SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12498, 8 May 1906, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

l Tho criminal sessione of the Supreme Court opened yesterday momkig before h.ia Honour Mr Justice Denniston. GRAND JURY. Tlie following gTand jury was sworn in:—Mees-rs J. C. Wilkin. (foreman), J. W. Ix>j, B. P. Man,hire, L. M. Wilson, .; G. W. B nn.?tt, F. C. Rutland, W. i Cotterill, A. Fairbairn, A. Borrows, H. i G. Aitken, G. C. Hayward, C. Ziele, A. L. Parsons, H. D. Carter, A. E. England, C. J. Taylor, A. Pitcaithly, W. Sorensen, W. Nicholls, and W. Harvey. Mr W. H. Norton was excused. G offroy E. Royde was fined £5 for nonattendance. Mr T. W. Stringer appeared to prosecute on bohalf cf the Crown. HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. In charging the grand jury his Honour said the calendar was of the ueual class, and there was not a large j number of casca. None of them was of a specially serious character, although some wore tho usual unpleasant sexual , casce of which, unfortunately, they had so many. THE GRAND JURY'S FINDING. Tho grand jury returned truo biHe in the following caerfi:— Matth-ew r inlay PatonsoJi, voting twice at tiie i general election; Wm. James, breaking and ente-rmg ;uid theft; Fredk. Wilbert Baker, israkcent assault; Jolin W. Churchiield, tsboft (two counts); Jol;rt Kennedy, a.*:iult, ciLiisiiig actual bodily > harm; Daiiiiel Gimn, aesault on a girl j under sixteen years; Stephen Saj-gant, thuft from the pensvn. The biil.s wrv> thrown out in tho c;:.se of Fritnk William indtevn-t a-jwiuit (tv.u charges) and John C.rcwbie, tlictt. PRISONERS SENTENCED. j I Fivo pri&onere, who had pleaded j guilty in tho lower court, came up lor ! sentence. ] Tho.?. Ht'nry Man-ley was brought up' for sentence for t'n-?ft (two charg. s). ■■ Mr T. G. RuHsall appeared for the ■ prisoner, and afiktxl that ho be d«dt • with under, the Fuet Offenders' Act., j Mansk'v was carrying ou bueiiu<fe in j Chrietciiurch an a chdiui>r. and spfciali.st , and had never beloie been charged w:ih | an offence. He obtained jewellery on approUition r.ud then th."articles, in ord-L'r to lerwl money to a ! woman, from AshburUm, in accordance ' with a pixjiniff? made. He had intend...<) to redeem th. , goocls as soon as ho ie- ] ceived money tiat was due to him. Ho I had ftincj r<Kleem.~d the at a oosl, ! including the charged, of abi>ut ' £45. I Hii-> Honor said the reports of the; | probation ofi«cers did not eatisiy him ■ that the prisoner wafl of good clMracter. I The man wa*> ;33 years <jt age, and tne Probation Act wan meant primarily to i meet catoe where young men yieided to i eudden temptation. It wae a very jiood ! Act, but he could not lioip think.ng tliat it was made use of by men intend- ; ing to commit a ciime. Aocuted wouid ! be eentenced to six months' | ment on each charge, the terms to run concurreiitlj William George Smith, charged with j thoft on five counts, was remanded until thie mon>Lirg, en t<K' application of Mr Harper, to enable the probunon officer'e report/ to bo obtained. Lilian .Uc-Uahon, 21 (.Sir Cacsidy) '■ came up for sentence for t-hoft. Mr Cassidy eaid the girl had hitherto bon>e a good character, and he aekt.-d that she be granted probation under the Act. His Honour said tho girl had stolen a. large amount of money and had i-pout it all in jewellery and personal finery. Accused's mother said ehe had repaid £20 to the proeccutrix. Wit<ne<« would take the girl back with her to Dunedn. if at'owed the opportunity, and look after her. , Mr Stringer said the girl had pxe-

' viouely borne a good character. Jewellory to tlw. value ot £30 or £40 wn.cii she had purchased with the stolen money waa in the hands of the police. His Honour granted probation for i 12 months. I Subsequently his Honour made the I follow Lug statement in regard to the • caee:—"The evidence showed plainly j fhat tie offence in this case was what I she was diarg-jd with on the information. On the application of countwl for the accused, the police consenting, the information was, after the- depositkxie were taken, amended by stinking put the words 'stealing from a dwelling house.' To this information the accused pleaded guilty and was remanded for seiritMice. I express no opkikai es to a