LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1208, 17 August 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. ALL SORTS OF EVIDENCE IN THE OTAKI CASE. JURY UNCONVINCED. The criminal sessions of the Suprerap Court were continued yesterday before Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. H. H. Ostler represented the Crown. There was concluded the hearing of the case in which a Native, named Frank Cooics, was charged with that on May 15 at Otaki he had assaulted James Plaisted, 7(i years of age, ami had robbed him of the sum of 4:8 10s. There was an'alternative count of theft from tho person. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for Cootes, who had pleaded not guilty. Jane. Messitcr, married woman, residing at Otaki, gave evidence as to seeing Cootes holding Plaisted up against the wall'; of the Druids' Hall. Halkctt and a Native named Hema Whata were standing together in tho road at the time. Witness had known Mrs. Bailey for about ten years, and knew her as a respectable, hard-working woman. He's Not Going to Bully Me!" Cross-examined' by Mr. Wilford, witness stated that she had no reason to "get even" with Cootos. She admitted being m the Central Hotel when it was burnt down. Mr. Wilford: Do you remember what tho. furniture was insured for? Witness: 4:500. Mr. Wilford: Did they pay that? "Witness: Yes. Mr. Wilford: Was the furniture afterwards sold by auction? •' Witness: Yes. Mr. Wilford: And fetched .£75? Witness:. Oh, I don't remember that. Mr. Wilford: Do you remember Cootes pouring water on the tire? Witness: I remember him going in to steal whisky. Mr.. Wilford: That is right. Keep on that way. I want you to go on .that| way. Witness: Yes, that is what you would like, you bully! His Honour: That will do. _ Witness:- He's not going to bully me like, ho did the other woman. In further answers to Mr. Wilford, witness stated that she had seen three men batch Plaisted up that night, and, if any other witness had said the old man caught, the three men up, she knew nothing about it. She had not seen' Mrs. Bailey that night, but had recognised her voice. Witness, denied having added anything to her evidenco since the hearing in the Lower .Court. Constable Satlierley, who arrested accused, stated that the latter denied all knowledge of the alleged robbery, and declared that ho had been home since six o'clock on the night of the occurrence. Satlierley had searched Cootes at his house, and had found him in possession of two pennies only. A further search of the clothes in accused's room did not result in any further discovery of money. Witness then gave evidenco as to getting a statement from Halkett, and, later, being told by the latter of a statement given to Cootes. As to Mrs. Bailey, witness said that she bore a good reputation in Otaki, and ho believed that she was a. total abstainer. To Mr. Wilford: Cootes was first charged with stealing .£lO, but the amount was subsequently reduced to £S 10s. Witness felt sure that ths original sum in the information was not .£lO Us., and also felt sure that- it had not been reduced to .£B. i ; Mr. Wilford here produced the indictment showing the. amount as 4:8, and witness admitted that he was under a wrong impression. The reduction in the charge had been made because Plaisted had'subsequently-remembered an account which he had paid, and had not-taken into -account. • Witness was not awaro rhat"M.Fsl Messitcr and Mrs. -Bailey- .were great friends. In regard to Cootes, witness stated he had had occasion to warn him once or twice, but denied that Cootes had ever offered "to fight him for half-a crown any morning before ' breakfast." When Haikett was searched on the, night of tho. robbery, ho had three .El' notes in his , possession. Witness had never "frightened" Halkott into making any statement. Timothy. O'Rourke, Clerk of the Court at Otaki, also gave evidence for the prosecution. ' ■ Mr. Wilford, in opening the case for tho defence, stated that he desired to recall Fredk. Halkett in regard to tho statements. ' The witness, on returning - to the box, declared that he wrote the statement given to Cootes in the hospital. Ho was. net a good writer, and had to ... get the assistance :of his'.wife to spell.(Witness, had stated on Tuesday that he was practically unable to write.) Henry Rawhire deposed to in the Central Hotel in company with Halkett and others on the night of the alleged robbery. Halkett had "shouted" four or fivo times, and, when ho did so, produced notes. At one time Halkett had been called out of the bar, and. when he returned, he made the remark that he had been accused of robbing an old man.

Bene. Enoka swore that he had drinks with Halkett at the Jubilee Hotel on the afternoon of the alleged robbery, and had met him again in the evening about 7.30 p.m., when Halkett seemed excited and under the influence of drink. The two had drinks together in other hotels, and Halkett had changed gold to pay for them. Accused was net present with' them. , The Local Constable's Good Name. Hema Whata. who had been with Cootes and Halkett on the night of the alleged', robbery, "declared that Cootes could not possibly have robbed Pl.-iisted as, when thoy passed the latter, Cootes did not go near him. Constable Satherley had come round to witness's place early next morning.Mr. Wilford: Did ho ask you to make a statement? Witness: He threatened me. Mr. Wilford: Very well, tell the jury what you know about it in your own words. , \ Witness said that ths . constable came round while he (witness) was still in bed. Satherley "said that there had been a robbery, on the previous night, and he (witmss) had got some of the money. He denied knowledge of it, and Satherley went on to say that he would arrest him. Witness advised him to get a warrant first of all. Subsequently, on his father's advice, he w:nt to the police station with the constable and signed a staCJuiemfc This was because Satherley had threatened to lock him up. The "statement," however, was untrue, and witness had cmly signed it because he was afraid of being locked up for seven, or eight days. To" Mr. Ost.ler: He could read fairly well, and knew the meaning of the word "perjury." Ho quite understood that a person wa.s liable to seven years for that". nft'snee. Asked as to the evidence of different witnesses for the prosecution, Whata. rejoir 3(1 that they were "all liars." He went on to say that Constable Satherley had refused tp make alterations in his (witness's) statement, wh-sn ho had suggested that they should be made. Frank Cootes, the accused, stated in evidence that he was 35 years of age, and had lived in Otaki all his life. He was a. marrud man with six ehiklren. Since Constable had bic.n in charge of the Otaki district, witness had not been' able to "get en" with him. Satherley had "sorted him out" three days after going to Otaki, and had wanted" to fight him. He (Satherley) had said tiiat Cootes had been talking about him. What Cootes had said to someone was that Salli-erlcy "could drink as much whisky as anyone else in Otaki could drink beer." Cootes answered Satherley by saying "that .he was willing to fight, him for half-a-crown any morning l>eforo breakfast." Accused denied knowledge of the robbery. He believed that Mrs. Mossiler had him "set" over something in connection with the Central Hotel fire. He was not friendly with Halkett, and looked upon hiin as "no class," because the latter, after inviting "some of them to drinks," had once rofufi3(l to pay for them. Accused did not think that Mrs. Bailey was "a woman who could 'm depended on." In regard to the statement which Halkett had mado in tlie hospital, that statement was written by accused. llalketl had simply signed it, and had put in the Word "the" .in one plaoa.

