CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 109, 10 May 1909, Page 7

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

/ THE WELLINGTON SITTINGS. ME.- JUSTICE CHAPMAN CONGRA-. & TULATORY. The Supreme Court- criminal sessions were opened at Wellington, to-day, beioro Mr. Justice Chapman. The following grand jury , was empanelled : Charles Austin Briggs, R. Taplin, Albert James Bennett, Walter Ernest Eearson, Arthur Corrigan, James Jamieson, A. E. Kernot, Alfred Harris, William' Clajtton, Sidney Brown, Geo. V. Hull, .Thomas Waniock, David Robertson, John Prouse, Thomas William Pilcher, ArAup Blacklock, Samuel Mackay, Neil Galbraith, William A. Mowbray. Ml. Cor*. _ rigan was chosen foreman. H-IS HONOUR'S CHARGE. V His Honour said he would only have . Ito detain tho grand jury a very fewi minutes in referring to the cases fcbatl, • would be laid before them. Talcing. -them as a whole, they disclosed nothing' that should cause a feeling of disquiet, as to crime, when consideration was given to the largeness of the district.; There were fourteen or fifteen cases, most of them of an ordinary descrip-. tion, such as those of the grand jury) who had been in the box" before were accustomed to. The first case was perhaps somewhat peculiar. A man named', M'Millan seemed to have expected a post-office order, and when he applied for it he found there was one addressed to somebody with a name like his (MTtfullan, or something like that). Ho signed the receipt and received the telegram. He was expecting a, money re« pittance of 20s, but the one he received was SoY £20. The contention was that when he signed he knew he was getting, some one else's money. A number oft cases on the list were of an ordinary, type in big cities — robbery and scaling from the persoit, and &o on. The cases come before them wei-3 characteristic cases — what his Honour mkjht. call pub-. lichouso robberies— where cbunken men. were seen to possess mone#, and were watched by other men who made opportunity to rob them. In one case, threo men set upon a dnunken man and robbed him. The hotel porter was resourceful enough to follow them, to locate them x in a bar, -where -they were spending the .proceeds,, and to communicate with the police as' to their whereabouts and the nature of their offence. Another, case was that in which a Chinaman alleged he was assaulted and robbed. Tho grand juiy, would have to consider whe- ' tner therav was anything, more than an assault. 'There was a case in which some clothes stolen from N&ahauranga' railway; station were found, in the possession, of the person against whom an offence was charged. There was a case oi peculiar characteristics in recard to a robbery at the General Post""" Office, though his Honour did not think the difficulty. The man managed to open a 'safe in the Post Office by means of a key, and afterwards- he dynamited the sate so opened in a manner to cover up the xacfc that- be had opened it with only % • j 2EB were a number of cases of indecent, acts, such as cropped up from time 'to time. In one case it was suggested, that a fourteen-year-old girl had consented to, an act, but seeing that the law /protected, girls, notwithstanding consent,, until, Ihey were sixteen years oi age, that /contention did not matter." 'tL m? the J ur y was concerned.' J-ns other.- case of the kind \w«s that qi a v^ry young girl indeed; .of a girl i«fc very intelligent. His Honour thought there was some difficulty m regard to. identification of the man hut go far as the Grand Jury's duties Were concerned, he thought there would be no diflteully. Hi* Honour wished to make a few remarks on one case relating to/ property. It was a charge against/a young woman of having obtained '£50 from a resident in Wellington by a false pretence. The Grand Jury merely had' to ascertain whether there was pa-ima facie evidence {hat tne inducement by which the owner of this money parted with it was a false statement knowingly made, with intention to make this man make -the loan. The evidence, shortly, w,as that a young woman named Hallett represented herseli/as bearing the name of CampbellBaAHerman. This was not an everyday livsmc, and any person using it might be reasonably considered to suggest that .