SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 37, 12 August 1902, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

ii tm i CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Befor> Hi* Hqnou* the Chief Juatice.) ASSATJLT AND ROBBERY. tu the dwrgft agaiust John M'Auliffe of ass»iM.tu}g and robbing Andreas Vetepeen, the accused, concluded his case by addressing the. jury at considerable length. After frur minutes' deliberation the j»jy returned or verdict of Guilty. Sentence VA>. deferred, Michael Began was then arraigned, and chared, with taking part in the ceunni*eion of the same offence, and pleaded Guilty. Mr. JeUicoe addressed the Court on hohfJf of. tl^e accused. His Honour said he would take i^tjo consideration the .fact that Regan had pleaded guilty, and had not attempted to bolsteß up bja Xobhery by perjury. He would defer sentence till w-day. The. Qouxt then adjourned. TO»PA.Y'S PROCEEDINGS. SENTENCES. Michael Regan and John M'Auliffe yren brought up for sentence for roboery with violence. Tha latter pointed out th*fc he ' had been incarcerated three months awaiting trial. His Hononr said the prisoners vrtre perhaps unaware that this ottence, practically that of highwaymen, was regarded very seriously by our hoy. which made the offenders liable to imprisonment for life with, floggings, He, However, vroula take into consideration the compurntiv? youth of the prisoners, and the fact tlui there were no convictions against theu^ for- dishonesty, and would pa^s pis>bably a more lenient sentency %wn had svei been passed for what amounted to highway cobhery in. a city at niglit-. M'AulUfe appeared to be & man of iaiolligcncv-, and the fact that he could couiunit a. criifte like this. spok,e little for his inorul chat* acter. He would be sentenced to imprisonment for two years, and Regan to eighteen months' imprisonment. {Before M\\ Justice Edwards.) FORGERY- AND UTTERING. William Edward Barrows wa» >;hapgec with having iorged the name of the lato Jftiutß Smith (of The New House) to a cheque tor tho sum of £5, paired the same with Hong Kew, obtainiug £> 17« 6d fi'oni the Chinajnan after purchasing 2a 6d worth of fruit. The cheque was passed in December hist, and accused wn* committed for trial in June. Acowsed, who was undefended, pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Gully prosecuted *nd Mr. p. L. Lawlor was chosen iotomau of the jury. After evidouoo bad been heard, tfen prisoner made a statement, in which he denied all knowledge of the cheque. It was, he pleaded, a case of mistaken identity, although he admitted having been inside Hoqg Kew's shop sereral time* as » purchaser of 'fruit. He w**, he declared innocent of the oharges, the Chinaman could easily have mistaken him for some oqe else. In fact, there waa a member of the D Battery for whom ha • had at times been mistaken, though be * (accused) had sever been in the battery. His Honour directed the jury that it must convict the accused if it was satisfied that there was sufficient proof of identification. The offence was one against the community rather titan against the individual. The jury retired at 11.30 o'clock. Jusb before 1 o'clock the jury return> ed to auk several questions of direction, and the Foreman said there was no chance of coming to a decision before luncheon — a remark which caused some amusement, as it was an intimation that they would dine at the Crown's expense. THEFT FROM A HOTEL. John Wright was put upon his trial for the third time on the churge of having stolen from the Empire Hotel, Mas"terton, the sum of £146, belonging to Jeremiah O'Meara, on the night of lStu April last. It was alleged that Ukj «^- | eased opened toe safe, and took t!w 1 mover therefrom. The deUuli q* tue <&»;

b?f?re r T rt t d ia the PP ° 8t Whwi ifc *" grore the last session of the Supreme 0 iUtie " fallCd to aßr< * IlSun ac \ u tBCt 8C( * ™<» defended by Mr. « 'Wtoaa, Air. Gully piosecuced, and Mr. V £ V- i^aokshear was chosen Foreman oi ii p jury. The hearing of the charge against John ' VJl ««t being continued when w« w can. to press. ; the forgery and uttering CASE. k^^ti^ iury wt ««w* to Court just t>»fore the luncheon adjournment to ask ii* directions, the Judge informed them f .i 7.?" ♦ i 7.?" ch ? r ßi»S tho jury he omitted t«, tell them that beside* forgery and ut"ring, the accused was also charged with javuip obtained goods from Hong Kow »y taisa pretences and by means, of a valueless cheque, ■The jury returned at 2.30 o'clock, with a verdict of Guilty on tbe third count— i ' ** * i I:avm ? obtained mov>ev wd "onris i>t false pretences on a valueless cheque, fu? £ liy * reccmme »<*ed pr.«u..er io mti«vllf! reatmen L t . *>oth on account of his spent some time in gaol. tJS? HOl l t i Ur Eaid he would reserve 86ne^'A a ' th . ere we "» other matters to be 2SS i m connectio » w"h the ac- ?„! (Barwws has yet to answer a todT * Txng esca P ed fr<"a l^ful cus-