CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9432, 2 June 1896, Page 3

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

[C Monday, June 1. (Before hia Honour Mi , Justice Dennis ton.) The Criminal Session of the. Supreme ~R Court opened at 11 a.m. Mr T. W. Stringer appeared to prosecute ou behalf of the .Crown. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand Jury :— Meaara C. Y. Wald, F. W. Delamain, J. W.Overton, G. McCUtchie, H. W. Fearon, D. Morrow, C. Barker, E. Jones, P. Sel-g, \V. H. Clark, John Mather, Geo. King, C. Cuff, E. O'Connor, R. M. Duncau, S. Kennedy B&ssett, A. W. Bennett, 8. Garfortb, J. Anderson, jun,, and J. H. McMillan. Mr John Anderson,, jun., was chosen as foreman of the Grand Jury. His Honour addressed the Grand Jury ai follows:—Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the/Errand Jury—Though there are a large number of cases on ttits calendar there are few which call fur special comment. It is noticeable that the calendar contains an unusually large number of cases of robbery from dwellings. Iv the majority or the cases the main evidence is the finding on the premises of the persona charged, of the goods stolen, or some portion ot them shortly after the robbery took place. Iα these cases the law calls upon the persons charged to satisfy a jury how they came into possession of the property ao found in their possession. His Honour then proceeded to comment on the cases in the > calendar. With reference to the charge cJ perjury against Richard Brown, hie Honour said the Grand Jury had to decide wheiber 1 in view of the excitement which was prevailing the witness staled what he believed ' to be true at the time as to Mr Thomas "shaping" at Dr. Deßenzi. If, however, I they were of opinion that the witness knew at the time that he was stating what he knew was not trua, then they should find a true bill. . The Grand Jury would hear the witnesses, and then would be able to judge of the facts. The Grand Jury then retired to their room to consider the bills sent in to them by the Crown Prosecutor. I FORGERY. Frederick Cooper was indicted for having on 17th February forged and uttered a cheque on the National Bank of New Zealand for £6 10s, purporting to be signed by R. Friedlander. The accused was also in- ; dieted for having on the 18th February forged two cheques on the Union Bank of Australia for £8, one purporting to be signed by R. Friedlander and the other by A. Orr. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded " Guilty" to both charges. M. M. Cleary, the Gaoler at Lyttelton, was called by the accused, and deposed to having known him for thirty years. Accused was in the police force, and also a warder. He attributed the accused's position to drink; when sober and onb of gaol the man was a thorough good worker. His Honour said that the record of the accused was a bad one. When he got drunk he seemed to be incapable of keeping from forging. He had several convictions for forgery and terms of imprisonment ranging fifom four years' penal servitude. There was also a sentence of three years' penal serfitude for cattlesteiling. It was; impossible f >>r him to give the prisoner what he asked for—" another chance." The record before the Court showed numerous "chances" for reform, but so soon as he got out of gaol he at once commenced to commit serious crimes. It. was impossible to treat the prisoner in any other manner, but as a confirmed criminal. It was matter for regret that from whatever cause a man like the prisoner should self-doom himself to a lite of confinement, bnt he (the Judge) had a duty to perform to society and this could only be done by giving the prisoner a> long term of penal servitude. He would be sentenced .to four years , penal servitude on each charge, to run concurrently. BttEAKINO AND ENTERING. John Haughton waa indicted for having on the 26t.1i April broken and entered into the warehouse of the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Association, and stolen therefrom goods to the value of £51 7s 7d. The accused, for whom Mr Joyce appeared, pleaded " Guilty." Mr Stringer said that in 1839 the accused was convicted of five separate larcenies. Mr Joyce addressed the Court for the ac- } cuaed, urging that he was weak in his mind and did not know what he was doing. There was no inducement for the robbery, aa the accused was in a good situation, and Mr Inspector Broham would cay that his conduct was good while working. Mr Inspector Brohaxn deposed that he had made enquiries as to the character of -the accused and found that he bore a good one with his employer*. He understood that be was engaged to be married. In answer to hie Honour, Mr Inspector Broham said that the robbery to which the accused had pleaded guilty, was most carefully planned. M. M. Cleary depoeed that the accused had been m<s<iic*iijr examined since his C'jdiir.itUt! as to his canity. His conduct teeoiu waj a jjgjd oue wuilet iv g*ol»

