SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11581, 12 May 1903, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened yesterday before Mr Justice Dennieton. THE GRAND JURYThe following were snvorn in as the Grand Jury: —Messrs J. J. Milner, F. Kesteven, A. Kaye, E. W. Waller, E. R. Webb, A. Hancock. B. M. Molineaux, A. H. Turnbull. W. Wardell, J. Richardson, H. B. Sorensen, H. Wood, G. Gardiner, E. H. England, S. W. Smith, W. Moore, H. L. Bowker, Junr., F. Trent, J. Hall, and F. 0. Bishop. Mr A. H. Turnbull was chosen foreman. HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. His Honour, in delivering his charge to the Grand Jury, said that generally lie could congratulate the Grand Jury on the comparative smallness of the calendar, and the comparative mildness of the cases, but in the present case he μ-os afraid he was not able to oifer any such congratulations. The calendar was "an exceptionally long one in numbers, and also contained a number of das/es of cases of a very serious character from one point of view. There were twenty-six charges against seventeen persons. In addition there were six cases in which the accused liad pleaded guilty, which would not therefore come before the Grand Jury. His Honour then proceeded to xefer in detail to the' different cases. His Honour's remarks upon the indecency and sexual cases are reported elsewhere. WORK OF THE GRAND JURY.

During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills against McAlister and Webb, breaking, entering, and theft; James Gil , and Jaiuj* Smith, breaking, entering, and theft ; Edward Lars-en, indecent assault; Percy Codling, horse stealing; James Choiit and George John.yon, assault and robbery; Duncan McLeLlan, indecent assault ; and David Sondford, incest (two cases); Frank Giles Hemplenian, theft; W. J. Jones, incest; Wilfred Badger, criminal libel; I,eonard Shead, indecent assault; Bernard McKernan, arson; Thomas Smule, obtaining money undw false pretences; Michael O'Malley, W. Murray, and Joseph Coaites, robbery with violence; Harry Bamford and C. G. Driscoll, robbery with violence; and Walter Hill, fraudulent dealing. No bill was returned agtiinst Jam.cc Frederick Malcolm Fairburn for indecent assault. SENTENCES. Alexander Findlay, who had previously pleaded guilty to a charge of escaping from lawful custody at Timaru, appeared for sentence. His Honour said that as the accused was awaiting trial at Tinwru for another offence, it would be better for the same Judge to deal with the two coses. He would accordingly remand the accused tall the next sitting of the Court at Timaru. Henry Francis Smith, for breaking, entering, and theft at Waimate, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Mr Stringer, the Crown Prosecutor, mentioned that the accused was an old Caversbam school boy, and there were several previous convictions against him. Henry Lyndhurst, -who gave his age as seventeen years, and who had pleaded "Guilty" to a charge of breaking, entering, and theft at Waimate, applied for probation. His Honour, after looking up "the reports, said the accused appeared to be a first offender. He would give him the benefit of the doubt, and would place him on probation for six months. John Brown, charged with breaking and entering at Christchurch, also applied for probation, adding that he had been thirty years in Christchureh, and had never been before the Court before. His Honour said the report was unfavourable, but lie woulj allow for the time the accused had been in gaol. and. sentence him to three months' imprisonment. David Gurdler appeared for sentence upon a charge of attempted rape at Christchureh. Mr Beswick said he had been asked by the accused's parents to say that the prisoner was of -weak intellect and not altogether responsible for his actions. His Honour said that unfortunately there was no institution for dealing witti such cases, and the only choice was either to send the prisoner to gaol, or to allow him to remain at Sarge with a weak intelleot and a tendency to commit offences on little children. It .seemed to him it was exactly the class of case in which, in the unfortunate absence of an institution of the sort he ■bad referred to, he was bound, in the public interests, to declare that the prisoner should be kept in seclusion for a considerable time somewhere else. It was much better that the accused should be in gaol than that children should be liable to be attacked by him. Looking at the nature, of the offence, and that it was simply a wise of indecency, ho would deal with it as an indecent oseault, and impose a sentence of two years. Frederick Oabbe, charged with theft at. Christchurch, explained that for the last two years, since he had come out. of gaol, he had been trying to Itad an honest life, but he luid been hunted from pillar to post 4>y the police and detectivee. He asked for mercy.

After looking up the prisoner's past record, his Honour passed a sentence of three years' imprisonment. Francis Minnis, for whom Mr Harinan appeared, came up for sentence, after being found "Guilty" ut Timaru, of incest. His Honour said he knew the crime of incest was very common, jnuch commoner, he imagined, than was believed. He felt, however, that the accused person was often one of the least guilty in the matter. Children, often illegitimate, were born into the world, they were brought up anyhow, and lived a number of them pigged together, in places, and under circumstances which made decency impossible. Under these circumstances it was absurd to suppose that wliat were generally considered the restraints between relatives on sexual matters could fail to be removed in a very large number of cases. For much of that the accused persona were not responsible—at least, were les.s guilty than the circumstances which made such conditions possible. However, the law had made these offences crimes, and he had io deal not with the result on the individual, but with the result to society. The jury had recommended the prisoner to mercy, and the circumstances were such as to

justify, to some extent, the finding of the jury." Under the special circumstances of the cose, he would impose the very light sentence of six months.