-she was in some way a-elated to tho late • Prune Minister of England. The suggestion was that she masquerade^ in fcha name of Campbell-Banncrman, and in that way made the acquaintance of several persons here, including ;ho one from whom she go-u this .money, and who said ho would not hnre parted w •xh this money to an unknown person boaring an unknown name ; 'but because she was bearing this name of Campbell-P.an-neraian he listened to' her repressutations. She said J/nat her father was down in Canterbury, where he was looking for a place, or perhaps at that lime he was down there fishing; .a short, she suggested that her father was a man. of some means, and that this loan could be looked upon as only a temporary, one, because her father would be soon back. The talk about lier father, it was suggested, was wholly false; that her father was not here at all, nor was he as represented. The contention of the Crown was that accused's statement induced tbo belief in the mind of Mr. Clifford that this woman was what really she was not. The Grand Jury had to consider whether there was a prima facie case made out of wilful misrepresentation by means of which this man's money was obtained. In concluding, his Honour said he thought he might fairly congratulate the Grand Jury upon the general absence of crime here. One could not expect the affairs of a laige city like this to be conducted without some crime arising, but he thought it fair to say, both in regard to the -vigilance of the police and the general behaviour of the citizens, that there was very little to complain about. SENTENCES. Frederick Armstrong, alias George Pluck, a dark-complexioned, middleaged man, having pleaded guilty to four charges of theft at Taihape, came up before his Honour for sentence. Mr. Fitzgibbon, on behalf of the prisoner, said that for the past nine or ten years Armstrong had boon n hard-work-ing man, living an honest life. He did not belong to the criminal class. The offences to w hich he had pleaded guilty, were all committed within a short period, and constituted practically a single lapse. It would be sufficient, counsel thought, if the prisoner were convicted ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. Mr. Myers mentioned that i«i 1201 Armstrong. had been sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment at Woollongong, New South Wales, for breaking, and entering: His Honour said the prisoner had shown considerable dexterity in getting hold of or making a false key, and in opening safes. It showed that he knew a good deal about such matters, that he possessed a fair amount of familiarity with crime. "Xou have been working in this country for a number of years," added his Honour, "and I don't think it necessary to inflict a severe sentence, nor to make it an indeterminate sentence. If you find yourself in court on a^charge of this kind again you will

run considerable risk of being declare* 11 an habitual criminal. At present 1 tliink it sufficient to sentence you to two years' imprisonment with hard Jabour. ' ' ?" ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. >, ..The fust case heard .by his Honour irivolved a charge of assault and robbery against three men, named William Thomas, John Trainor, and George Williams., The three men were charged with assaulting and robbing one James 'Garter of the sum of 6s on the Bth February. Mr. Myers prosecuted, and Mr. Bolton appeared for the accused. Mr. Isaac Boock was foreman of the Jjury. James Carter, an elderly labouring filan, said he drew 'his cheque for £1 10s wages from Baker Bros, on the Bth iF-ebrnary, and, after drinking at various (hotels, met the three men in the bar of the Panama Hotel. He had never seeu the trio before. He went with them to the Cricketers' Arms, after calling at several other places. He went out to the back of the hotel, and was followed by two of the men, who attacked him and ransacked his pockets. lie sat down and called out "Murder ! Help !" A policeman found him and took him in charge for drunkenness. To Mr. Bolton : I wouldn't swear (Williams was there. I was too much muddled with drink. Mr. Bolton : In the Lower Court yon said Trainor put his arm, around your xieck—- Witness : Yes, and garrotted me. (Laughter. ) JAMES 'HEMINGWAY. James Hemingway, who on Saturday Jast pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. Riddell, 8.M., to two (robberies — one of £856 worth of stamps ifrom the Government Printing Office in •December, 1906, and the other of £140 • worth of fountain-pens from Messrs. iWliitcombe and Tombs' s premises in December, d9O7 — came before (Mr. Justice Chapman this morning arraignedwith a charge of breaking and entering mo the Genera 1 Post Office and stealing various articles of a- total value of £800. After the indictment had been read, •the prisoner was asked how he pleaded. After some hesitation, he replied, <"Guilty." Sentence on the three charges was postponed imtil 2 o'clock, for a lady (witness to give < evidence. FOR THE DEFENCE. At 2 o'clock p.m. the court resumed proceedings. James Hemingway was recalled to the bar. Mr. Wilford submitted that the proceeds of the robbery of stamps were destroyed. The stamp office only lost the cost of paper and printing. Jessie Hemingway, mother of the prisoner, was called. She gave her evidence with great emotion. She said that in December, 1906, her boy confessed that he had stolen certain