SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 112, 13 May 1910, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. CONFIDENCE TRICK. "SUCH A GENTLEMAN !"- The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were continued to-day before hit Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout. Mr. M. Myers prosecuted ou behalf of the Crown. FALSE PRETENCES. James Cartin, alia?,. George Cutson, fop whom Mr. R. H. Webb appeared, was charged with having obtained by means of false pretences from Donald M'Kehzie the sum of £46, with intent to commit fraud. Other counts charged the uecused with the theft of the money, and with having fraudulently converted it to his own use, having received it on term* requiring him to account for it to Donald M'Kenzie. The offence was alleged 'to have been committed on sth. January. 1908. , In opening the case, the Crowu Prosecutor said the charge was based on whai was known as a "confidence trick." It would I? shown from the evidence that M'Kenzie and the accused were staying at the Railway Hotel. The accused it- | presented himself as a farmer, and said he wanted a man to break in horses. M'Kenzie suggested his son, who wua in Wellington. M'Kenzie had about £45 at the time, and being a simpleminded man handed the money over to the accused. The pair wont on a trip up the Main Trunk line, and when in the Auckland district the accused disappeared with the money. Counsel also mentioned that the evidence would show that accused had sent two labouring men to the farm he alleged he owned at Pahiatua, and these men had become stranded there. | Donald M'Kenzie, stonemason, now r»i siding at Christchurch, said Ifc had been working on the Main Trunk line. Ha met the accused — whom he could positively swear to — at the Railway Hotel, Wellington. Accused, said he owned a farm of 200 acres, that he had come to Wellington to get the price of his wool clip, and that he wanted "a man to tooit after the farm and break in the horses. He offered witness £2 per week and "found." Witness and the accused slept) in tho same room that night, and witI ness lent accused £10 next morning to | buy a watch. "I would trust him with, | anything after the bargain we had mads the night before," said the witness. "He seemed such a gentleman !" Accused al?o stated that he (witness) Was "carrying his money too loose,'* and asked witness to give it to him to put in tha bank. Witness did so. Later accused gave two labouring men 5s each, and engaged them to work on his farm, sixteen miles outside Palmerston North. Witness and accused subsequently arranged to go on a pleasure trip beforw witness started work on the farm. Accused said he would pay all expenses. 'Witness detailed the wanderings of himself and the accused through tha North Island until they reached Auckland. Accused engaged a room at one |of the hotels. It was too late to get tea at the hotel, so the pair had supper at a restaurant. Afterwards accused said he was going to see his sister, and would 1 return later. Thb next time witness saw him was two yeart> later in the Magistrate's Court. When accused "disappeared only had 4s 6d. ' A LITTLE COMEDY. The court was mucn amused while Mr. Webb was cross-examining the witness. M'Kenzie had a wealth of 'Scotch brogue, and he laughed and jokedi about the occurrence, and apparently enjoyed his own recital as much as the. people who had assembled in the cour£. Mr. Webh asked witness <if he 'was sober in Auckland. "I had enough sens* to. see hnn.'* t {t.'he. accused), he said, "pulling the bed across the door in the double •'-bftdroom." "Were you sober?" counsel demanded. "No drunker than I am' now," he replied. "How miny drinks did you have that day?" asked counsel. "Two or three," was tho answer. "Possibly four or five?" counsel persisted. "I can't remember now." "And yet," Mr. Webb reasoned, "you can remember details of other eventa which occurred two years ago?" "What age are you?" counsel asked. "Sixty-six." — He looked fifty. "You have a reliable memory?" "Farish," he modestly asserted. "And yet you remember details of events which occurred two years ago?" His face lightened up. "I can. remember things which occurred forty years ago !" he asserted with confidence. Counsel was proceeding with his crossexamination when his Honour said he did not see what the particular line of examination being followed had to do with the ca&e. * 4 "I canna' either," helpfully interjected the witness. Jonn Daley, nephew of the licensee of tho Railway Hotel, gave evidenc* that M'Kenzie and the accused had stayed at the hotel about two years ago, and they occupied the same room. UNFORTUNATE LABOURERS. Robert Wilson, labourer, said tHat he saw a man something like the accused at the Railway Hotel. The man, whom he could not positively identify, engaged him to repair fences, etc., on his run at Pahiatua. Witness was to receive 30s per Week. Richard Harris wan similarly engaged. The man gave the