aa to the tuisatilt is ono of tho slightest description. It appears that tho prosecutor (IlugUes) comes ashore from tho Kolomaliana with L'o sovertigna iv his possession, besides some gold dust in a pouch. He gets drunk vory oarly in tho morning, and is subsequently found in?ensiblo in a vacant lot, where ho lies uutil King and Coleman come up and reliovo him of his money. Thoao two men upon being arrested acknowlodge their share in the crime, but tho third prisoner does not. Tho evidence against him is simply that he was thore at the time tho robbery was probably committed. But, from tho evidence, you will havo very little difliculty in deciding whether ho was one of tho party that committed the robbory. Tho next case is that of Regina v. Ellis, Small, and Smith—a more serious case than tho last. It appears that the prosecutor in this case was wandering about town all day, getting drink wherever he could, and that consequently he must have been considerably intoxicated by the time it is alleged the offence was committed. He is corroborated by a most disreputable witness named Doyle. After hearing these two men, it will bo for you to say whether, on membering, of course, that a prima facie case is all that is needed to enable you to do fo. The next case 19 that of Regina v. Gordon Forbes. In this case the prisoner is charged with assaulting and robbing Chas Sinclair, mate of the Kose Caeoy. It appears from tho evidence that prisoner and prosecutor had been driving about and drinking the whole morning, and that tho prosecutor was so intoxicated at the time the oflence is alleged to have been committed that it would hardly be safe to trust to his evidence alone. But as the prisoner is alleged to havo eaid to another witness named David Stewart that he had succeeded in getting the prosecutor's watch and chain, you will probably havo very little difh'culty in deciding that case also. The next case —one of perjury against one Conrad—may take you some time. The caee appears simple, but where Maoris are concerned you can always depend upon a lengthened examination. It appears that one Williamson allowed certain Maoris to dig for gum on his land upon conditions which were stated upon tickets which wore given to them and translated to them by the prisoner. Disputes subsequently arose between Williamson and the Maoris, and in tho course of examination [before the K.M. the prisoner swore that he had no knowlodgo of any QXT*in££Qtnenfc or of any tickets passing from Williamson to the Maoris. If these facts are proved you will have no difficulty in finding a true bill. The trouble will come of terwards when the case is before tho petty jury. The next case is one of forgery of cheques, against a man named Schollin. The facts are very simple, tho only thing striking in it being that both the cheques alleged to havo been iorged by the prisoner were readily cashed, although irregular in form. One of them was not made payable to the bearer, and the amount of the other was filled in by numbers only. One would have thought that, in view of the numerous cases of this oflence that havo been before the Courts in all parts of tho colony, in which forged cheques were cashed, some measure of suspicion and caution would have been produced on the part of the cashiors ; but this does not appear to bo tho case, and consequently thoy have to suffer. I trust that tradesmen will be more careful in future. There are three cases of larceny —ono of them being '.that of a revolver from a man named Butler. The prisoner appears to have be«n at his place on the 21st January, the revolver was iniseed after his departure, and was found on him wbon arrested two'days later. Now, when stolen property is found on ono, as you are well aware, the rule of the land ia for him to account for its possession, or otherwise the presumption of the law is that he is the thief. The next, case ia Regina v. Lott, in which the prisoner is accused of stealing, and afterwards attempting to pass off in payment for drink, a coin which he is told is counterfeit. As the prisoner acknowledges his guilt, you will have no difficulty with this case, Tho next caee ia Regina v. Coxhead for horse stealing. It appears to be one of the most intricate cases that have come before the Court A man named Stephens says he turned the horse out on his run on the 7th November, and failed to rind it next morning. On the 13th January it was recognised at Hunter and Nolan's sale, where it had been put by the prisoner. Moreover, on the 12th November, or five days after the horse is alleged to have been stolen, it was entered by the thief for the Onehunga races, That is carrying impudence to the highest possible point. The presumption, of course, is that the possessor of the missing horse is the thief. Regina v. McNair, the next case, is one of larceny of a boat. The prosecutor, William Wallace, left the boat at Lucas's Creek on the 18th January, and the- same day Robert Ridley saw the prisoner on board of her. On the 18th February, when the prisoner was arrested, he acknowledged that the boat was in his possession, and produced certain gear belonging to her. You will, therefore, have no difficulty with this case. The other case of larceny is the theft of a watch, and is of the very simplest kind. There is one case .of unlawfully and maliciously wounding, in which a woman is charged with severely wounding her husband. It appears that a domestic disturbance took place, and both parties being drunk, the wife wounded her husband with a knife whichhe used to cuttobacoo. The evidence is clear and presents no difficulty. Thelast case is one of attempted suicide by an unfortunate woman named Jane Home. She states that she was driven to the act by a bad husband. lam afraid there are a s,reat many bad husbands about, and of course ii the man in this case deliberately drove his wife to attempt suicide, he is probably as much to blame as she in, although the law will not touch him. The case offers no difficulty.

