SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 123, 25 May 1909, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

' CRIMINAL SESSIONS. jj GRAND JURY'S FINDINGS. The Grand Jury returned true bills in every instance with two exceptions. No bill was returned against James Carrigan, charged with breaking, entering, and theft, and Harold Jostling, charged with attempted arson. Both prisoner! were accordingly discharged. AN IMPUDENT DEFENCE. David Lansing Huston, alias Edward Lorenzo Huston, alias Warren Miller, pleaded "not guilty" gp an indictment of perjury against him. The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the Crown. The circumstances were that the prisoner had sworn that he had not, on November 19, left the train at Gore, and stayed at a hotel there, knowing well that he had as a matter of fact done so. The case was formally proved for the Crown. « The prisoner, when asked if he had anything to say in his own defence, addressed the jury at very great length and set up a defence no less impudent than original. He, in effect, admitted that he had not told the truth, but he submitted that, his untruth haJf done harm to nobody. He had been badgered by the police, and had only obeyed the first law —the law of self-preservation. Having hurt nobody, he was not guilty of any crime. The prisoner went on to indulge in a prosy philosophical dissertation upon the relation of law to social and moral progress, and, incidentally, slandered Detective Marsack and others, but was sternly repressed by the Judge. Prisoner submitted that the Ninth Commandment—"That shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"—defined perjury, and, therefore, he had committed no offence. His Honor said that was the commandment for the next world. The commandment for this world was contained in the Criminal Code. The question for the jury to consider was a simple one. Did the prisoner make a false statement, knowing it to be false, or did he not? If he did, he was guilty of perjury, and there was an end of the matter. The defence was a most extraordinary one. In effect prisoner did not attempt to deny the charge. He Baid, "It is quite true that I committed perjury, but I did no harm." That was no defence. Then prisoner made an absolutely unwarranted attack on the Chief Detective. His record was a bad one. Prisoner would be sentenced to one year's imprisonment with hard labour, f o be cumulative upon the sentence ho is now serving. A FORGED CHEQUE. Gustave Solomon pleaded not guilty to a charge of having forged and uttered a cheque for £12 3/ at Pukekohe on or about December 24th. The Hon. J. A. Tole, X.0., prosecuted for the Crown. Evidence having been adduced in support of the charge, the prisoner addressed the jury, and endeavoured to show that he was staying at the Captain Cook Hotel, Newmarket, on the day in question. After some delay, Miss Simms, daughter of the licensee Of' the hotel, was called to give evidence,, and was examined iat length 'by''trie .' prisoner, but she failed to identify hmi. After retiring for four hours, the jury failed to agree, and were discharged at 10.30 p.m. The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., applied for a retrial, which was granted. CASES POSTPONED. At the request of the Crown Prosecutor, the registrar announced that the cases against tho following persons would not hie taloen before Monday morning next at 10.30 a.m.—to wit, Frank Maber, William Jajrvis, Frank Tate, Richard Morris, H". Mitchell and Wm. Draper, Joseph Griffiths, William • Bannerman, Joseph Winters, John King, John Binnie, Arthur Goran, William Martin and Patrick Knox, Annie Nicholson, James McClure, Alexander Archibald, Solomon Levy, Alfred James Cucksey. SOLOMON FOUND GUILTY. Gustave Solomon, in whose case the jury disagreed last night, was again arraigned on the same charge, and the whole of the evidence given yesterday was repeated. 9s Honor, in summing up, said the case was quite clear. There could be no doubt that prisoner was at Pukqkohe, and did utter the cheques. After a - retirement for about five minutes, the jury returned a verdict of "Guilty." His Honor said it appeared that the prisoner had been in trouble several times before, having no less than six convictions for theft in different parts of the Dominion against him. He had now descended from theft to forgery and uttering. There could be no doubt thai he was an habitual criminal. Prisoner would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and be declared an habitual criminal within the meaning of the Crimes Act. ANOTHER HABITUAL' CRIMINAL. Walter Henry Doyle pleaded "guilty" to several charges of breaking and entering and theft, and with having received stolen goods. His Honor said it appeared that the accused also appeared for sentence on another charge of breaking and entering at Waipu. The prisoner had been in trouble several times before, and had now pleaded guilty to eight distinct charges. It was quite plain that that sort of thing could not be allowed to continue. Two alternatives existed. He could sentence the prisoner to 14 years' imprisonment on each charge or he might impose a comparatively short sentence and declare the prisoner to be an habitual criminal. He should adopt the latter course as being the more merciful. Prisoner was sentenced to three years' imI prisonment on each charge, the sentences :to run concurrently, and was declared to be an habitual criminal within the meaning of the Crimes Act. THE TAUMARUNUI CASE. In sentencing the prisoners, Arrinnie, i charged with theft of a lady's purse, and Thomas Fanning, with receiving, his Honor remarked that thi3 was a very serious offence. If men indulged in the hazardous occupation of robbing people whilst they 'slept in railway carriages, they must suffer for it. On Arrinnie, he passed a sentence of three years' imprisonment with hard labour, and on Fanning a sentence of two years and six months, with hard labour. His Honour said if Fanning liked to afford his gaoler satisfactory evidence of previous good character, he would recommend to the Crown that six months be remitted off the sentence. PRISONERS SENTENCED. At v the Supreme Court this morning the following prisoners came up for sentence: —• FORGERY AND UTTERING. Jane Ivatene, charged with forgery and uttering At Kaikahe, pleaded guilty. Mi C, J, Parr appeared, far tie grlioaer.

