SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SITTINGS MONDY, 12th JANUARY,1874 UNKNOWN.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXX, Issue 5114, 13 January 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SITTINGS MONDY, 12th JANUARY,1874 UNKNOWN.

ITl^ IIouoi Ciitoiol Mm ('inuL.it ten (>'. loi k Fl.U)M(ll>IA JIlOIIMSl) W'lllliUl) dixtil. settle], was auaigncd upr.n an nuii tuiint chai^in^' Juin with fo ouiou&ly rceeniny portions of t!'C carcas~ in .i cow kilVd by a in in named M.utin, who nut a fi w dajs n^'o convicted of killing with intent to stc il, the pioptuty of .lohn Limb of Kiveilual. Tlio i cisc whs liioil on Tinned ay last but tho juiy was dischaigod without giving a vcidict owing lo a j'lr^inan li.avmg answered to tho wrong name and having sat through the trial. Afiesh jmy was icv oinpiii' vllod. I he evidence was the same as on the pi c\ ions occasion. — M the conclusion of tho case for tho pio'ocntion, Mr. Joy, who appeared for tho def< ndant, submitted that the evidence proved that tho pinoner was a principal in the larceny, and if bo participated in the stealing, he could not be indicted for reedsing—After aomo discussion the Court adjoin tied, and on it3 resuming his Honor said ho had carefully thought over the point, and it appeared to him that tho piisonci's action m dealing with tho carcase might bo constined into an act of stealing. He recalled the witness Dalton, who repeated his e\idenco in reference to tho skinning of the cow. —Hta Houor then decided that the indictment was bad. —The prisoner was accordingly discharged from custody. Specimen Stealing — John Ilawkim was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with having, on the loth October last, stolen 51b. of gold ore from tho Dauntless and Sink to Rise Gold Mmo. As there was a part of the mine woiked by tribute™, there wero three other counts charging him with stealing from the trihutcrs- Messrs. flill and others. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and "was defended by Mr. Ifesketh. Mr. Brooktield, for tho prosecution, called Robert McDonald Scotr, manager of tho company, who pioduced the certiticate of legistration. Ho explained the minner in wh.ch the miuo was woiked, aud t'10 airaivemcnts which existed between tho compiny and the tributers, producing the agiceineni, which wn.src.id. 'Jho Sink to Ilisc poition of tho mine wa3 let on tiibuto. Tho company only roeognised Mr. Hill as tho tributer. Did not know that tho accutcd woiked in the mino a<3 one of the tuhulcrfl. Had hoard so. The company did not acknowledge the accused as a ttibulcr. Tho gold and the produce of it nesor wag in the hands of tho tiibuters. Tho company were to receive 13 por cent, of tho valuo of gold obtained. They always letaincd the amount from the results of the crushing^. —Catherine Gleeson was the next ■vvitiiesF. She dtposed that sho had been living with the rucusccI for about eighteen months. During tho time he was working in the Dauutless aud Sink to Kiso claim he )ii ought homo specimens ou several occasions. lie u'cd to tell witness that they came from the DauutlcBS mine. Ho filled two mustard tinn with specimens aud buried them, giving as a reason that it was dangcrouu to have them iu the bouse, as tho detectives might coino and search, 'lhey had been buried two or throe weeks when detective Brennnn found Ihein. Before witness told the police she looked to'seo how.'many tins were buried, and when doing so took six specimens out. The mustard tins produced were the same that were buried by the prisoner. — Croisoxamined by Mr. Hesketh : Saw the accused fill the tins with specimens. Had no particular reason for taking out the six pieces, or for looking if there wore any morb tint The accused would have told her if there we're had she asked Inra, but sue did not think of it Witness gave information to the police on tho lUth November, tho day wheu the Parawai snoits were held. Cave information to the pohoo b« cans') f>he saw the nccused with another woman at the )aees. Ilad she not sucu him walking with that woman sho would not havu given mfoimation or have t'>ld anyone. 1'lu it* w ere four other specimens it. the houso lelatmg to another allege I iobbury, which witness gave to Sub-Inspector Bulleu at tho same timo. —Joseph Parr, InRpuctorof the Mine, deposod that the piiwner hid no authority to remove specimen'! fiom thn mine. The accused bought in as a tnlmtcr, and was working from August to November. —Cflarles Giles Joseph Hill deposed that he was the sole party to tho ttibute agreement. The prisoner represented a share, but he might havo been working somobody else's interest. Never gave him any specimens after ciushings. I'ho accused and a man namod Sawyer superintended tho last general crushing but one. Witness had been allowed by tho directors to put specimens in his own houao for saf. ty. Witness could identify some of tho specimens produced, and one in particular. It had been hanging in cross-course in tho Btope, where uo one was working, and was taken away by some one