SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12966, 20 November 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tho criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday before his Honour Mr Justice Chopman. \LL£GED CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Liliian Finny Jane Hobbs was charged that, on the 7th October, at Christchurch, she disposed of the dead body of her infant male child, with intent to conceal the fact thot she had been delivered of tho s«id child. Thfc accused, who was defended bj Mr O. T. J- Alpers. pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Stringer, K.C.) outlined the facts of tho case. He Mid accused hod stated the child was born in tho lavatory at Fail's restaurant, where it- was left for an hour. Tho body was afterwards found in « box in accused's room. Evidence was given by Gertrude Beams (.housemaid). Detective Ward, and J)r. Inglis. | Mr Alners addressed tho jury on boholf of the accused. To convict tho girl they must find that she had « deli- | berate and formed intention of concealing the fact that she had been delivered. Sho was in a state of physical distress and anguish and mental torture, and was utterly incapable of forming any intention of concealing whit must have been obvious to everyone around her. She had made no effort to hide tho traces of her crime. In tho course of his summing up, his Honour .said that tho jury was really considering the accused's conduct after tho first hour, when 6ho went back to tho lavatory to get the child's body. Was it an act with intent to conceal the birth, or was it done under tho impulse of a bewildered woman, who appreciated the fact that she hid to remove tho body from tho lavatory, but had no formed intention of concealing the birth? The jury, after a retirement of twenty minutes, returned a vordict of not guilty, and tho accused wbs discharged. ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION. Rowland Wilfred Langdown was charged that ou the 2fjth September, ho wilfully made a false statement touching tho age of Emily llautin, for the purpose of having the same inserted in tho marriage notice book of tho Christchurch district. Tho accused, who was defended by Mr McConnell, pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the accused had informed tho Registrar ol Marriages in September, 190-5, of his intended marriage to Emily Rantin. Ho stated that the girl was over 21 years of age, when, in fact, she was only 19, and therefore could not contract a legal marriago without the consent of her parent. The accused knew hor ago, as he had applied to the girl's mother for her consent, which had been refused on tho ground that the girl was under age. Evidence was given by Caroline Rantin, the mother of Emily Langdown, nee Rantin. Counsel for tho defence crossexamined with the object of showing that the proceedings hud been taken or authorised by her on account ot family differences, which arose after the aot of tho accused had heen condoned. Tho -witness stated that it was on account of Langdown's behaviour latterly that sho had put tho law in motion against him. V L. C. Williams, Registrar of Marriages, gave particulars of the statement made by tho accused. In reply to Mr McConnoll, he stated that the answers to the questions might have been given by Mrs Langdown. Tho accused gave evidence on his own bc-ha)f. He stated that his wife went to the Registrar's office with him, and rntWmed the Registrar that she was 21 years old. He had no reason to doubt what she said. Mrs Rantin had consented to tho marriage; she said that if the girl wanted him, she was satisfied. . , After a short retirement, tho jury returned a verdict of not guilty. BURGLARY. James Mclntyre and Frank Sayles, two young men, were charged with breaking and entering!the dwellinghouse of the Rev. J. Mackenzie, and stealing jewellery valued at £b0; on a second count they were charged with having received an opal ring t knowing it to have been stolen. Both accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Donnelly appeared for Sayles, and Mr Hunt for Mclntyre. Tho Crown Prosecutor stated that Mr and Mrs Mackenzie left thoir house on Sunday evening, the 3rd inst.. securely locked and fastened. When they returned they found that sOmo person or persons had ransacked the house, and some articles of jewellery stolen. Tho men we/o soon next day at the racecourso by a detective, whose suspicions were aroused by their behaviour. He saw Mclntyre showing something to the other man, and he asked to see it. Mclntyre refused t<, show it, and in a struggle which followed he got rid of tho article ho had in his hand. Immediately afterwards a man named McTeague came out of an outhouse, and handed tho detective an opal ring, which he explained hnd been thrown in a moment before. Sayles, who had been associated with Mclntyre, bolted immediately the detective took hold of the lattor. Tiie men had been seen together on the previous evening in the vicinity of tho house, and they saw Mr and Mrs Mackenzie leaving Entrance had been effected by breaking a window, and blood stains were found on the curtain. When Mclntyre was arrested it was noticed that ho had a cut on his hand. Evidence was given by Mrs Mackenzie (who identified the opal ring) and Lillian Staunton (who produced articles showing blood stains), Elli Roche, Edward McTeague, and Detective Connell. In summing up, his Honour said i that it would be the most remarkable coincidence one could imagine, if the accused wtje innocent, that the two men, who had been so positively Identified by Miss Roche, should be found in the vicinity of the place where the stolen ring wa6 found, tlie day after the robbery. After a retirement of 4o minutes the jury returned a verdict of guilty ag.tin.st both prisoners. Mr Stringer said that Mclntyre had l>een convicted on three occasions tor theft. Tlie other man had not been convicted for any offence involving dishonesty, but he had been,, convicted twice of selling obscene and indecent postcards. His Honour, in passing sentence, warned Mclntyre that ho was going perilously near being declared an habitual criminal, and advised him to bo very careful of his conduct in future, or he would bo subject to indeterminate imprisonment. Tbe sentence of the Court on Mclntyre was three years' imprisonment, with hard labour. .As to Sayles, ho had deliberately associated himself with the other man, and must have known something of his character. Sayles (weeping): I have never thieved anything in my life; in my own heart," I am not guilty. His Honour said that Sayles must be held responsible, though the other man was probably- tho real author of the crime. Ho was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. Sayles was removed still loudly protesting his innocence. Tlie Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. next day.