His ; Honor intimated that he did not propose to commit the accused to prison. The offence to which she pleaded guilty was a trivial one under the circumstances, which were" such as disclosed no intention to defraud. It was rather an act of folly, but an act of folly which ought not to-be repeated. He hoped accused would continue to_deServe the clemency of the Court. Accused would be ordered to pay the costs, £3 17/, and to come up for sentence when called upon. ANOTHER MAORI OFFENCE. William Ammon and William Mitai, pleaded guilty to a charge of killing a heifer with anient to steal the carcase. This offence also occurred at Kaikohe. Mr C. J. Parr appeared for accused Ammon, and assured the Court that the accused, a mere lad, was habitually of good conduct. He asked that prisoner be admitted to probation. Mr Lundon made a similar plea on behalf of Mitai. His Honor said that mainly on account of prisoners' youth, he would not send the accused to gaol. He ordered them to pay costs and the value of the hedfer, amounting in all to £2 17/3 each, within one week and to come up for sentence when called upon. BURGLARY. John Wilson appeared and pleaded guilty to the offence of burglary at Gisborne. Dr. Darby, prison surgeon at Mount Eden, gave evidence as to prisoner's state of mind. He said that accused was " simple." He seemed to remember the circumstances of the theft, but from general observation witness would say that the accused had scarcely a proper appreciation of his wrong-doing. Also he seemed to have an unexplainable wish to go to an asylum. His Honor was quite certain that prisoner knew that he was doing wrong, and breaking the law. If he was subsequently found to be non compos mentis, his case could be dealt with later by the gaol authority. The Court must deal with him as if he were a sane man. He, therefore sentenced prisoner to two years' hard labour. THEFTS. Ernest James McCartney and Frederick Bradley pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking, entering and theft from a jeweller's shop at Taumaranui. McCartney pleaded guilty to a. further charge of theft from a yacht at Auckland. Prisoners had nothing to say as to why sentence should not be passed upon them. The Crown Prosecutor said that Bradley wasVcighteen years of age, and addicted to two-up" and such pastimes. The police opinion was that he had in him the making of a very bad criminal, and was already on the broad road. He had recently come from Australia, and had done no work for three months. McCartney was also known to be an associate of thieves, and was strongly suspected of breaking and entering. His Honor, addressing accused McCartney, sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of two years in respect of each offence, the sentences to be concurrent. Accused Bradley, he sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. AN AUSTRALIAN CFJMLNAL. William Reginald Ramsay, alias CarI roll, came up for sentence on three I charges of forgery and uttering at Auckland. When asked why sentence of the Court should not be passed, prisoner j handed in a written statement. It appeared that he was a well-known Australian criminal with many previous I convictions, the particulars of which were before his Honor. ' The convictions included obscene language, larceny, fori gery, and a breach of the Affiliation 1 Act. Six of the convictions were recorded against the accused during his 1 residence in New Zealand. His Honor said that prisoner was ow* of those persons who came to Wew I Zealand from Australia, whose coming, I he did not propose to encourage. And the best way in which he could discourage him was by making it quite uncertain when he would receive his liberty again. Accused was quite unfit to be at large. He would be sentenced to three years' hard labour for each offence, -the sentences to be concurrent, and he would also be declared an habitual criminal. CONTEMPTIBLE THEFT. j Andrew Poulson pleaded guilty to I three charges of theft from a dwelling, aud handed a written statement to the i judge, in which he applied for probation. I In reply to his Honor, Mr. Tole said the prisoner had refused to give the police any information as to his past. I His Honor said that under the circumstances he could not, of course, grant probation, which was only intended for ) persons of ascertained good character in the past. The thefts committed by the prisoner were peculiarly contemptible. He had been given his board and lodging, and had turned round and robbed the proprietor of the boarding-house and others staying there. He woujd be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. A RECEIVER, James King, a youth of about 20 years, pleaded guilty to having received Btolen goods. He also had a written statement ready for the Court. There seemed to be no doubt as to his previous record, and he was remanded for two days. PERJURY. Margaret Anderson, 16 years of age, admitted the offence of perjury at Auckland. Mr. Brookfield appeared for the accused, and advanced her good character as a ground for asking lenienpy from the Court. He pointed out that she had probably sworn to an untruth through youth and inexperience. His Honor said he regarded the offence of perjury as a very serious matter, but it was of various grades. Prisoner was 16 years of age, and a factory girl. He i would regard the offence as Tather simply telling a lie, than serious perjury. Prisoner would be ordered to pay costs £2 10/, and to come up' for sentence when called upon. * FIVE YEARS FOR ARSON. Anthony Claude Gunn pleaded guilty to charges of breaking, entering, and ■theft, and arson. His Honor said it appeared prisoner had been in trouble before at Fremantle. The offences of which he now stood convicted were amongst the most serious known to the law. No more serious offence than arson was known against property." Prisoner, on the charge of arson, would be sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and on the charge of breaking and entering to two years' imprisonment, the sentences to be concurrent. , MISCEWF. Jane Dix, committed from Auckland! on a charge of mischief, pleaded guilty. J His Honor thought that it was in the [ interest alike of prisoner and of society •that sho should be put somewhere where she could be prevented horn indulging! in Alcohol. He would pass a lenient M&tonet, in th« bops that in* sorrec.-]

tion might lead her iq a reform. If. it did not, and if she appeared, again, she 1 %ouldbe much more severely dealt with. Prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for one year. I x A SEXUAL OFFENDER. ' ' Teuwa -Maitai, charged with having attempted to commit rape at Gisborne, pleaded guilty. His Honor said thatythe facts, as disclosed before the justic<fs in the Lower Court, did not disclose any more than indecent assault. He would treat the charge as such, hut indecent assault was a very serious offence. True,'it'had been committed against one of accused's own countrywomen, but they must he protected no less than whites. Accused was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. ~ ..".-'.-