Magistrate dealing as he thinks best in this respect with a case which ho proposes to adjudicate upon himse4f. But cases of this clat-s go to tlw Supr rem-e Court for sentence. In ordinary circumsUuicte it does not matter wluit is tlie form of t'he iufonmation on which the accused is oonimkitod for trial. The Crown Prosecutor can indict for any crime in his opinion disclosed on the evidence. But under The Indictable Offences Summary Juri=dict'um Act, 1000, the nocu-vd has, if He decides to plead guilty in the MagistrateY* Court, to plead 'guilty to tho offence charged.' It i« for such offence only that he can be sentenced. Tho ef'tect of the alteration therefore, ifl to limit t'lie Supreme Court, to Exiling with the minor offence. It is obvious that this is a limitation which, should rot be hnposrd on the Supremo Court. In such a case the Crown could of course enter a. nolle proseqiii and have a fresh information lnid. bnt it is cbvious that Pitch an alternative ehotild not bo necessary, aiid that the limitation is not one which should be imposed upon the Supreme Court. I had recently in Nelson to dt-al with a sonifwlk*c similar case. It will of coiuv*) onh- by n;-ce:-sary for mc to draw a.tt-»n-tion to the matter." Edwoxd Home (21) cww op for sontr>neo for breaking and eortering and theft (three ehargos), and tihcft of horses (four charges). Mr Srring.r paid accused was inoorrigble ; 'he was an old Burnham boy and had been convicted twice. His Honour said accused had had every chance, but had appa.ron.tly determined to live by warring on society. He wculd have received a very long term had lie been older. He would be sesntenoed to eighteen months' impri*onm?nr. on each charge, the tonne to ran concurrently. In the cisc of Owen Patrick Brosnahan, breaking and entering (nirao charges). Mr Stringer mid accused, who had been to Caversham and Burniiam, had a very had record. He had beeji convict d on previous occasions, and in the present case had raided eight or nine housi\s, s'oaliug jewellery to the value of about £150. His Honour said accused's youth saved him from a term. He would be sentenced to eighteen months on. each charge, the terms fco run concurrently; if he ever came before the Court again lie would be dealt with very severely. STABBING AFFRAY. Jceoph Brown waa indicted that, on May 3cd, with intent to do grievous bodily harm to one Walter Rae, he dad wound him by stabbing him with a knife; end further, that ho did aesmlt him so as to cause Kirn actual bodily harm. Accused, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Walter Rao, license*) of the Railway Hotel, Ft-ated that he was sitting upstairs with two lady friends, when accused came to the door, and called out "Walter." Witness took do notice, end shortly after accused entered, walked into the middle of the room end shouted "Come here." Then accused cried out, "You , I'll do for you, , " and struck witness on the chin with a knife. Witness' hand was also out, and he thought accused etruck him twice, but could not say positively, as he was so dazed at the time. Aectißod had been boarding at the hotel for several daw, but witnw-e bad had no quarrel with him, and could not account for the assault. Accwxid was sober so far as ho could sec. Mary Jane Stevens, who was in the room with Rae, said she caw accttred etrike Rae twice, but ehe did not ccc a knife. In, reply to accused witness said that on the preceding Sunday ehe had a drink with him. In reply to hw Honour witness raid they wore not in the bar on the Sunday afternoon, but in the sitting-room. Accused aekod her bo have a drini, he " wanted to shout for all hands, including the He was sober. Eleie Mβv Stevens, daughter of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence; she saw the knife, which wae an ordinary pocket knife. Dr. Marks said he attended Rae on the niglit in question. There was a lacerated wound on the thumb of tho left hajid, 2§ inches in length, and another on. the face half an inch long. Seven stitches wore put in the hand and one in tho face. I Acetified, who declined to be sworn, said Iro hnd no recollection whatever of striking Rae. After a short retirement, tbo jury returned with a verdict of guilty on tho «?eond count. Accused was sentenced to six months' imprifonment. BREAKING AND ENTERING. William Junes (Mr Donnelly) pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a I dwcllmz-hotuso by night, on March 14th, with ijirr-nt to commit a crime. Mr Donnolly said tho acou-ed l*ad Ik* n conviotnd before, but during the j oighteu months that had olanwxl einoe j ho name nut of gaol ho had l>eon earnj ing his living honestly as a tailor. Drink wa< the oau-e of tho trouble. His Honour srsirl a man who was in ih" luil.if of breaking into houses when he was drunk n.i.s .