SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 208, 27 May 1908, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. YESTERDAY'S 'PROCEEDINGS. /The oriminal'sittmgs of the Supremo C-ourt were resumed yesterday morning, His Honour Mr. Chapman-taking his- seat at 10 ■■■ o'clock. - ALLEQED• INDECENT ASSAULT. '. 'RE-TRIAL ARRANGED., . The matter of the re-trial of-John Hagan on a of; having indecently assaulted a girl twelvo years ot ago at Brooklyn was mentioned.. It will be remombered that pri-soner-was tried,on Monday, but that the jury v after a retirement ;of nearly, four 'hours were not unanimous in their vcrdict, and on their ;': ibehalf the iforoinan stated that there was no : ; prospect of an agreement. • • His Honour said tho question was whether / the. ■re-trial-should take - place beforo tho present or. before a new' panel. ■ ■ ; Mr.- Herdman (for Air. ■ Wilford) ; said that prisoner would prefer a fresh panel. - Tho. Crown Prosecutor raised no objection •to the proposal. ■ ' : His Honour then fixed Monday next as the .dato of tho now trial. • f: ' FROM, THE ■ PERSON. : SENTENCE OF FOUR jMONTHS. Robert Bfowp, ; a.young man, was charged ••••)-.with-having..oii April',2, J. 908, stolen:a silver ;■ watch: .andi gold ! aiid greenstone' chain from i tho person'.ot John. M'Millan. ■ Prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr. Herdman. . - ; Tfe. fbllomrig'jW 'tf&s 'empkiieM J. Sutherland (foreman), J. J. Davios, T.; J. Roberts, -W. Stylos,:,W. H. Staples, W. Urquhart,,- F. Boere,: T. Mayer, James M'Gill, F. O'Conncll,; W. ,J.. Mumerly,' and W. Clen- , ■ burp. ■ .., ■ - ■ 'Tho CrownProsccutor, outlined "tho facts : relied ,on, ill" support of tlie charge. Prosecutor, in evidence,. stated that/ on the : . data, in .'question,, he met prisoner, in a passiige .at, the: Albert Hotel. Prisoner insisted upon'him " shouting;" arid they went to the Duke of ,Edinburgh Hotel.-Subsequently they .visited tho Palaco Hotel, and later on they returned .to tho Albert Hotel. Whilst i hey .were at-the rearof.the liotel prisoner tug'g'jd' at his coat, and after they came out prisonor snatched his watch and' chain. - Prosecutor called out "Police," and-ran after.him. A , : constable '-.was'; standing', at l "' the spot where' prosecutor caught up with him. Ho was ; back /tho, watch;' and part .'of tho chain, a rid ho recovered the balance -of the " chain,' and;'a/'-pendaht, by means, of an advertisement..; < ';. "■ prosecutbr'stated, that lib 'know' l how : many;'drinks . lio had -on th»i , date";ih, question, but : his recollection upon' other. Matters ...was not. indistinct. Tho ; . theft ;topt place ; ;in : 'tho'.!maiii: street '_in the presence of passers-by.i . ' : • Evidence was also given by; Ebenozer AVil- ; :liamsJ". GoTdqn; Smith;,; and;.. Clarence Smith, formerly^*'roiistablp...- - who was'present,when pri- ■ > Bori^r.was'/irristed, also'gave evidenco. He ~ stated that .prisoner had been drinking, but r was not drunk. / .- : ... .'. . Mr. Herdman: Who arrested prisoner?—l ■ instructed . Stephens to do so. • Did prosecutor givo liira in chargoP—No. But you had him arrested?— Yes., .- * His.; Honour:' You'considered that it was -ihe proper thing to have prisoner arrested? -Yes.- < This-concluded-the caso for l tho prosecution: - i Prisoner, in evidence, stated .that prosecutor.would persists in displaying his .watch. Prisoner caught hold of prosecutor and'his watch. Owing to prosecutor, grabbing.;his hand rtho l cha'in gave way,-: land '.cwitness walked-'back .with-the'»watoh-in his hand, his :object being-to coax prosecutor-to Prospcutor- then'attracted a- crowd by calling out that: ho had his watch.' Prisoner did; not run away n't all; but handed back <; the watch 'to prosecutor. •• ■■ • • ;Cross-oxaminedi„ prisoner .