SUPREME COURT. — CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3566, 13 December 1882, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. — CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Tuesday, December 11

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) UTTERING A FORGED CHEQUE.

Heri Heri Akena was indicted for having, on the 24th of June last, uttered a forged cheque for £18, drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Gisborne, he knowing the same to be a falße instrument.

The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The evidence in this case was almost similar to that given in the first case against the other native Heremia, at whose instigation the forged cheque was drawn.

Tbe prisoner stated in defence that Heremia had given him the cheque to get cashed, but the gentleman at the bank said it was no good. He then returned it to Heremia. At Davis's store Heremia tendered the cheque. He (prisoner) knew nothing about cheqnes, as he could neither write nor read. The jury, after half an hour's consultation, returned a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy en account of the ignorance of the prisoner, and his being under the iufluence of Heremia. His Honor said that as the prisoner had been already four months in gaol he would be sentenced only to five months' imprisomrnt, to date from his committal, which would be inflicting upon him about a fortnight's incarceration. FORCIBLE ENTEY. Hanata te Macro and Hami Wb/pehina were indicted on tbe charge of having forcibly entered certain premises at Omahu then in the occupation of other natives. Mr Lee appeared for the prisoners, who pleaded not gi"'"y- . Mr Lee raised the questwn as to the prisoners' action in the matter having been for the purpose of obtaining possession of their own property. His Honor pointed out that it had been distinctly laid down that ownership did not justify forcible entry. Indeed, it had been decided that a landlord entering by force into his own house after the expiration of his tenant's term committed an offence. The only doubt in the matter was whether possession so obtained was valid or not.

After a brief consultation with Mr Lee the prisoners asked to withdraw their former plea, and to plead guilty, throwing themselves on tbe mercy of the Court on tbe ground of their ignorance of the law and their knowledge that the land and house upon which they made tbe forcible entry were their own. His Honor, in passing sentence, said he was glad to see that tbe prisoners recognised the fact that tbey had committed a breach of the law. The Crown bad no wish that they should be punished for their ignorance. It was only desired that they should be made to understand that the law must be respected. They would therefore only be sentenced to pay a fine of £10 each.

This concluded the criminal business of the sessions, and the Court adjourned till next day.