The Grand Jury then retired,

True Bills The grand jury found true bills in the following cases :-Catherino Jones, unlawfully- wounding; Thomas King, Peter Haidy, and Charles Coleman. assault and robbery; Robert Carr, larceny : Jane Home, attempted Buicide; Jame3 Richardson Lett, uttering counterfeit coin ; Wm. Anderson, larceny from t. dwelling; Archibald itfcNair, larceny. Unlawfully Wounding—Catherine Jones was charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding George Jones, with intent to do grevious bodily harm, on the Oth January, 1387. Prisoner pleaded guilty of committing the offence in her own defence. His Honor remarked that it was equivalent to a plea of not guilty and the jury were accordingly em-pannelled.-George Jones, labourer, Tauranga, deposed that the accused was his wife, and they were living together on the 9th of January, last. Both of them were the worse for liquor and they quarrelled. His wife got in a passion and tried to strike him with a table knife, but witness prevented her, and in doing so he fell against the knife. - Dr James Muiar deposed to attending to the last witness's wounds on the arm. One wound was 21 inches long and half an inch deep. There was another wound three inches long and two inches deep. There was also a contused wound on the little finger mid a punctured wound on the head. Had nut prompt action been tiiken bo believed that Jones might have bled to death Constable Jonas Abrams deposed to wituesoine a portion of the assault. Saw prisoner push her husband out of the house and threiiten to murder him if he again entered the house. Witness signalled to Sergeant Cahill and they arrested the woman, who said that Johe3 was not [her husband, that Be had

frequently beaten her and lliat what she had dono had been dono hi self-defence. Both tho complainant 'mid accused were under the influence of liquor at tile time.— His Honor briefly pointi'd-oitt that tho wounds wore tho result of a drunken row, and said that tho duly of the !ufy would bo to consider ■whether or not tho wounds had been given ill sulf-dc'fonco; If they found tliat they had been given in sell: defence, then they were entitled to acquit the prisoner: The lury then retired fora few minutes ami upon returning, foitnd a verdict df not guilty. The Judge then discharged the prisoner, merely recommending that next time she had a domestic difference, sho should restrict herself to those weapons with which nature had provided her.

Stealing from thi: funsox.— Thomas King, Peter Hardy.and Charles Coloman wore charged with tho larcel'y of £25 !n cash, and 10 ounces of sold dust, the property of John Hughes, on tno 20th January. Prisoners pleaded not guilty. Tire evidence of John Hughes showed that he arrived in Auckland from Klmberly on the 15th January, having in his parcel 23 sovereigns and 10 ounces of gold dnst. He knocked about town a bit on the 20tli instant. Ho nictlhc prisoners and they got drinking together with the usual result, that Hughes got oblivious, and afterwards found thut ho had lost his money.—Andrew Anderson deposed to seeing the last witness lying on a vacant allotment in Swanson-strcet. Ho saw the three prisoners'trying to lift him up. Hardy called witness to come over. He did so, and Hardy asked witness to get Hughes a bed in the house until he was sober. Witness refused. He heard Hardy say. " I would not like to see that man robbed ; he's got plenty of money on him." — David Gordon corroborated tho last witnesscs's ovidonco. — Detective. Hughes deposed to seoing Hardy in Albert-street at 12.30 o'clock on the 20th January. Ho took him into the Foresters' Arms, and in company with Detective Walker searched'him. They found 7s fld upon him. As Hardy was drunk they lucked him up, and when ho was sober they clinrijcd him with the offences After the prisoners were committed for trial witness In company with ]Jotectivos Walker and Doolan searched Lewis's stable yard in Upper Queen-street, on the 29th of January, and discovered 11 sovereigns wrapped in a piece of canvas. Dctoctivo Doolan deposed to arresting the prisoner Coloman. Next morning Coleman told them that King robbed the man of £8. gavo him two and Ilurdy thrco. He also said he saw Hardy with the gold dust. King also sent, for tho detectives, and stated that ho robbud Hughes of £S and divided the money aa previously slated. Dotectivo Walker ulso corroborated thisstiitcnicnt.—George Ue-ston, chief gaoler, deposed that on the '2'Jtli January tho prisoner Hardy expressed ii wish that Hughes should gel his money back, and told witness that he thought Coloruan would tell whore the money was planted. Coloman was called into Ihoollicound explained whoro the money was hidden. King also continued Colummi'o statement.— Tho prisoner Hardy staled that he never received any of tho prosccntor'o money,—lliu Honor briclly summed up the evidence, attuiwhich die jury returned a verdict of KUilly without retiring from tho box.-His Honor sentenced tho prisoners to lSmonlhs'harrl labour, remarking that thoy evidently belonged to a dangerous class.

