THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 54, 6 March 1899, Page 2

THIS DAY.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

(Before Mr Justice Conolly.) The March Criminal Sittings of the ; Supreme Court commenced to-day, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly. GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were impannelled as a Grand Jury:—Messrs S. E. Hughes (chairman), John Edward Astley, Warren Blythe, Albert Edward Burcher, R. W. De Montalfe, 11. A. Ellison, J. A. Gorrie, W. B. Hall, James Hardie, W. C. Hemery, Chas. Mackay, Thomas Maekay, P. B. Morris, S. J. Nathan, Wm. Pearson, Ernest Perkins, C. W. Pirie, John Pilkington, Edward Filkington, W. N. Rushbrook, and H. P. Norton. JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, expressed regret that there were again a very large number of charges for consideration. None of them involved the loss of human life, but several were serious offences. Of the charges of theft, only two appeared to him to be in any way complicated. In one the prisoner was charged with stealing a quantity of retorted gold. It did not appear from what place it was stolen, but it was probably from Coromandel. The prisoner, for some reason, did not attempt to sell the gold, but employed another, who, in his turn, employed another man, who sold it. The banks refused to buy the gold, because no information was forthcoming regarding the mine from whence it came. It was ultimately sold to a jeweller. When arrested the prisoner at first denied having given it for sale, but afterwards admitted having done so, and then gave several accounts as to how he became possessed of it. His Honor said he mentioned the case lest the jury should suppose that it was necessary to prove who was the lawful owner of the gold, but that was not so. The other case was also for stealing gold from a person unknown. The prisoner brought a quantity of quartz to Auckland to be crushed, and afterwards sold it to the Bank of New Zealand. He stated it j came from the Specimen Hill mine, ' and, when arrested, said he had it for ! seven or eight years. There was evidence that he worked at that mine at that time, but not for the last live i or six years, and that during these j five or six years he had worked in j mines where good gold was found ' whereas none was found in Specimen Hill, which was abandoned by the company a year ago. There were several charges of breaking and entering shops and dwellinghouses, which required no comment, : the stolen goods, or pa,rt of them, being- found in possession of the : prisoners immediately afterwards. ; One. case of alleged theft, which had j been committed for trial, appeared to i him to be one which should have been disposed of by Justices. It was a charge of killing a turkey with in- j tent, to steal the carcase. His Honor said: 'There should, therefore, be cvi- | dence upon three points, viz., first, j that the animal was killed; secondly, j that it was killed by the accused j party; and thirdly, that the intent was to steal the carcase.* "-The evl- : dence which lias been laid bftfore me appears deficient upon all these points, and'yet the colony is put to ;; the expense of Bringing the prisoner . i and a number of witnesses all the way ij from Rawene in order that the charge j ] should be enquired into here.' His . i Honor said there were the usual num- ! ber of cases of forgery and false pre* ! ■ i tences, that was to say, of obtaining 1 money or goods, or both, by passing .' valueless cheques. Commenting- upon : this His Honor said: 'It certainly ap- [ pears strange that people in business ! will not take warning from the pre-1 i valence of such frauds; but their i frequency and the repeated remarks ; lof judges upon them appear to have! no effect. Time after time we have \ • the same old story of a purchase of I goods for a. stilling or two, the presentation of a cheque for several i [ pounds, and the obtaining of the balance, when the man who parts ' with the money knows nothing of the man who presents the cheque and is not acquiainted with the signature to : it.' His Honor mentioned there were two cases of attempted suicide, one the result of drink, and the other through trouble. How to deal with such cases was always a difficulty to the court. There was a charge of robbery with violence, in which the prosecutor received considerable injuries while engaged in a fight and also lost or was robbed of his purse. The sole question was one of identity of the person who committed the assault. There was not much corroborative evidence on that, but if the prosecutor was positive the grand jury would no doubt send the case for trial. There was also a case of assault occasioning actual bodily' harm, which appeared very clear. The prisoner threw a stone at another boy, the effect of which was to destroy one of his eyes. His Honor sa.id perhaps the moist serious charge was one of wounding with intent to dio grievous bodily harm, in which two men were fighting and one struck the other with a knife in the neck. The prisoner then ran away, but was arrested, with the knife still covered with fresh blood, and he admitted at Wee he had struck the prosecutor. His Honor next referred to the fact that there were three charges of immoral or indecent acts. One, where the girl was under 15 years of age, appeared clear. They were previously acquainted and the girl gave her consent, but the Legislature had provided that where the girl was under 16, in such cases it was a crime, even if the invitation to immorality came from her. If the jury was satisfied that the offence had been committed, and that the girl was under 16 years of age, their duty would be to return a true bill. Another charge was of having- unlawful carnal knowledge with a female idiot under circumstances which proved that the person charged knew that the girl was an idiot or imbecile. In the Court below the Stipendiary Magistrate decided that the girl was not a competent witness, and could not therefore be examined upon oath, and the only evidence against the prisoner was statements made by the girl, not upon oath, in his presence, but *ot in any way admitted by him to be true. His Honor added: 'In my opinion no person should even have been committed for trial, much less convicted, upon such evidence as this. Tf the girl could not be examined upon oath, it is clear that her statements not upon oath —unless the prisoner admitted them to be true — could be of no value. It may be that the girl will be presented as a witness, and that you may, come to a

different conclusion from the Court J below and allow her to be sworn. ; Without her evidence on oath it appears to me to be probable that you will find that there is not even a, prima facie case against the prisoner. The other is a violent attempt on a girl of 12 years of age in open daylight, and seen by others. It is a very clear case. OFFENCES AGAINST FEMALES; These offences against females appear to be alarmingly frequent in some parts of the colony, and you may have observed that in another district the learned Judge on the recommendation of the jury has inflicted flog-g-ing- in addition to imprisonment. I can only hope that these crimes may not become so prevalent in .this district as to cause me to infiict a punishment which I never have inflicted, and to which I have a very strong objection. An English Judge recently stated that in his opinion flogging never had done the ,man flogged any good, but would almost certainly further brutalise him. In this I concur, and therefore since the only advantage of it must be to deter others from similar crimes, it does appear to me to be doubtful whether torture should be inflicted on one man to prevent another from committing crime. SELLING ARMS TO NATIVES. It will probably be within your recollection that in July last year a number of natives were charged with conspiring by force to prevent the collection of taxes, and were convicted, also that the evidence disclosed a very lawless state of affairs in the neighbourhood* where the natives lived, with demonstrations and threats of violence which would probably have been carried into effect but for the fact that ,a strong force of police was despatched there. These matters occurred at the end of April or beginning- of May. It was afterwards ascertained that almost immediately before these events a number of the natives concerned had bought rifles and ball cartridges; and the result of these inquiries has been that some eight persons have been indicted for selling arms and ammunition without having a license to do so contrary to the Arms Act 1880. Some I may plead ignorance of the law, but i that is no excuse although it may be considered in mitigation of punishment. I believe that you will find I all these cases very clear. You have I not to consider whether the individuals charged deserve punishment, out I simply whether they have broken the I law.