SUPREME COURT

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 51, 1 March 1901, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

YESTERDAY.

(Before His Honor the Chief Justice,)

A PECULIAR CASE

Alfred Evans and Charles West pleaded not guilty to stealing- 7/ from the person of Bridget Kane:, and Charles West not guilty to assaulting Dennis Kane.' The prisoners were not represented by counsel. The scene of the alleged offences was the commercial room of the Aurora Hotel. Seven witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution. Mrs Kane stated that both accused came into the room and hustled her and her husband about, and that Evans then put |iis hand into her pocket and took her money. Evans gave evidence on his own behalf and denied the charge. His Honor, in .summing up, said it was a xevy peculiar case. The point was whether the jury were to accept Mrs Kane's testimony as to what occurred or not, viz., that Evans put bis hand into her pocket and took out seven or eight shillings. When she made the charge to the police she did not tell them she had lost any money, but only said that Evans had been trying- to rob her. The question was whether the woman might not have been hustled—and very improperly hustled—about the room by Evans while he was in a semi-intoxi-cated state; but that was not enough for a charge of attempting to rob. unless it was clearly proved that he did actually put his hand into her pocket and attempt to rob her. She might honestly think he wa.s trying to rob her, when he was only hustling her. The corroborative evidence of witnesses, said His Honor, was confused in that, it indicated two attempts to rob, whereas Mrs Kane had only mentioned one attempt. The assault by West seemed to be proved, but unless made in conjunction with an attempt to rob it only amounted to common assault. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on each indictment, and the accused were discharged, His Honor advising Evans to give up intoxicating liquor.

THIS DAY.

CHARGE OF FOKGEKY

William Hug-lies, an elderly mail, pleaded not guilty to having forged au order for the delivery of goods, and used it as if it were genuine; and not guilty to obtaining £1 4/8 from Percy Spencer by false pretences. Prisoner 'was not represented by counsel. The evidence for the prose- ! cution was to the effect that prisoner forged an order in the "name of C. : Xicbolls for a suprdy of calendars from Percy Spencer,~printer, and obtained £1 4/S commission from Mr Spencer on the order, which amounted to £9 17/6. Prisoner did not give evidence, but he made a long statement to the jury, in the course of which he said he had got the order from another man named Williams, who represented that Mrs Nicholls had given it to him. Prisoner denied that Spencer had paid him any commission on the order. His Honor pointed out that prisoner had never mentioned Williams when the signature was challenged, or when he was arrested. The jury'retired at 11.50 a.m. and np to ?, p.m. they had failed to come to an aoTPpmpnt.

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH,

Julia Steenson, who had pleaded guilty to concealing- the birth of her infant child, came up for sentence this morning*. His Honor said if prisoner's character hitherto had been good, he might have admitted/her to probation. Unfortunately this was not the first case in which prisoner had become the mother of an illegitimate child —it had happened on two occasions before. He could not overlook that, and had the Grand Jury known of it he did not know what they would have done. Concealing- a child as prisoner had done was a very serious thing-. He was not going- to pass a severe sentence, but lie could not allow pi-oba-tion. He hoped prisoner would take n lesson, not only from that case, but from the remembrance of her dend •child. The sentence* would be six mouths' hard labour. SEVEN YEARS' HARD LABOUR. Joseph Maynell, who had been found guilty on charges of indecent assault upon his two daughters (both under the age of 1G years), was brought up for sentence. Prisoner handed up a letter to the Judge, asking for mercy. His Honor in passing sentence said: No charge could be more serious.than one agaimst a parent, fordegrading and demoralising his daughters. You have done this to two of your children. I have power to pass a sentence of seven years" on each charge, amounting to 14 years, and I have also power to order you to be flogged. I shall not pass the utmost sentence allowed by the^aw, but considering your position towards your children, the case must be dealt with very seriously. The sentence will be seven years' imprisonment with hard labour. YOUTHFUL CRIMINALS. His Honor also passed sentence on the prisoners Fredk. Follas, Fredk. Deason, and Win, Moisley, three youn<» men who had been guilty iii' connection with thefts from yachts. Addressing Deason, His Honor pointed out that prisoner had only recently served three years' for breaking and entering, ajid that his previous convictions included house-bre\iking, breaking and entering, and ten thefts. In the present case he was liable to 14 years' imprisonment, because unprotected vessels were specially considered by the law. It was sad to see young men commencing a. criminal career at. 16 years of a.ge. Such cases seemed to call for action on the part of philanthropic people in the community, to i devise some scheme- for the reform of juvenile criminals. Imprisonment die* not seem to do any good. His Honor hoped prisoner would recognise that he -would be' a happier man if he did not break the law; he would find it did not pay to be a gaol-bird. The sentence on Deason would be 21 years' hard labour. Moisley's record was not so bad, but His Honor did not think he could make any difference in the offence, and prisoner's sentence would therefore be the same as Deason's. There was very little against Follas, and his sentence would be lighter—lS months' hard labour.

The Crown Prosecutor remarked that there was plenty of work for these young men if they liked to take it and earn an honest living,

His Honor: They need more than work; they need guidance and disci-

pline. Ti i^ a pity they could not T?e placed on a man-o'-waa*. From the cases which have come before me this session, and in other parts of New Zealand, it is perfectly plain thai*there are youths'* growing up without any discipline. 1 do not know what their outlook is. They, will be contkmously in gaol unless someone gives them a helping hand and leads them to reform.

AN ASSAULT CASE

Two young men named John Henry Eowe and Thomas Barrett were charged with assaulting Henry Rust, a sailor, with intent to rob him. Eowe was further charged with assaulting- Bust so as to cause him actual bodily harm, and Barrett was changed with attempting to rob him. Prisoners pleaded not guilty to each charge. They were not represented by counsel. Rust deposed that he went into Gleeson's Hotel with a woman named Harriett Barrett, and met the accused and "a second woman, Johanna Barrett. Witness shouted for the five. After leaving the hotel. witness and the woman Barrett went along the Railway Wharf, and were followed by the two accused. Eowe sprang at witness and knocked him down with some sharp instrument, inflicting a severe blow. Barrett meanwhile went through accused's pockets, but missed the only one that contained money. When witness called for assistance the men ran away. Evidence of a contradictory nature wa,s given by the two women, and Dr. Betts deposed as to llust's injuries, which had included a wound on the forehead and abrasions on the ncsc and left cheekbone. The doctor said the former wound was more likely to have been caused by a blow with somesharp instrument, though a fall on a sharp railway line could have caused it.

THEFT FROM THE PERSON,

Carl Carlson, a Swede, pleaded guilty to a charge of theft from the person. Prisoner said he was drunk at the time, and 'it was his first offence. His Honor deferred sentence till to-morrow, in order that inquiries might be made concerning the prisoner's character by the probation officer.