Larceny.—Archibald McNair lilcaded Rullljto the larceny of v boat, accordcon, and 2s in cash. Mr Thco. Cooper stated Hint he appeared fur the youth, and pleaded thut ho was weak in intellect, still ho was responsible for Ms actions, lie would Ihbwover ask for a lenient sentence to be inflicted us the prisoner had given every a^i.stauco to tlic police in recovering tho property, lie eonsklercd 1 hat the prisoner \v«a not m possession of thD highest order of intellect. His Honor sentenced tho prisoner to six months imprisonment with hard labour. IiAUCKXY I'-uo.M a DwuLLiNii.—William Anderson was charged with the larceny of one silver watch and ono Rold chain the property of John Peterson, on the 281h of January. I'riaoncr pleaded guilty. His Honor remarked thut last sessions this prisoner had escaped, thanks to tho absence of the crown witness. Ho had however lost no time in procuring another watch and had aguin been specially ungrateful. He was sontenced to two years' hard labour. Cou.NTKitKEiT Coin.—James Richardson Lett pleaded guilty to attempting to puss a counterfeit sovereign on tho lOtn of February to Wulter Stiinpson. Ho stated that he was silly with drink at the time, or ho should not have done it. —His Honor sentenced tho prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Attempted Suicide.—Jane Horuo pleaded KUilty to attempting to commit suicide on the •J2nd of January. The accused was dismissed upon obtaining bail tor £25 to come up for boh tencc when reejuired. i?]ic stated that Blic whs driven to commit the oll'enoo by tho llltrcat ment of her husband.

Laiickxv oi' a Watch and Chain.—Kobcrt Can- was charged with the larceny of one gold watch und one gold chain ut Otuhuhu on the sth February, the property of Jlurv Steolc.— l'risoner pleaded not guilty.—The ovidonco disclosed that the prisoner stayed at Wills Hotel, Otahuhu, and the watch and chain were taken from one of the rooms of the hotel. Subsequently the prisoner tried lo dispose of the articles ut Mr Mendelsohn's pawn oillce, Auckland. Tho jury brought in a verdict of guilty t.nd tho prisoner was sentenced to IS months' hard labour.

h Aliens V of a Watch.—William McCrcanor iiis enployor und wna sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Forgini; and Uttkiunu.—Martin Schollin pleaded guilty to uttering a forged chciiuc at Otaluilni. He was further charged with presenting a forged cheque to one Thomas Usher, purporting to hu signed by ono Henry liutlor, for the sum of £'3. — l'risoner pleaded not guilty. The evidence disclosed that the prisoner had been staying at Mr Butler's house. Ht) left on the ilst of January, and the same day presented the cheque to Mr Ushor, the licensee of tho Papukura Hotel. Tho cheque had been taken from Mr .Butcher's book. The sum was lllled in but tho cheques were not signed. Henry Uutler, farmer, Mungarcwu, deposed that he had not signed tho cheque. .Samuel Stewart Oriltin also gave evidence. (Left sitting.)