wbo had no right to do so. —George .Ciibb gave similar evidence, aud identified some of-the specimens. —Satmul Breniian, detective of police at tho Thames, deposed to having been bhown where the tins wero by Mi-<5. Gleeson. Ho took them up in the presence of the prisoner, v, hom he asked where they caino from. Tho accused replied that he did not know. Took Hawkins to the station, where Sub-Inspcc-toi Bullen saw tho specimens. Mr. l'.ullcn fc.nd, "Those are nice spocimons, Hawkins." The pmoncr said "Not very," aud Mr. Ballon asked him where ho got them, and he siid they camo from tho Prido of Somerset, a claim of his in the Karaka. Ho said ho bin ied them in tho ground to prevent the I woman he wag living with knowing anything , al'out them. The document pioduced, pniported to bo tho legislation of one man's ground, called tho Pride of Somerset. When naked where the Prido of Somerset claim was, pusoner told witness to go and find out. Had searched sinoe for a claim such as that described in tho certificate, bat could find no claim in tho locality oallod the Pride of Somerset. —Mr. HeBkcth submitted an direction on the following points:—The ind'ctuieiits chaigedtho prisoner with simple larceny, and there were three counts defining tho property as being that of the Dauntless aud Sink to Rise Company, and three counts likewise charging him with stealing cjiiaitz, the property of saveu other persons. Ho submitted that upon the evidence for the prosecution the prisoner w*» a full partner with Hill and the other pM> t-ons in the tnbute. He submitted also that upon thu tnbuto agreement itself the possession of tho quart/ passed to the tributers, th.it, m short, the agreement was a letting of tho SinU to Kiao portion of tho mino to tho tubuters, and that, therefore, fiom tho moment the quartz was severed fiom tho ground tho tiibuters were the propnetois, subject to tho payment of 15 ptr cent, to the company. The quartz was in the possession of tho tributers, and time was no evidence that it got out of their possession. If it had, aud had got into tho possession of the company, it would simply have been a breach of a civil coutiact, and not a larceny if tho accused had taken it. Although on the face of tho agreement 11)11 w.ih the tnbuter, yet it appeared thai bo i could J.iko others, and there waa evidence tli.it I hu company had reco^nincd the pi lf.dtHi .is a tributer. The le.unod counsel also Hubnntted that if tho accused was a u>-paitnei or co owner, tho Lai ecu y Act of 1S70, undoi «Inch the indictment was laid, could not touch him. The evidence show ed that he was a co-owner in tho tribute, and, therefoie, he oould not be convicted of larceny—fiist, because (1) ho waa indicted for laiccny as a co owner fiom his otlur e-i-ownera ; (2) becauso tho Act of JS7O did not apply to a joint owne»ship liko tho ono in question; {',\) bu'.-mse tho Act of 1S70 did not on ,it" a fulony, and that, although it was mtondi >1 to do ■«», it did not extend the h\v of 1 lueny to c.< |M!lix i , , (!) Incline section'2 cf the \< t v -i w !i"H\ "i"!" ! llisu *l!lll "IL" ctu ''• I Mr. II- Ivfth Hi' 1), .n <utd .it 1< ngth in Mjppi it (.' i !i< -uc i) pointa, ({liutnif; maupiinifc of I'k l.ufc a judniiH uTj iLli\ered in Nel on bv Mr. Justice Jtuhiiifud. m a suinuwlnfc Rimilai <a -o, mi flu f>Ui April, 1872, pnbli'died in tho X'h'ii) lit mniirr. Ho couteuded that thi) ace used w .11 a e.i-p.ii tnei ,and consequently could not bo convicted bec.iiiflo ho was not indicted as such.—Mr. Brooklicld, in icply, Baiil ho thought it would be BiifTioient if

t/i, n;c weit to tho jmy on the throe I, ,fc < - ■ nts .it he contend <1 that the o\n(i-hip miiixiiiod all throuirh in the company — His Honor sugi; stt d 'hat in reference to \Jl Jloskt til's cihji'i tlOll .IS to lilt* pll-*olier being .1 co-p.u tner, it wiml 1 be necessary to mstitthf .jceiiiixl s /vino in the indictment nt ono of the ownors, otherwise the property would ix't bo properly desenbed.— Mr. IJionUlnlil accordingly asked leave to aim nd, which was yi anted. — Hid Honor rt-scivcd the p'lints iancd by Mr. Hc^koth, and Mi Jirookhcld then shortly arldiesscd tlic juiy, siunmin^ ii[) the evidence. — Mr. lleaketh made a long and voiy able iddrcss on bi-half of the piiboner, and his Uuaor weufc o.i)efully over the evidence, and charged the jury upon it. If they fouud that the specimens wcie obtained from the Sink to Hue potfcion of the compnny's mine, and that tho accused fraudulently appropriated them to his own use, then they could find a verdict of guilty generally without without referpneo to the rjniBtion of ownership. Tho jury ictircd to consider their veidict at 1 1 Mi o'clock, aud returned into Court at 12 30 o'clock, with a verdict of guilty. Theio was another chaise against the prisoner, and Mr. HcsUeth c aid ho would advise the pusoner to plead guilty, subject to the &amo points beinct rcsei vt-d .is thoso in the present case. Owing to the lateness of the hour the Court decide.l that the prisoner should be anaigiicd this morning. Tho Court then adjuined.