SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9434, 4 June 1896, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, June 3.

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) The criminal sessions were resumed at 10 a.m. THEFT. J. Traynor was indicted for having stolen certain money from one Patrick Gallagher. Dennis McGratb, who had been committed for trial with the accused, and had been released on bail, did not appear when called upon, and hia recognisances were ordered to be estreated. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused (Traynor. Mr Stringer prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and briefly opened the case to the jury. The case for the prosecution was that he (prosecutor) had received a sum of money and got into company with the accused. Amongst the money in the possession of tbe prosecutor was a £20 note. The accused McGrath asked the prosecutor to show him the £20 note to let him look at the number. Prosecutor pulled out the note, and McGrath snatched it away from him and passed it to Traynor, and then made off. He sang out to one of his fellow boarders. Subsequently the prosecutor went for the police, and on returning he gave both accused into custody. After the accused were committed for trial in the lower Court McGrath paid tbe prosecutor a cheque for £20, which was cashed. After the prosecutor, Patrick Gallagher, had been examined and cross-examined by Mr Donnelly, Mr Donnelly said that as the accused wished the case conducted on different lines to what he (Mr Donnelly) thought it should be, there was no other alternative but for him to withdraw from the case at this stage. The accused then conducted his own defence, cross-examining the prosecutor at great length. tL'he other witnesses examined were Messrs P. Burke, R. Shanks, Henry Smith, James Gillespie, John Koster, and £. Howell. The accused addressed the jury, his Honour summed up, and the jury returned after ten minutes* retirement with a verdict of "Guilty," with a recommendation to mercy on the ground that he had been drawn into the crime by McGrath. Mr Stringer said tbe accused faad%een oonvioted of forgery and uttering and also of false-pretences. His Honour said he was confident that the transaction was a " plant," and was carried out by tbe accused. He would be sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. FAME FRKTENOKB. Gdo. James Eden was indicted for having obtained certain money from Thos. Shailer Weston and Q. L. Beach and Co. by means of valueless cheques. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded •♦Not guilty." Mr Stringer prosecuted on behalf of the drown and briefly opened tho case. The witnesses called were Messrs T. S. Weston, F. 8. Malcolm and Percy Cox. The accused called Rev. Mr Coates, of Bydenham, who deposed that he had received a deposit receipt in January last from the acoused to take care of for him. The deposit receipt was on the Petersham branch ef the Bank of Australasia. C. K. Sams, accountant of the Bank of Australasia at Christchurch, deposed that the accused came to him and made a statement that he had a sum of money in the Petersham branch of the Bank at Sydney. The amount was £21 ss, as stated by acoused. Witness advised him to, draw a cheque if he desired to collect it and he did ao. Witness sent the cheque, which was returned unpaid. The inference he, as a banker, drew from that was that there was no money to meet it. The reply from the Petersham branch arrived on Bth April. The accused did not come back to the Bank after the 2nd April. M. M. Cleary, ohief gaoler at Lyttelton, deposed to receiving the acoused on committal from the North Island on the 29th of

May. The accused stated that he had paid the amount of £21 odd in cheques into the Bank before leaving Sydney, and he drew the cheques in good faith that he had this money to his credit. His Honour summed up, and the jury, without retiring, brought ia a verdict of "Guilty." His Honour said the defence waa an Impudent one, as for two years prior to the giving of the so-called deposit receipt to Mr bates he had been in gaol. The whole thing was an impudent transaction, and the accused seemed to be irreclaimable. His last sentence had been two years, and so joou as he came out of gaol he preyed upon sooiety. He would be sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Mr Stringer did not proceed with the other cases against the same accused.

His Honour adjourned the matter till next aeasion in order that Mr Stringer might get the sanction of the Crown.

This concluded the sittings,