SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9182, 13 August 1895, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

■» CRIMINAL SESSION.

Mondat, AtrousT 12. (Before bis Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) The criminal session of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a. m. Mr T. W. Stringer appeared to proaecute on behalf of the Crown. The following gentlemen were sworn as Grand Jury:—Messrs P. J. Fryer (foreman), M. O'Brien, S. D. Barker W. Tonka. D. B. Low, L. W. Blake, H. Mcllraith, C. Palairet, E. Blake, T. Gapes, H. L. Bowker, E. Tooraer, W. J. Williams, R. iorbes, M. Cunningham, W. G. Brittan, J. A. Marciel, G. Mclntyre, E. H. Pavitt, J. R. Brunt, and A. W. Beavea. His Honour, addressing the Grand Jury, ■aid :—Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, the calendar of cases for trial on this occasion is not a lengthy one, and the cases are—comparatively speaking— not of a serious character. It is matter tor congratulation that there are no cases of offences against the person amongst those for trial. It will therefore be only necessary for mc to shortly refer to the facte of the several cases as set forth in the depositions. run His Honour then proceeded to refer shortly to the salient points of the various cases. In referenco to the perjury case against L*. J. Bruce, his Honour, after referring to the words alleged to have been used, went on to say that, assuming the words to have been used, it was practically admitted that they were untrue—not necessarily wilfully uutrue—because it was a matter of physical demonstration Vbat from the window of the accused the eutraoce to the bar in George ■treet could not, be seen by him. The *uostautial question to be tried by the Grand Jury was whether there was prima facxe evidence that the accused used the words alleged. A considerable number of witnesses epoke to the words being used and thequestionsof the meaning of the words, the explanation of the accused, and of course the evidence which might bo brought in rebuttal were nec«flsarily for a common jury to decide. If, therefore, tne Grand Jury were of opinion that there was prima facie evidence on which a common jury could reasonably convict it was their ducy to return a true bill. Their duty was not to try cases, but aimply to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case. The Grand J ury then retired to consider the bills sent in by the Crown Prosecutor. HOUSE BREAKING, Robert Carlyle was indicted for having, on the 14th of March, atLauriston, by day, broken into and entered the house oi Wni. Hampton and stolen therefrom a watch and money. Ibeaccused.who was undefended, pleaded *' Not guilty." Mr Stringer prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that on the date mentioned in the indictment the prosecutor left his house securely locked up. On returning he found that his house had been broken into and a watch and purse atolen. On the following day the accused was arrested, and whilst the constable was taking him to the lock-up he saw accused endeavouring to conceal something in his hat. This on examination turned out to be a watch, whicn was identified as the one atolen from the prosecutor's house. The accused stated that he fouud the watch on the road. Mr Stringer briefly opened the case to the jury, and called evidence. The accused made no defence, only asking to be let off on probation. Hie Honour summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." Mr Stringer read the records of the convictions against the prisoner ranging from 1882, consisting of charges of vagrancy, larceny, illegally on premises, theft, &c. Hie Honour said the prisoner seemed to be of weak intellect, but men whose weakness of intellect took the form of bnrglary, theft, and housebreaking were better under reatraint for some time. Tho sentence would be two years' imprisonment. HOTJBEEBEAKINO. James Bead was indicted for having, on the 21st of May, broken and entered the Christchurch Museum, and stolen therefrom several articles, comprising gold specimens, diamonds, and gold jewellery, the property of the Board of Governots of Canterbury College. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr Stringer prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that in May last some repairs were being made to the Museum. On the evening of the day mentioned in the indictment the building was securely locked up, but on the following morning it was fouud that a window had been opened by some one, and that the jewellery, &c, had been stolen. The accused up to the 28th of May was hard up, and had no money. On that day, however, he was flush of money, and paid hie landlady. On that day Mr Ketterer, a jeweller, purchased some gold from a person whom he identified aa the accused. On a subsequent occasion the Bame person Bold a second lot of gold. The gold purchased had pieces of glass in it, which would be proved to be similar to that atolen from the Maseurn. When accused wa» accosted by Detective O'Connor as Bead be denied that , this was bis name and said that it was Boss, which would be proved to be untrue. . Mr Stringer opened the ease to the jury (aid called evidence. At the close of the case for the Crown, The accused deposed that his name was William John Boss; that he was in Christ* ohuroh for five weeks after the robbery. He bad never sold the gold to the jeweller in Lyttelton, nor had he seeu him in hie life. Be was in Christcburch that night when the gold was sold. Witness had got into trouble in Auckland, and the police bad had bis photo taken. To screen himself and save the man who really sold the gold the jeweller identified him from the photo. Aβ so the money he had, he got £4 from a man who owed it to him, on the 28th of May, and paid the landlady. His Honour summed up, and the jury after a short retirement brought in a verdict of " Not guilty." BREAKING WINDOWS. Margarot Hurst was indicted for having, on the let of August, wilfully broken a pane of glass in the shop of John Rhodes, High street. The accused, who was defended by Mr Russell, pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Stringer prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that the accused, who bad occupied the shop next to that of Mr Rhodes on tho date mentioned, threw bone shoes through the window. Mc Rhodes had taken the shop occupied by the accused from the landlord, and she felt annoyed at his doing so. Mr Stringer opened the case to the jury and called evidence. At the dose of the case for the Crown, Mr Bussell opened the case for the defence, and stated that be intended to prove, by a disinterested witness, that Mrs Stratford, a daughter of the accused, wasaccused of having broken the window, and that it was not till after the window had bean broken that tho accused came out. He would also show that the police on coming to the place arrested Mrs Stratford. The accused would deny that she threw the shoes, or that she had any ill will to induce her to do so. Arthur McMahon derosed that on tho evening of Ist August he was inside the •hop talking to Mr Rogera, who was writing a, sign on the window. Witness stood halfway down the shop, and was there when the window was broken. Mrs Stratford, who is the daughter of the accused, came in directly after the glass was broken. The carpenter, who was working there, said to Mrs Stratford, "You broke the window." Wben Mrs Stratiord came in, young Rogers Mid, " These are the shoes it was done with "or " that you did it with." Robineon, the carpenter, had charged Mrs Stratford with having broken the window. Witness never saw accused in the shop until after the window was broken. She ■aid, "What's the row." No one accused Mrs Hunt of having broken the window. The accused and other witnesses also gave evidence. Mr Russell addressed the jury, and his Honour summed up. The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty," and his Honour made an order granting bail to the accused till next session, ber husband undertaking to pay the cost of the damage don*.

NO BILLS. The Grand Jury returned no bills in the following cases:—Regina v Thomas Kennedy, horaeatealing ; Regina v Otene Kuku Karaitana, attempted suicide. TKUB BILLS. During the day tho Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases :—Regina v Robert Carlyle, housebreakins; Regina v Margaret Hurat, wilfully breaking a pane of glass; Regina v George Fuller, breaking and entering ; Regina v Jane Williams and E. M. Williams, theft; Regina v H. Thomas, breach of the Bankruptcy Act; Regina v George Peck, bigamy; Regina v George J. Bruce, perjury ; Regina v Alfred Nottingham, horsestealing and theft. The Grand Jury, who made no presentment, were then discharged.