ALLEGED BREAKING AND THEFT. James Gill and James Smith pleaded "Not Guilty" to an indictment charging them with "having, on January 29th, 1903, broken into and entered the Orford Hotel, and stolen half a gullon of whiekey, six bottles of beer, and one bottle of whisky. of a total value of £2 3s, the property of Thomas Lyndon, the licensee. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused Gill. The evidence led for the Crown was to the effect that on the afternoon of January 29th the licensee of the Orford Hot*! locked up his house and left. On returning he found the place had been broken iuto, and the liquor gone. Gill and Smith were subsequently arrested, and eaoh accused the other of committing the crime. The jury retired at a quarter past two. When the jury returned at twenty-five to three the foreman stated that the jury found Gill guilty of taking the liquor, and not guilty of breaking and entering. A verdict of not .guilty was returned as regards Smith. His Honour said he would take into consideration the fact that the accused had already beeu three months in gaol, and would" sentence him to one month's imprisonment. INDECENT ASSAULT. Edward Larson, a lad of 15, was indicted for that on February 14th, at WooUtcn, he did indecently assault Ernest Ransley. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, who pleaded "Guilty" to the charge. Mr DonneF.y said the lad's character had previously been good. Hi.s Honour sentenced the accused to a week's imprisonment, and ordered that ho should receive a whipping of twelve strokes. HORSE STEALING.

Percy Codling (Mr Donnelly) pleaded guilty to a charge, of having, on February 22nd, at Fendalton, stolen a black mare valued at £40, the property of William Bong. His Honour sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment. ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. James Chout and George Johnson were indicted for thai on March. Ist tut Christchurch they did assault and rob David Burke. Eai'h accused pleaded "Not guilty" to the indictment. Mr Donnelly appeared for Chout, and Mx Vincent foe Johntion. David Burke gave evidence that he nut Johnson in town on Saturday night, March Ist, and went to a. fish shop with. him. On leaving the shop about 12 o'clock they met Chout, wflto followed up close behind. At Johnson's suggestion he went down a right-of-way near the City Hotel, and while in the right-of-way Johnaon hit him on the head. The two men then seized hold of him, and knocked him down, and erne of them took about 14s from his pocket. He called for the police, and the two men went away.

Further evidence o» behalf of the prosecution was given by D. Lumsden, C. Watson, J. KingsUind, M. Holler, and Constable McCormiek. For the defence, Aloric Joyce, a collector, gave evidence that he was in Chout's company on the evening of March Ist until twenty-five minutes past twelve, when he left him at Aitken and Roberta's corner. Up tc the time he left Chout, Johnson had not been in their company. Evidence was also given by William Walker and) William White. Chout, in the comse of his evidence, said that he heard a row in the right-of-way, and went in, and separated the two men who were struggling on the ground. He had not touched Burke at all, end had taken no money from him. Johnson also gave evidence. The jury retired at half-past four, and ten minutes later returned a vexdict of "Not guilty" against Chout, and a verdict of "Guilty" against Johnson for assault with intent to rob. His Honour sentenced Johnson to twelve months imprisonment, to run concurrently with another term the accused is now serving. EMBEZZLEMENT. Frank Giles Hempleman pleaded "Guilty" to each of three indictments charging him with stealing different sum--, of money from his employer, Frank Eagan, of Kuiapoi. The dates"and sums mentioned in the indictments v/ere: —December 3rd, 1900, £1 7s; 3th January, 1901. £1 7s; Ist March, 1902, £3 Is 6d;" Ist June. 1902, £4 Is; Ist November. 1902. £6 15s; 25th September, 1902, £1 7b; 30th September, 1902, 6s; 13th December, 1902, £1 12s; 28th February, 1902. lCs; 11th April, 9s; 22nd February. 6s 6d; Bth August, 1902, 8s 6d; 20th December, 1902, 6s 6d. Mr Russell appeared for tlie prisoner, and applied for probation on account of the good character previously borne by the accused.

In reply to the judge, Mr Stringer said that when the case came before the lower Court, the total amount ascertained to be missing was £211. Since then further investigations had proved that there were other sums not accounted for, and the stock was also deficient to the extent of £100. It was also found that the books kept by the accused did not disclose the actual position of affaire. There were also reasons for the gravest suspicion as to' the occurrence of the fire at the brewery where the accused had been employed. His Honour said the case was not one for probation. In his opinion it would be a most serious misfortune to the country H it became understood that men in positions of trust could go on using their employer's money, trusting, as people always did, that they would be able to replace it by some lucky speculation, or something of that sort, and feeling that if anything happened they would be able to get" probation. That to his mind would ba a most dangerous abuse of an Act which was meant to deal with very different circumstances. The nocueed would be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The Court then adjourned till 10 this morning.