SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTING. [Before his Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Chief Justice.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 3993, 9 June 1870, Page 6

SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTING. [Before his Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Chief Justice.]

The June Sitting of the Supreme Court, in ita Criminal jurisdiction, waa commenoed yesterday, at the Supreme Court. His Honor the Chief Justice took his seat on the bench punctually at 10 o' cloak.

THE QBANt> JURY. The names of the gentlemen composing the Grand Jury were then called, and the following gentlemen ans * ered : — Messrs. A. Martin (foreman), W. Baker, A. Beetham, W. T. Buckland, Charles Davis, John P. Dv Moulin, H. Gilfillan, John Roger Harrison, Herfry Isaacs, Robert Scott Mitchell, Hugh Morrow, G. B. Owen, Thomas Paton, Richard Field Porter, W. Innea Taylor, James Walmsley. His Honor the Chief Justice, in delivering his charge to the Grand Jury, said he regretted very much that they Had not a fuller attendance of their body that day. He believed there were seventeen gentlemen present, but the proper number was tweutythree, in order that there might always be twelve persons to find a true bill or otherwise, and thus form the fullest majority that could be formed out of the Grand Jury. But the attendance of the Grand Jury, he must say, had been habitually so full that he was at once led tw the belief there must be some special reason for the absence that morning of so many gentlemen who had been summoned to attend on the Grand Jury. With regard to one gentleman he was quite aware that at the present moment he was in the Waikato ; and with reference to others he was cognisant of the fact that several of the gentlemen were members of the General Assembly, and had serious calls upon them at the present time before taking their departure for Wellington. He had made these remarks with all respect to the laborious duties imposed upon the Grand Jury, and from whom the Court had derived mo3b valuable assistance since he had himself sat in that Court. But it must be remembered that it was imperative gentlemen of the Grand Jury should attend when called upon. Unless this were done, the enforcing of the law , upon members of the petty jury — the imposition of penalties — might be considered extremely severe, whilst gentlemen in a hi^h position of society, and, he might add, of the Legislature," called upon the Grand Jury, were allowed to absent themselves without remark. As he had before stated, he had not the slightest doubt there were special reasons for their non-attendance. With regard to the calendar he was happy to inform them there was uot much difficulty to be met with in any of the cases. The calendar, it was true, was heavier than it had been for some time past ; but he was happy to say the crimes were not marked, as in years past, by offences of the character of forgery, fle was glad to say that, on the calendar, there . was only one charge , of forgery*— a crime which 'Jiad been dealt with very severely in that Court, as well as in the other colonies and England. He felfc that it would be unnecessary for him to address many, remarks to the Grand Jury about the cases — experienced aa they were in their duties. There were, however, some cases in which he might be enabled to give them some assistance. In regard to the offences against property, there were only two upon which he would make any remark. There was a charge of stealing tobacco committed upon the premises of Messrs. Cruickshank, Smart, and Co. upon the sth February last. (His Honor then commented upon the evidence to be adduced in the case. ) There was also a charge of obtaining goods' and money by false pretences, which called for some remark, "and into which he would request the Grand Jury to- inquire with some degree of care from the prosecutor himself. The aspect of the case was this, The accused, a man named Lew is, went to Coro* mandel, and in the absence of prosecutor, a storekeeper, found a -weak sort of boy in charge of the store, whom he told that he hud nought the goods, and was entitled to the receipts in money in connection with the , store. (His Honor went on to comment on I the depositions in this 'can's. ) He would ask "the jury to question the proseccohimself with ' regard to . the circunistanoes in this case, because if it- were 'proved that the prisoner took the goods under an idea that he had authority for so doing, it would be the duty of the jury to return no true bill. The Grand. Jury did not try, the case, butH the prosecutor came before them as a witness,, it would at least be their duty to inquire of him whether or not He bid given authority to the 'prisoner to take away the goods and, money fromhis^store, These were the only cases with regard to property" on which it was necessary to remark; There was also a more serious charge of manslaugiu ter against a man named Faulkner, who was charged with having shot* native near Tau- -