two labourers their train fare, and they 1 went to Pahiatua, but could not find the farm. The accused was not like the man who had engaged him — themal) was full of worry about his stock atid wool sales. (Laughter.) Evidence was given that no one» of the name of Carlin or Curson ever had a farm in the Pahiatua district/ and that accused and M'Kenzie had been seen together at Taihapc. Detective Andrews gave evidence that when accused was arrested he said : "He will have a job to pro\e I stol« his money." Accused admitted having stayed at the Railway Hotel. "This case is bo simple," s&id his Honour in summing up, "'that it i 6 hardly necessary for me to say anything at all." His Honour did not speak more than, a minute. EIGHTEEN MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT. The jury returned with a verdict of guilty after a retirement of fifteen minutes. His Honour said that if accused had shown any contrition for his act by pleading guilty and throwing himself on the merecy of the court, his counsel's plea for leniency might be entertained to a certain- extent. Prisoner, however, did not do so. He had' been twice previously convicted of false pretences, once for theft, and one* for forgery and uttering (two charges). His Honour would not give him tht full sentence that might bo imposed. In inflicting a senlciup of eighteen months' Imprisonment he considered &c was dealing lightly witlr the accused. ALLEGED BREAKING AND ENTERING. FINGER-PRINT* EVIDENCE,, William Martin Ker, a young mta. was charged on four informations — (1) with breaking and entering* -ih.© premises

of GolEn and Co., Ltd., and stealing various articles and £4 18s- 6d in money ; '{2) breaking and entering tfae premises of H. Morris and Co., and stealing clothing and money (£4 5s 2d); (3) with breaking and entering the premises of John Keir, and stealing 6tamps and money valued at 6s ; (4) with breaking into tjie premises of Victor Robert Simpkins', and stealing a large quantity of groceries, the value of which was not stated. Mr. Herdman represented the accused, who ' pleaded not guilty. Mr. Myers, in opening the case, said ithat it would be shown that the.premises mentioned in the indictment had been broken into. The evidence against the accused would largely consist of fingerprint evidence. Evidence having been given as to Simpkin's stop being entered, and the .visitor having replenished himself with a bottle of lemonade, Detective Cassels stated that he had called at the place and handed over a lemonade bottle (on ■which he saw finger marks) to the fingerprint branch of the Polke Department. Detective Andrews stated that he had taken the accused's finger-prints (produced). •At this stage the court adjourned until 2-p.m. AFTERNOON SITTING. i On resuming, evidence was given as to the goods alleged to have been stolen j from GoUan's. A salesman said the ■goods produced were similar to those which had been stolen. The cash-box, .which was also stolen, contained over JB4. H. Morris, clothing manufacturer, 'Jervois-quay, said that tie, content* of a cash-box (£4 ss) were stolen from his premises. Roy Gosse and Harry Brown gave evidence that J. Heir's premises had .been broken into and the contents of a cash-box stolen, amongst other things. .•Detective Cameron testified that this •box, as well as that at Morris's, v. to [handed over to the finger-print depaitBnent. Detective Lewis gave evidence rthat he had taken a set of the accused's finger-prints (produced). This witness also gave evidence concerning the manner in which various doors had been broken open. The house occupied by the accused at 14, ITurphy -street, was visited by the Detective Lewis on the 14th April. The goods (produced), witness said, were found there. The snralJ crowbar (produced) was found in the premises of Pcarce and Company on 19th April. The premises had been broken into the previous night, and about thirty cases of boots stolen. That day witness saw accused walking down the street with ihe parcel (produced} on his back. It contained thirteen pairs of new boots. FINGER PRINTS. Edwin Dirmie, finger-print expert, was J the last witness. He said the fingerprint on the neck of the lemonade bottle from Simpkin's was identical with that of the impression of the left forefinger of the accused. The other impression on the bottle coincided exactly with that of the middle finger of the accused. The chances of the impressions on the bottle and those taken from accused's fingeis by the police not belonging to the same person were about 186 million billions •to one. Witness had taken about 12,000 impressions of fingers. If the classification of the prints wa* good, in 95 per cent, of cases* a single impression could be picked out- of 10,000 in fiye minutes. tThe print on the cashbox from Kier's was identical with that ot accused's light thumb, and the prints on the cash- ' box from Morrises were again identical tvith. those of the accused. (Proceeding.)