His Honour said that he had before him _ a man who, in 1889, committed five separate larcenies. In 1890 he receive.! two years for burglary, and now in 1896 he found him committing a carefully -plan ued burglary. Under those circumstances it would be absurd to treat him in any way except as a \ confirmed criminal. As bis record was a ' vjaod one for four years the sentence passed in 1890 would not be increased. He would be sentenced to two years' impriaoutnent. STEALING A BICTCLE. Edwaad Pearce, a young man of 16, was indicted for having stolen a bicycle value » £25, tbe property of John Coom bridge. ) The accused, who was uudefendsd, pleaded , " Guilty." In reply to his Honour, the accueed said that he had been living with his father nod [mother, and working on a farm. His father was not present. His Honour said that he did not like to see a boy like that sent to gaol if his previous character was good. Cerkuuly his friends or someone interested iv him should be present to look after him. I Mr Stringer said the Probation Officer ' had made inquiries, and was prepared to report. His Honoar asked what was the natura of the report. Sergeant-Major Mason said that his report was of a favourable nature. His Honour said that the boy could stand down for the present, and he would consider the report of the Probation Officer. BREAKING AND ENTERING. James Pearson was indicted for having, on 27th February, broken and entered by .lay the house of C. Parsons, at Opawa, and stoleu a quantity of clothing. The accused, for whom Mr Wee ton appeared, pleaded "Guilty." Mr VVeston addressed the Court on behalf of the accuaed. Mr Stringer said that there were two previous convictions against the accused. His Honour said that in view of two previous convictions it would be a farce to treat the accused as a first offender. He would be sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. Henry Barrett Rose was indicted for having, on the 20th May, by diy broken _ and entered the house of Frank Evans, and stoleu a gun therefrom. The same accused was indicted for havine, when armed with a gun, robbed Elizabeth B. Pegley of 2a 6d. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded " Guilty " to both charges. The case was rather a remarkable one. The accused was working for a man named Pegley and wae discharged. Some dispute took place as to payment of his wages, aud accused went off, broke into the houne took the gun, and then with it extorted 2s 6il from Mrs Pegley. I Mr' Stringer said there were several i previous convictions against the accused. He was informed that his father had done : the best he could to briug him up respectably, but had to send him to Burnham. His Honour said that though it was a sad thing to see a young man in such a position, the tecprd of accused left him no alternative but to treat him as a confirmed criminal. He would be sentenced to eighteen mouths' imprisonment, to run coucutrently on the two charges. Geo. Taylor and John Hurley, two young men, were indicted for having on 30th April stolen at Sydenham £6 10s, the property of : W. Inakip, and also for having on the same date by nay broken and entered the houee of Wm. Inakip and stolen wearing apparel thereform. The accused, who were undefended, pleaded ''Guilty" to both chaiges. Mr Stringer said that he understood as to Taylor the Probation Officer would be prepared to make a report. Aβ regarded Hurley he had been convicted in 1891 of some cases of petty theft. He understood that Mr Kippenberger intended appearing with the parents at two o'clock. His Honour aaid in that case the accuaed had better stand down till 2 p.m. E. Robert McEvoy, a young man, was indicted for having, on 14th May, broken into the warehouse of A. Khind aud C. W. Wagstaff, at Lγ t Lei ton, aud stolen money therefrom. He was further indicted for having, on the 14th M ay, broken into the warehouse of Amelia Smith, trading as J. W. Smith and Co., Lyttelton, and stolen clothing and money. The accused, "who was undefended, pleided "Guilty" to both charges. Mr Stringer said that the accused had been convicted of larceny iv Timaru in 1894, and received oue month. At a later period of the year he was convicted of larceny in Duuediu, and received three months. Detective Maddren deposed to knowing the accused, and that for ten months he was working in Christchuroh in a hotel and conducting himself well. Hie people, who were very respectable, lived at VVaimate; but the youth had not been home since his conviction in Timaru. His Honour sentenced the aocused to nine months' imprisonment. SENTENCES. f|lu the case of Edward Pearce, who had pleaded guilty to stealing a bicycle, the Probation Officer presented his report. Mr Stringer said the father of the boy was present if his Honour liked to see him. . The father of the boy s\id he had heard r.o complaint of the boy'a conduct for some two or three years. Iα answer to his Honour, the boy said he had been working on farms and getting 8i