ran'ga. The charge appeared on the calendar as one of manslaughter, and > it" appeared to ! "him that the magistrates were quite : justified' in not sending the case to that Court as a 1 charge of murder. It would be shown, oii the 1 evidence, that the accused,' immediately after iiriug the shot, jumped into the water and took the native ashore, a circumstance which led the magistrates to the conclusion that ( the accused was sorry for what had taken place, and that therefore, the shooting w,ak done without malice — that it was not such"a heedless, reckless acjj aa would justify the graver charge being brought. There was another charge of shooting, which, upon the depositions, appeared to be abundantly clear. There was the fact alleged that the accused had discharged the gun more than once at the native ; and unless there were some facts which did not appear on the depositions, it would be the duty of the Grand Jury to return a true bill on the charge alleged in the calendar. The calendar was also remarkable this session, as containing several charges of breaches of the Arms Act, 1860. In one instance it was alleged that the gun was sold to a European. The Grand Jury would notice from the depositions that the accused- seemed to have been acting under an impression that he was not guilty of any offence against law, as he was cmi ployed as the agent of some other person. tt was well that the clause of the Act under which the information was laid should be read to the Grand Jury. (His Honor then read the clause, which provides that any person who shall sell, or dispose of, with or without fee or reward, any arms whatsoever, without a license in the form of the schedule, shall be - guilty _of_an_ offence under the Act.) ' The jury would, therefolreT" have to decide to their own satisfaction whether this person sold a gun to another person without a license. There were, besides this, five others of breaches of the Arms Act against another man, and in every instance the sale was to a native. This was likewise a ca^e which was abundantly clear upon the evidence. There was another charge against him, which differed from the others in the respect that it was a charge of removing fire-arms without a license. It would nob be necessary to comment at length upon this case, as no point of law appeared to arise in respect to it, and there was sufficient in the depositions themselves to enable the jury to come to a decision. They would simply deal with each case separately upon its own merits. He (the learned Judge) could not however dismiss from his consideration the fact of so many of these cases of breaches of the Arms Act being brought before the (Jourt without expressing his approval of the vigilance of the police of the Auckland district. Ever since he had presided over that Court, he had been aware of one instance, in which a charge of anything like unnecessary violence had not been brought against the police of tlie province ; ' and in considering the 'amount of experience they could only have had in a small district like Auckland, it always appeared to him (the learned Judge) that they had shown very great vigilance, and at times remarkable industry and courage ; and in saying this much he believed he would not be going out of his way if he remarked that much of the vigilance was due to the admirable manner in wbioh the police force had been managed by the Commissioner of Polioe, Mr. Naughton, who foy so many yeara had filled that office, and had administered the law a? a Justice of the Peaoe, He (the learned Judge) believed Mr. Naughton was about to retire from the office, which he had so long held with so much credit, and he was sure it was a source of satisfaction to the Court to remember Mr, Naughton, as he always would be remembered, in oonneotion with the remarkable efficiency whioh he had maintained in the police under his command, It had been long alleged that there were persons in the community engaged in the selling of arms, but it was not until now that the vigilance of the polioe had resulted in apparent discoveries of alleged cases of selling arms. There was one other oharge which called for remark. It was a charge of libel against a gentleman connected with one of the newspapers in the city, and it was perhaps much to be regretted when the complex turn which the case had assumed was regarded, whereby the disclaimer of an intention to libel had not been so made as to prevent the neoessity of any further inquiry before a Court of Justice. However, the jury could only deal with the case as they found it, and therefore the jury would have to inquire whether or not there was a primit facie case of publishing a malicious libel against the prosecutor. He (the learned Judge) had only to say this to the jury, that the proprietor of a newspaper must be held responsible for articles written and published by persons in his employ in the ordinary way of business, unless it were shown that there were special circumstances which showed thac the accused ought to be exemj)ted from that responsibility. It was in such a case for the accused to show what those facts were. He (the learned Judge) did not think there were any other cases which called for special direction from the Court, and it would now be the duty of the jury to retire to their room, there to consider the cases on the calendar. The Grand Jury' then retired, and at in--' tervals during the day returned into Court with true bills against the following persons : — William Lane Gearrans, arson, horsestealing, stealing from a dwelling-house, and laiceny ; Alfred Boonstia, tor larceny; Fredeiick Houghton, shooting with intent to kill ; James Walker Arnold, stealing from the dwelling-house; George Gill, for forgery and uttering ; Samuel Cardwell, alias Hodaon, for bestiality ; Daniel Sutherland, for burglary ; Thomas Steens, for burglary ; Jamoi Foster, for burglary ; John Stevens, for larceny ; M. H. Frost, for larceny ; Beujainin Hill, for selling "arms ; Thomas Sydney Coppock, for libel ; William Fagg (ou six separate charges), for breaches of tho Arms Act — The Crown Solicitor stated that, in consequence of some of the witnesses being necessarily absent in the case of Christopher Faulkner for manslaughter, that case would not be proceeded w ith at present, and asked that tho witnesses present be bound over in their own recognizances to appear at a future date. — His Honor then thanked the Grand Jury for the attention they had devoted to the matters brought under their consideration, and relieved them from further attendance. UoMMOrf Jury. — The names of the common jury empanelled were as follow : — Alfred Aley. William Bates, Henry Bilkie, T. J. Brennan, James Bums, David Campbell, Thomas Campbell, F. Chamberlain, Theophilus Cooper, J. W. Craig, J. Culvert, Richard Davis, R. Dann, It. Garty, William Gillingham, William Gillett, William Grant, J. Higgins, W. Kingston, A. Howe, G. Lankham, George Hope Selby. Fines foii Non-attendance. — William Henry Shaw and John Wadham were each fined £5 for non attendance. William Hope Selby appeared a few minutes after a fine had been pronounced, and it was therefore remitted. , Arson and Larceny. — William Lane Gearrans was indicted for having, on the 29th December, set fire to a dwelling-house, the property of William L. Martin and John Martin ; also, for having, on the 7th March, stolen one home,- the- property of John Martin; for. having, on the 7th M«rch, 1870, stolen one wfttob, value £6, and moneyto' the amount 1 of '£13, the property of Wif. liam Partridge, of Tamahere, Waikato ; and also with ■hftvin&jon the 7th March, 1870, stolen one saddle/ 1 one bridle, and one pair boots, the prdperty of William Partridge. — pleaded: guilty to all the oharges.~v Mr. Brookfield/ Crown Prosecutor, fad,- 'he believed the prosecutor was willing to give evidence as to some extenuating circumstances, as it was alleged that at timed the prisoner suffered from aberration of mind. -V-The prosecutor, Joint Martin, was examined, and" stated that the prisoner at timed did unaccountable things, and was at these times disposed to do evil. ' The -acts were, however, not such as to prevent prosecutor 'from employing the prisoner.— Sentence was 'deferred. •<•---' „ Felony XI Titirangi. — Frederick Coot, sailor, was charged with stealing £18, the property of Thomas Parr, from the dwellinghouse of Simon- Conway, at Titirangi, on