stamps, which she found in the house. She had seen an account of the robbery of stamps from the Government Stamps Office. She decided to destroy the stamps at once. She first tried to burn them, but they would not burn. She feared they would incriminate her son. She put them in the copper, she put them through the ringer, and then put them into the drain, destroying every ,vestige of the stolen property. "I told nd one," said the witness, trembling, "not even my husband, until a week ago. My son threatened'that, if I told his father, he would shoot himself. He had a revolver. The boy never touched any one of the stamps. I destroyed every one." The witness was assisted ortt of court in a state of nervous prostration. Mr. Norton, late' employer of the accused, said that Hemingway had always been a good, industrious, honest employee. COUNSEL'S PLEA. Mr. Wilford, in an eloquent appeal to •his Honour for leniency, said that the only motive' he could possibly suggest ■was that of a sort of challenge. In December he had seen an article in one of the newspapers, saying it was impossible to rob the Government Printing Office, it was so well guarded. This was a challenge to a man of the prisoner's temperament. He accomplished tho ro-bbery alone ; not for gain, Dut out of -mere (bravado. The same with the othef .crimes. The man, by his physiognomy, showed that conceit was the guiding .principle in his character. His vanity and self-esteem acted as the chief motive. He thought himself a fiort of Napoleon, having an unlimited confidence in his own single capacity. Mr. Wilford described the other crimes. The Post .Office robbery was the acme of complete self-adulation. He had ibeateit the Ipolice. He had become famous with the spublic. In the eyes of the law Hemingway was a criminal ; but they had to look •beyond the mere surface, ' and try^ to make the punishment fit the crime. The xmfortunate thing for the prisoner was that he had not been discovered in his first offence. He was intoxicated by his triumph, if triumph it could be called, over the police, and his conscience was dulled. Hemingway was only 21 years of age at the present, and there was a chance of a complete reform. Counsel concluded with a strong appeal for leniency. His Honour asked what was known of Hemingway. Mr. Myers said he had come from Taranaki, and had been working as a carpenter and boat builder, and also in the Government Railway Department. He had changed places a good many times. In April, 1907, lie was in Soutli Africa, but was unable to get work, and returned to Wellington. Since then he had done a little work, but not much. His parents were very respectable people. SENTENCE. His Honour said that, as the prisoner was a very young man, he proposed to pass on him a sentence which some people might think inadequate on a person who had committed two exceedingly expert burglaries and an equally expert crime of breaking and entering. "I cannot accept your counsel's suggestion altogether," said his Honour. "You stole something that was of v^ry little use to you, no doubt, but, if theie had been valuables, you would have taken them. That was shown by your third crime. If that were a case like the previous cases of taking something which was of no use to you, it would have been different. But, in the meantime, you had developed into a regular criminal. I have to take into consideration your whole conduct. Having become an expert housebreaker, you became something more. You became n forger, forging every note you passed. You lived three months on the proceeds of that robbery by committing fraudulent acts. I cannot overlook that you have done what expert criminals ordinarily do. You have proceeded* to live on the fruits of your crime. If you had been an old criminal, I would have given you a very severe sentence. But you are a young man, and, I must confess, I have sympathy with your parents, who appear to be very respectable people. Stil 1 that will not satisfy public justice. It is not desirable that it ' should go forth to the public that an expert crirairu>! living on the fruits of Iris crimes, like yourself, can get off •with a nominal sentence. I shall sentence you to three years' imprisonment with hard labour, on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. There was a buzz of whispers in the back of the court, and a call of "silence," and the prisoner was led clown below. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury brought in beforeluncheon true billr. against Michael Her-

Hhy, on a charge of theft ; Wtn. Thomas, John Trainor, and Geo. Williams, assault and robbery ; and James Hemingway, ■breaking, entering and theft. At 1.15 p.m. the Grand Jury returned 'a true bill in the case of Ethel i May Hallett on a charge of obtaining \£6o by false pretences from Walter \Clifford.