per week wages. Hie Honour said the report from the police was not favourable, but it was atated that the boy's employers were ready to reemploy him. Hβ was willing to give the lad another chance, believing that he had yielded lo a sudden temptation to commit a crime which, in those latter days, had taken the place of horseatealing, viz., bicycle stealing. He would be placed on probation for twelve months on condition that he paid £6 towards the coals of the prosecution at the rate of 10j par month. Geo. Taylor and J. Harley, who bad pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering and t liefb, came up for sentence. Mr Kippeuberger appeared on behalf of the parents of both lads, and applied in their absence for an adjournment until he could send tor them. His Honour grouted the application. SKTTISO FIRE TO A STACK. William Bourk, another lad, was indicted for*haviug on 22ml February set fire to a stack of wheat at Elleamere of the value of £50, the property of G. E. Rhodes. Mr Caygill appeared for the accused, who Dleaded '• Not guilty." Mr Stringer prosecuted on behalf of the ;

Crown, and briefly opened the case. The case for the prosecution was that on the date of the fire the accused was in the employ of Mr 6. E. Rhodes at Ellesmere. A day or so before that date he had received notice of discharge, as he was rather a badly behaved boy and complaints had been made about him. Oα the evening of the 22nd February the accused made certtin remarks as to fire, and about 9.15 p.m. Mr Rhodes, who was fishing in the river, noticed that one of his stacks was on fire. He at once went up, and by his efforts and those of his men the other stacks were saved, but one was burnt. The accused was there at the time assisting. Subsequently he was I arrested and told the constable that he had taken some matches out of the boothouse and had made bombs with them, which had accidentally set fire to the stack. He alto said that he had cut the telephone wires leading to Mr Rhodes'e house, because he thought that Mr Rhodes was going to bring up his father and tell him or his bad behaviour. From what the boy said there ■ was no doubt that he set fire to the stacks, but it was the theory of the defence that the fire was accidental. Evidence was led in support of the case foe the prosecution. The witnesses called were Messrs G. E. Rhodes, S. Bioaking, P. McCormick, Misses Ann Scullen and Annie Beckingham. Mr Caygill called the accused. William Bourk deposed that he was sixteen years of age. Hβ was going on the night in question to look for iarkV nests as it was a moonlight night. He was making bomb 3 with matches as he went along. One of these, the last he had let off, went into the grass, and looking round after he went away lie saw the stack on fire. He was frigotened and ran away, and then he met the gardener and his men coming down towards the stack. He then went with them.

Mr Cftygill addressed the jury for the accused, submitting that the fire was the result of an accident.

The jury, after a short consultation, returaei * v«Jict of "Net guilty*"

