SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 33, 8 February 1910, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Befbre 3lr. Justice Cooper.) ACQUITTED. Thomas Sparrow, an intelligent-look-ing youth, was indicted before Mr. Justice "(Joopt at the Supreme Court yesterday upon, a charge that on 3rd December last at Helensville lie did break aud enter the ihop or warehouse of Messrs. Stewart Bros., and did steal therein one cheque for 16/-, a postal Bote tor 1/-, and £5 13/- in money. The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., Crown Solicitor, conducted the prosecution. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr. J. R. Lundcm, pleaded "not guilty." In opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Tole said the store, which was » branch store, was locked up on the Friday night in question by the nuniger at 8 p.m. He opened up again at 8.30 a.m. the mxt morning. There wire no signs to indicate that the place had been entered, and it was not until the manager went to the till to give a customer some change that he discovered the loss of the money. It would be shown that the accused had been in the employ of the firm, and had been dismissed the day before. After his dismissal he remained about the store, and uttered various threats, declaring that he would gvt square with the proprietor. To such an extent did this go on that the police were sent for. The day before t'ae robbery prisoner had no money. The day after he was flush of money, and 'Shouted for a friend, paying with a coin of the same denomination as that of some of the missing coins. He was aUo observed to be in the possession of notes. Later he —as interviewed by Detective Scott, and he then denied all knowledge of the crime.

Francis Birch Stretton, manager of the store, gp.ve evidence in support of trie facts outlined by Mr. Tole, so far ss he was connected with them. He stated that he locked up the store at S p.m., and put the key in his pocket. He left the money, amounting to £6 10 -. in the till. Xext morning he only found twopence there. The day before, aft«T his dismissal, the prisoner told ■witness that he had not a penny in the •R-orld.

Cross-examined: He had heard there ■was another key to the store, but during the two years and three months ho had been there he had never seen it. On the Saturday morning the key was still in his possession. He knew of no other means of entering the store.

John Lamb Stetvart, manager of the butchery department of Stewart Bros., in answer to Mr. Lundon, said accused was not dismissed because he wanted to be put in the store instead of the butchery. Witness did not know wha-t wages accused got. He thought 23/----a week, but did not know if he was engaged at 30./-. Accused refused to sweep the floor. Wages were not discussed. Witness denied that when the constable arrived he accused Sparrow of stealing meat.

Mr. London.: IMd not the constable completely exonerate the boy? Witness: Nothing further was done. Mr. Lundon: Do you really mean to say that as a result of bis investigation, the constable did not report that the young fellow was blameless? Witness: I don't know "whether he did. "William Barber said he Tvas with the accused on Friday night between. 0 p.m. and 10 p.m. Accused then had no money. George Armstrong said he met accnsed on the Saturday morning at 6.30 a.m., and accused then gave him a florin to pay for drinks. He saw accused had othfr money, including two bank-notes. EJward William Scott, detective, said he arrested accused in Alexandra Park oc January Sth. Accused said he knew nothing of the crime, and voluntarily eiated that money had been lent to him by a girl to get away from HelensviUe. Cross-examined: He understood that the police had made inquiries and found is was true that the girl had lent money to accused. Xo evidence was given for the defence, but Mr. Lundo£ addressed the jnry at some length upon the very unsatisfactory nature of the evidence tendered for the prosecution. He nnred that there was nothing to eTiow [that accused alone could have committed the robbery, and the jury ought to give him the benefit of the doubt.

H:s Honor, in suniming-up, said the case rested purely upon presumptive or circumstantial evidence, and it was the duty of the jury in considering that ki-nd of evidence to consider whether there was r. reasonable possibility of the accused's innocence. If there was they must acquit him. The stolen property had not been traced to the prisoner, inasmuch as none of it had been produced and identified. The Crown said it vras reasonable to infer that the prisoner knew that the bakehouse key opened the -tore door, but that did not exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Th- Crown relied upon the fact that prisoner had no money on the Friday night, and if they believed the witness Armstrong, that was a suspicions circumstance. On the other hand the police had verified the prisoners story that a girl had lent him money. The jury, after a shore retirement K-ought in a verdict of "not guilty" and the prisoner was discharged