To Mr. Ostler: He denied that ho was known in Otaki <is a "hold loafer," but admitted several previous convictions for different offences. Evidence for the defence, closed with testimony given by l-'rrd. (.'oolcs and Kdward Cootis. bot'h of them brothers of accused. ill-. Ostler recalled Constable. Sathcrley, v.-ho denied that lie had held out any tlireats to Hema What-a. He added that the latter had made no objection in regard to signing tho dntrineut in reference to the robbery. In regard toCooles's statement—that Sutherley "could take more whisky than anyone else in Otaki could take beer"-—tho constable staled that hn had been a total abstainer for two years, and, before-Hint, he. had taken very little drink for a long time. " Timothy O'l'ourke. re-called, said that he had known Constable Satherley t'ev' about four y.ars. Witness had not seenhim tako a glass of liquor for years, and had never smelt drink on him. Addresses and Finding. Mr. AVilford addressed the jury for 10 minutes, drawing attention to numerous discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, and suggesting that, on account of the number nf contradictions which he had pointed out, the jury should have no hesitation in acquitting the prisoner. Mr. Ostler, in a. brief address, pointed out to tho jury- that counsellor the defence, with all his experience in crossexamination, had absolutely failed to shake the evidence, of tho principal witness for the prosecution. He contended that, when witnesses disagreed in minor details, it only suggested that they wcre truthful- witnesses, who had mode •no endeavour to.rehearse th.-Mr evidence. His Honour, in summing-up, stated that, tho old man, PJaistod, had convinced them that he had been in possession of money, and the question was whether Cootes .had handled him in a manner described by those who claimed to bo eyewitnesses. It was for the jurv to sav whether they could conscientiously believe that these eye-witnesses were telling, a truthtul, straightforward storv, ' or whether there could bo' anv conceivable motive whj; they could "trump up" a charge against the accused. The onus was on the Crown to prove that Plaisted hail.been robbed by accused, and robbed with some degree of violence. Had tho Crown mado out its case? . "he jury, after being about four hours in retirement, returned, and stated that hey had disagreed. The foreman said that there was no pcsa'bilitr of their agreeing. ' ,nn!\ CJ i i ver ° discharged, and Mr. Ostler applied for a new trial. ' Bail was granted the accused.

WINDOW-SCRATCHING CASE. EVENS GRANTED PROBATION. Arthur Vincent Evens, the young man who, on Monday, had pleaded gmltv to a charge of window-scratching 'was brought forward yesterday for sentence, -the windows of eight shop-keepers in Cuba bjreet had been scratched -with - a diamond ring on the night of June !), and accused had been caught, red-handed' by Constable Kenealey. »lr. Herdman remarked that he would, i i a !i d a Jittle to what lie had said on behalf of accused on Jlondav last. Ihe crime had been perpetrated oil'the spur of the moment. It had bsen done while accused was drunk, and while ho nacl no knowledge of its seriousness. On account of accused's youth-he was only -7 years ot age-and previous good character, counsel suggested that his Honour, might sec his way to grant him probation. George and Kcrsley, who employed -him, and who paid him .£3 per week, were prepared to take him back. As to the damage, counsel suggested that it accused were admitted to'probation, his friends would be willing to pav .£-'5 down and the young man himself would be willing-to have an order.made against him lor .£SO. The evidence in the Lower Court showed the damage to. bo' £m, but ho suggested that that was Very much exaggerated. His Honour observed that the damage was, of course, a very difficult thing to estimate. Accused's case had caused him Ins Honour) a good deal of difficultv, but ho had decided to grant probation." This conclusion had not been arrived at because prisoner's counsel had consented to make, good the damage. If that had' been taken into consideration, it would have meant making a difference between, a young man who had friends- and one who had not. Jt was no excuse for the prisoner to pay that he had been drunk. The. only thing that could be said in that way was . that, when- a young man had had a certain amount of drink, he would do things on impulse that he would not do at other times, and the offence might therefore be. regarded as an impulsive act. Looking at the fact that accused was a young man and that this was an impulsive actthough a very, vicious one—ho (his Honour) had decided to admit accused to probation, but he was to' understand that there was something real about-this probation. -The period would be three years, .and Evens would be prohibited during that period. He would be ordered to pay to the probation officer ,£25 down, and a sum of .£SO in nioiitli'lv instalments of £2 per month, to be distributed among the shopkeepers who had suffered damage. When that was paid, he would have to pay in similar instalments the sum of .£lO towards the costs of the prosecution. Sir. Ostler asked if his Honour would make any order about accused's diamond ring. His Honour: I suggest that it remain in the custody of the Court'until the payments are made. Sir. Herdman consented to this.