-is dimerous a/s if ho J tVd uni drink. He rwd had chances, i and taken i>o advantage of them. It ; i'i'> a ca-»o for a siibs<<!!?itiiil tontence, ' .'ml would be committed to gnol f(ir j two ycnrp. | j THEFT FROM THE PERSON. i Stephen Siller-ant pleaded guilty to ! fcUxilinq; a pur.-c from tli v person, "con- ; ta-inii:g -C' 7 10s. j }lr ihinj. .-aid accused had nover boi fmy hi en clwrged with anything more : .-f j than drimkeniuis, of which hejiad several M'mps bc*-n convicted. lii> Honour fiaid ho would give the man tlie beuetit cf his previous gocxl i character, and sentenced him to thrx; iiionths' imprisonmonl. , AT THE GENERAL j ELECTION. j Matthew TinU-y Potcreon was charged i il.at, on December 6th, at tho general I election of members to" the House of ' R-i-imsrontatives. in t!ie Eiwtoral Dis!tr:of cf Ashburton, having voted once, j at such cl«>ct-io!i. he did apply again for j v voting paper in his own name. Accused pleaded not guilty. I Mr Scringer said tlie accused was • charged with the offence that was known as pergonal ion. Accused receiv- , «-<l a voting paper at TinwaJd, and cori recriy rtconk-d his vote. Tln>n he went . to Ayhburtcn, olrtained another paper, and votefi. Robert Tyson Hodgson, who acred ac J pofi clerk at Tinwald, deposed to giving ac«iv-ed ->& papers to vote. Tine man knew whet he was doing, although ho was not sober. He did not see the accused put the papers in the box. Jolui Davidton. deputy-returning offcor «t tho Tinwald bootli, ptate<l that i wfcvn the scrutiny was mace after the j poll was taken it "appeanvt that accused had votod twice. When wkiic* f>aw him at tho booth he w«k und<*r the innuenno of liquor, but not to such an extent as to justify wrtne c in iefu«ing to give him a voting papor. Thee. Wm. Tay.or, returning officer at A*hburton, said he had charge of tho Courthouse booth. Ashbiirtoa. AocUHed entered the booth, applied for mid received voting papers. He placed tho papeie in the baUot-boxeSj aifcer re-

tiring to tb« inner eomparttnent with them. The subsequent scrutiny bo«wed that aooused had apparently voted twice. Constable Jones aieo deposed to eeeing accused vote at .Ashburton. Ue eeemed to b« in a bt condition to vote. Accused gave eridenoe on hie own behalf. He drove' into Aehburton and took a bottle of whisky with him. He went to the Courthooeo, but wae not allowed to enter, Constable Stewart telling him he was drunk. He then went to Tinwald »nd woe allowed to vote there. He did not remember what time be got back to Ashburton. Hβ was fairly well drunk when he left TinwaJd, and did not remember reaching Aehburton, nor dad he remember vofcinc »t Aehburton. Recalled, Constable Jones a*id be was in charge of the Ashburton booth all day, and ho knew nothing of accused by Constable Stewart, as alleged. lUe jury returned with a verdict of "Guilty," but did not think the accused had acted witJi oriminal intent. His Honour said he could not accept that verdict; if there was no criminal intent accused bouM not be found guilty. It was practically a verdict of "Guilty and Not Guilty. ,, They must find him oither guilty or not guilty, but could make what recommendation they choee. After a brief consultation the rerdict wae altered to one of "Guilty," with, a strong recommendation to mercy. Accused appealed for leniency, as he had been under the influence of drink at the time. In reply to his Honour, t'ne Crown Pnoercutor fcaid accused had been, convicted of drunkenness, and in 1896 he was convicted of a very serious offence. Hia Honour eaid he could not admit accused to probation. The offence was often regarded lightly, but it was a j very Aorious one. Hβ wou-ld bo senI tenced to one month's imprisonment. Th ■ Court then adjourned until ten o'clock this morning.