XO BILL. The Grand Jury threw out the bills a.sainsx W. Rudolph. Auckland, attempted false pretences (the kauri gum case); Caarles Vwman, Dargaville, assaultGeorge Onion, Auckland, indecent assault. In all the other cases the grand iury returned true bills. J A RECOMMENDATION. - The foreman of the grand jury (Mr. G. A. Daw) read the following statement: "The grand jury wish to call the attention of the Court to the frequert cases of indecent assault on girls of tender years, and would respectfully suggest that when sentencing any person found guilty of such offences, together with the term of years, the lash be used with some degree of severity, and in cases where it is inadvisible to resort to flogging, as in cases of old age, as in one instance during this sitting, would farther respectfully recommend imprisonment for life." His Honor intimated that he would give consideration to the recommendation of the grand jury. A STOLEN" PORTMANTEAU. Henry Sinclair, alias Harry Sinclaire, alias Cyril Cosgrove, alias Furlong, was indicted upon a charge that on January 25th, at Auckland, he did steal a portmanteau containing various articles from the dwelling of Maurice O'Connor. The Hon. J. A. Tole, X.C.. Crown Solicitor, conducted the prosecution. The prisoner, who pleaded "2sot guiljfcj»" sonsfcnsted id* pjjb, defence, - ~

The case, as outlined by the Crown Prosecutor, was a very short and simple one. On January 19th, the portmanteau, which belonged to Arthur i". Barrell, a school teacher in North Canterbury, was stolen from the Waverley Hotel. It was left the same night at the luggage ofiiiie at the railway station by accused and another man. Inquiries were made, and when the men called, 'two days later, for the luggage they were closely questioned. As a result prisoner was arrested, and the other man bolted.

Evidence was given in support of these facts.

The prisoner did not cross-examine any witnesses, he did not give evidence, nor did he address the jury.

In summing up, his Honor said this seemed to be a clear case.

After a short retirement the jury brought in a verdict of "Guilty."

The prisoner had also pleaded guilty to theft from a dwelling in the lower Court. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, with hard labour, upon each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. STONE DEAF. An old man named John Bell, aged 69 years, was indicted upon a charge that on November 14th last, at Tararu, he did assault one William Burke so as to do him actual bodily harm. The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., Crown Solicitor, appeared for the prosecution. His Honor said it appeared from the depositions that the prisoner waa stone deaf. The charge against him was a very serious one, and the maximum punishment was a very severe one. Under the circumstances, he considered it to be his duty to assign counsel to defend the prisoner, and he would intimate to the Justice Department that in his opinion such a course was absolutely necessary. His Honor then assigned Mr H. P. Richmond as counsel to defend the prisoner, and adjourned the case until Friday morning, to give counsel an opportunity to go into the case. A STOLEN PURSE.

Clarence Russell and George Arthur King, alias George Arthur Giles, were indicted upon a charge that on January loth, at Aratapu, they did stSal a pocketbook, a rubber band, a cheque and £14 in money.

The Hon. J. A. Tole> K.C., Crown Solicitor, conducted the prosecution.

The prisoners, who were defended by Mr Hackett, pleaded "Not guilty."

In opening the case, Mr Tole said that on January loth the two prisoners went to the hairdressing establishment of Mr Meredith, in Aratapu, just before closing time. King had a shave, and the other man stood about the saloon. Then Hussell had a shave, and King waited about. After they had both had their shaves they left the shop. Some ten minutes later, Mr Meredith went to his coat, which was hanging in the saloon, and discovered that a pocket-book, containing £14 in notee and gold, had been taken. The pocket-book was there five minutes before the. accused came in, because he went to it to put money in from the till, as he usually did just before closing time. The police were at once informed, and later the accused were arrested in the hotel. They were found in possession of notes, and each had two sovereigns—four sovereigns being the amount of gold in the purse. Russell also had a rubber band, which Mr Meredith would swear to as being the one round his pocket-book.