FASSIXG VALUBr.ESS OHSQOB3. George James Ede» was indicted for having on the 4th Apri», by means of valueless cheques, obtained £5 from Thorn vs Hhailer Weston, and £2 10s in goods and 10j iv money fcom (1. L. B-?ath and Co. Hβ waa further indicted for having on 7th April, by means of valueless cheques obtained £4 iv money aud £2 10s in gooJa from John Tranter. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded " Guilty ,, to the charges. His Honour said the accused had handed up a statement which, if true, showed th*t he was not guilty ol the offence which he had pleaded guilty of. He had better withdraw hia plea of guilty, and call the banker and the clergy man whom he stated iv his statement could prove that he had reasonable anticipation that the cheques would be paid. The accused then withdrew his plea of guilty, and the case stood over till the end of the session to enable the accused to issue snbpceaas to the witnesses uained by him. SENTKXCJB. George Taylor ard James Hurley, who pleaded " Guilty " to a charge of breakiug and entering and thefc, were brought up for sentence. His Honour said he wished to hear from the parents of these lads what chance they had of beiug brought up respectably. James Taylor, father of the lad Taylor, deposed that his son was eighteen. He had been living at home, aud had been working digging chicory at 2s 6d per day. Witness was willing to take him back. The lad had so far as he knew borne a good character. Mrs Hurley, mother of the other accused, deposed that the boy was eighteen years of age, and had been living with his parents. They were willing to take cue of him if he were released. j ' His Honour said that he would place Taylor on probation. His only fear was that boys might get the notion into their heads that they could commit crime with a certainty of obtaining probation. Aβ to Hurley he was not a first offender, and therefore did not come under the Act. In reply to his Honour, Mr Stringer said he was afiaid that hie Honour could not deal with Hurley under the Aot because he (Mr Stringer) could uot say that the boy waa one of good character. His Honour asked Mr Cleary whether there existed any facilities in the gaol for keeping the younger prisoners separate from the other prisoners. Mr Cleary said that there waa, and he always kept these two classes separate. Hie Honour said that he would put Taylor on probation for twelve months, on condition of payment of £9 10s expenses of the at the rate of £1 per month. As to Hurley he would be senteuced to three months imprisonment. KOUSBBRBAKING. John Williams aud William Jenkins were indicted for having on the Bth March, by night, broken into the house of John Levetr, aud stolen certain articles therefrom ; aud aho on the same date, by day, with having broken into the house of George H. Gallagher, and stolen property therefrom. Both accused, who were undefended, pleaded "Not guilty." The accused Jenkins applied to be tried alone on the charge of breaking into the house of Levett, which was the h'rst case selected by the Crown Prosecutor.

Hie Honour said he did not see any reason for granting the application, as the accused Jenkins would not be prejudiced by being tried with the other accused person. Mr Stringer opened the caae for the prosecution, the facts of which were that on the date named the prosecutor left his house r6 Southbridge in January to go shearing, first fastening the doors and windows. Ou returning in March he found that hie house had been broken into, and various artiolea stolen. On the Bth March the accused were tramping together, and asked Miss Graham to give them a shakedown, but she refused. They then asked whether there was not another house where they could get ic. Mifes Graham, told them chat there was a bachelor's house further on, describing Levett's. A witness named Hart, a farmer in ihe neighbourhood, who had promised to look after Levett'e house, saw Wilson hang, ing about the house. On Levett'e return he found that two mattresses had been spread out in the kilchen, whioh showed that two people had slept side by side. The accueed were arrested together on the Rakaia bridge, and when arrested emery paper like that stolen from Levett's house "and a necktie, which Levetc identified as his, were found in the a wag of Wilson. Evidence wee called in support of the case for the prosecution. The witnesses examined were Messrs John Levett, Win. Hart, R. J. Patterson, Geo. Sherlaw, Patrick McCormick, and Miss Mary Graham. The two accused addressed the jury. His Honour summed up, and the jury retired at 5.20 p.m. to consider their verdict. At 6 p.m. they returned into Court with a verdict of "Not guilty" against both accused. ? TRUE BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills as under :—Stephen Barrett, indecent assault; Frederick Cooper, forgery ; James Pearson, housebreaking ; VV. Bourk, ■etting fire .to a stack; J. Wileon and W. Jenkins, housebreaking and theft; D. McGrath and J. Traynor, theft; Annie Murdoch, theft; W. Perry; theft of bicycle ;E. Pearce, theft of bicycle ; Geo. Taylor and J. Hurley, breaking and entering and theft; John Efaughtou, breaking and entering and theft; S. Northey, breaking and entering and theft; R. MoTCvoy, breaking and entering and theft : H. B. Rose, robbery with violence and housebreaking; G.J. Edeu, passing valueless cheques. NO BILLS. The Grand Jury returned no bills in the following cases :—R. Brown, perjury; J. Alexander, arson; and Alex. Lmzarette, attempting to do grievous bodily harm. After'having disposed of the various bills, The Grand Jury made a presentment through their foreman to the effect that the room in which they had to conduct their deliberations was exceedingly cold and uncomfortable, especially in the winter time.

His Honour said he would take care that the preeeutment of the Grand Jury was forwarded to the proper quarter. The Grand Jury ware then discharged. The Caurt adjourned at 6 p.m. till 10 a.m. to-day.