-BtWted r thatxhe; had £13-.when ho arrived in-Wellington, but had no money whcnlio was'arrested. He had Bovititehtiqn of stealing.thVwatch and chain;. Counsel addressed the jury, and His Honour: summed up.; .. • * .' .■.'...■ .The jury, which retired; at 12.30, returned • at 2.20 with a verdict vof. guilty. . ' Mr. - Hordman stated that prisoner, who was 27 1 yoars of -ago, 'had never; been convicted of any act involving dishonesty. This \ sudden/act'; of ?dishonesty - seemed--tb; be tho result.of ;ovor-indulgenco m liquor. Counsel asked that.the. prisoner be treated leniently. Addressing.the prisoner His Honour said: . —Offonces: of .-this kind aro very common in.Wellington; porhaps more common 'than in • I other towns. Men. come down with largo / sums'. of money and seem to* find nothing. ./ better, to do but drink.until their money, disappears.- 'That is the description which you , have-given ;of: yourself. ■>. In this condition you'-robbed a man obviously with the object of Converting; the articles to account. I •' BhalU impose a very light sentence in tho hope that after youhave' served it; you will : not again waste your time and money in " boosing " about hotels. You will be sentenced to,four months'..imprisonment with hard labour.. •. •' THEFT FROM AN HOTEL. TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. ;; : Thos. George, alias M'Guiro, a young man; was charged witlrhaving, on March 26, stolen from tho Now, Zealander Hotel, a travo}ling trunky together with its contents, con- , sisting of articles' of clothing, and of jewellery, tho property of May Stanley. • ■ Prisoner, who was defended by Mr. Wos- . ■■ ton,.idoaded-not-guilty. : , A jury, of which Wm.' Hopkirk was forc- ■ man,-was empanelled. > : ■ • ■." > ; ;Tha deppsitioVs of-_tho-informant,' who had 'since :left : the Dominion, Avero read.;. She .stated that the 'box- in; question, was: her property. .It- contained jewellery worth £107 and clothing vvalued at'£77. -SheVgave no one authority to. open or interfere with the box. i-. ■ ; M. J. .Donnelly, licenseo'of the Now Zea- ■ lander..Hotol, ..deposed that' the box was , locked and -strapped. When tho box was. missed, .witness and others went out.into the, back-yard. : . Prisoner was standing a couple of yards from the trunk, which had been interfered with, 7 and the porter caught hold .oi him:;'. Two men who wore nrthe company .'of tho. prisoner ran away, hut ono .. of them' l was captured. ..Nothing 'was stolen from, the trunk. ... • . . Constable Murphy stated, in evidence, that,; upon being arrested, prisoner remarked that he wad in tho yard for tho purposo of iising tho'urinal.:; Cross-examiricd;V : , witness: -'that prisoner -had-had, liquor, but was sober. ' Thos. Breyj who was porter at the hotel on the date in question, deposed that when he went out into tho yard.\yith the.licenseo and others ,to look for the trunk he saw prisoner. and his companions standing around it-' VWitness caught hold of and detained the prisoner. : r • • ; Sergeant Dale gave evidence, that prisoner had told him that lie had been drinking and knew nothing about' the trunk. ■ ;. ' Evidence was also given by. Geo. Avery barman, and Thos.- Price. . ; ' This the case for the prosecution. On behalf 'of the.defence,, William Johnston, who is sorrin? a sentence of threo years in connection- with the robbery, deposed 1 that prisoner was not concerned in the affair. , ; ' Cross-examined, witness stated that ■ his companion's -name was " Scotty."Did;'you not 'meet prisoner in the gaol and talk tho matter over with him?—No we were kept apart. . ',; ' " Yoii'never; saw-prisoner iii gaol?— Only at church. (Lalightoi:.) Cqunsel addressed tho .'jury, and His Honour- summed up. :' ; . • " The jury, • which retired at 4.8, returned at 4.l7'with'a' vordict of guilty. Mr. Weston . asked the Court to bo as lenient as possible.'; Tho Crown Prosecutor read a list of previous convictions against the prisoner for •minor offences-