th*i 10th, ,April-r£risorier, pleaded guilty, aiid had bathing to say why judg.i ent should not be passed tfpon him. He did-not call any witnesses to apeak to his character. - —He was sentenced to he kepttohard labour for! six calendar months. -Alleged Embezzlement.— cJwttfe Henpj Walker SAe^eram, labourer, was charged with embezzling the sum of £4 Is. 3d., on the «tn April, the property of Archibald Wallace, of Otara.— Prisoner pleaded guilty to receiving the, money, but not of misappropriation. — A petiif^'ury' having been empanelled, Mr. Selby was chosen foreman. yr-Mr. Brookfield appeared to prosecute ; prisoner was undefended.'—Mr. Brookfield, having laid the case before the jury, called Archibald Wallace, who deposed: I reside near Otara. The prisoner was in my employ as a farm servant on the 30fch April. I sent him to Mr. Barnes's, Cabbage-tree Swamp, with a load of hay of the value of £4 Is. 3d. I asked him for the money, and he said he was to get it when he took the next load. He had on three former occasions' brought money for me from Mr. Barnes. I pa^d lum his wages in full to that night, as he saia- he was going away until Sunday night. He* did not return until up to Monday. From what Mr. Barnes told me I laid an information against the prisoner. —Cross-examined by prisoner : I was asked by one of your accomplices if I would take the money, whilst outside the Resident Magistrate's Court at Onehunga. I told him if he wanted to pay the money he had better pay it into Court. — By the Court : Prisoner was apprehended on the following Monday night. — Thomas Barne3 said: On 30th April last prisoner brought me a load of hay from Mr, Afchibli3a^yaJla,ce.--I paid him £3 odd, Jout he ought tb'have paid Mr. Wallace £4 odd. Prisoner owed me £1 on a former reckoning; I gave the receipts into the Court at Onehmiga. (Receipts produced. ) Tliat is the same that was signed by the prisoner. Prisoner offered to sell me one of the horses of the team for £30. — This was the case for the prosecution. — The prisoner made a somewhat lengthy statement in defence. He admitted having received the money, but had lost it. He had no intention of defrauding Mr. Wallace of the money. He ca'led Frederick George Ewington to speak to his character, who said he had known prisoner for six years, and always believed him to be an honest steady man. — Charles Duckinfield said he had known prisoner about eight and a-half years, whilst holding positions of trust, and had never heard anything against his character.— The Chief Justice having summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict.- -After about a-quarfcer of an hour's absence the jury returned into Com t with a verdict of Not guilty of felonious intent. Bestiality. — Samuel Oardwell, ali&sflodyiohj labourer, was charged with bestiality at 1 Klurupapa, near Shortland, on the 3rd April lait. He pleaded not guilty. — Mr. George Brown was sworn as interpreter. — The witnesses examined were — Te Rere (who was cross-examined at some length by the pri~ souer), George Frederick Pinn (whom the prisoner declined to cross-examine), and constable Noble, who proved to arresting" prisoner. — For the defence, James Newton was examined by the prisoner. — The Crown Solicitor then addressed the jury for the prosecution, after which his Honor summed up at considerable length, and read" over the evidence whioh had been sworn to.— The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of "Guilty of attempt," — The prisoner thea pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for larceny in 1862, under the name of Samuel Hodgson.— Sentenoed to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. Cases to be Proceeded With. — The Crown Solicitor stated that he would be prepared to go on to-day with the cases against James W. Arnold, for stealing from the premises j Daniel Sutherland, for burglary ; George Gage, for forging and uttering j Alfred Boonstra, for larceny ; and Matthew H, Frost, for larceny. The Court was then adjourned until ten o'clock to-day.