His Honour said tlmt. prisoner's record showed him to be a man of disreputable habits. Twice previously, ho had been convicted for crimes involving dishonesty. The Court was satisfied that tlio men iiijulc up their - minds; to steal whatever they could lay their hands upon conveniently. Prisoner would be sentenced t«: two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. A PRIVATE PROSECUTION. , .. ' ALLEGED THEFT. . HEARING UNCONCLUDED. Herbert .Edwip Hamilton Bird, a young man, was charged with having, on December 10, 1907, stolon goods valued at £71 155., the property of Thos. Major Shore, this was to say, that whilst Shoro and his wife wero living together, ho did knowingly assist' Mrs. Shoro in dealing with the goods in a manner which would have amounted to theft by her, if Shoro and his wifo had not been married. •••' ■ Mr. H. H. O'Leary appeared to prosecute. Prisoner,' who was represented by Mr. H. F. Johnston, pleaded not guilty. ' , ■A jury,of which Mr. Jacob Harris was ■ foreman, was empanelled. , Thomas M. Shore, the prosccutor, gavo : evidence that he was a dredge-master by occupation. In June, 1906, ho left for South America, whero , lie had received employment for twelvo months. His wifo and child continued to reside at Dunedin. Upon his return to tho Dominion, prosecutor found that his'ivifej was living at Wellington in a house where prisoner also resided.;. .Later on, his wifo asked; him to take her back for the sake'of the child. She returned to his place at M'Donald Crescent on December 7, 1907; Prosecutor showed her the articles, which .. wero the subject . . matter of the charge. On the Sunday following, his wife ;asked him to give her the articles. In reply, ,he said that'' when. she. proved a better woman again he ivould give her.'; some, - and ' perhaps' all "■'■ of'' them. Tho goods, which were in tlio house on Tuesday morning, disappeared during, the day. His wife also went away from himi again that ,day., : In.February last, when ho next saw his wife, she told him tho prisoner had advised her to take-the articles away, or sho •would riot, hayo done so. .' ; . Cross-examined, prosecutor stated that his wifo had .never , had any cause to complain about his conduct towards her.' When he .went to South America he. handed her £25 odd, and mado arrangements whereby she would recoive a portion .of his salary. He had never threatened to take away her life. 1 ' The hekring of the charge was, at •'this stage, adjourned untillO o'clock this nut riling..; ' IN DIVORCE. lIENTON* v. HEXTON; • On behalf of the respondent in the case Herbert Palmer Ilenton v. - Jessie; Henton, application was made that the decree nisi granted to tlio petitioner 'should be ,: riiade absolute, and that sho-should hare granted to her- the custody .of tho child. A dccroo as prayed;was mado. Mr. "Wilford appeared on behalf of the respondent.; " ; ' BURGESS v. BURGESS. In connection with tho caso Nathaniel Burgess ; v.-. Emily. A. , Burgess,' application was made : on behalf- of. -, the petitioner that tho dccreo nisi, which- had- been granted to him, should bo mado absolute, and that, he should "havo tho custody.; of., his child. Sir. Wilford,- who appeared in support, stated that' the-father'had been given custody of, the child, t but the mother had, it was alleged; .'stolen it'on tho. previous evening. His Honounmade the decree as prayed.