SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 39, 15 August 1910, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. CHARGE TO THE GRAND lUiu. A SHOUT CALENDAR. The criminal sittings of the Suon-ma L-ourt were opened this morning before his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury was empanelled as follows :— -Henry Cromwell Tewsley, ir j m JosepL D y er « Ernest Proud, iioland Thos. Robertson, Francis Fauvel, Sydney Bernard Short, John Beverids* Fredk. Arthur Allen, Charles Qnyon, William Hugh Croskery, Alexander Peebles Webber, Charles Davis, Geor R s Rosa, William Inglis, Richard Brown, Wrge Francis Pearce, Henry Arthur Shepherd, William Kirker, Samvel Maekay, Ernest Smith Baldwin Henry Wardell, Thomas " Acock, Reg£. aid Joseph White. s Mr. tf. C. Tewsley was elected foreman. HIS HONOUR'S ADDRESS. In his address to the Grand Jury hm Honour said the cases coming befom thevn for investigation ware not generally different from the ordinary ran of' cases which grand juries were kecustom- , ed to investigate there. The number was ( aot large, the character of the crimes . not exceptional. ,On the whole he had to congratulate them on the favourable ! state of affairs. "Considering that wo c » XK rrer S c P°P«lation," said his Honour, and, to a certain extent, an accumulation of unsettled elements, it is a matter for congratulation that it is only necessary to present some twelve bil& to the Grand Jury at this sittings." lar? 1S nS3?"«. the i Went into Parti<:ulars. Under the class of crimes against the person there were ordinary se -ual cases of the kmd which had unhappily to ba investigated from time to time" Ii one case a Chinaman was charged with indecent assault on a girl who entered his shop; in the second a man wtw charged with a number of indecent acts ,•' in the third a man was charged with an offence against a girl of thirteen years' ot age. His Honour reminded thetrrand Jury teat consent was quite" immaterial at that age. Then there were' several cases of the ordinary land ofoft©nces against property. A man, wha" Wislied to get hold of a sum of money, wrote a telegram in the name of the girl with whom Vie was keeping company, and received the money. Falsifying a telegram was in itself an offence. The same man was separately charged with stealing nn. article from a dwellmghouse. ihere vrere several charges against a woman of sboplif ting from different astablKi^ments m the city. There were various charges against a man of breaking into and stealing from a store or warehouse. Apparently the police nrjfaced something and captured two raen, who escaped. Of the two one was subsequently arrested. If evidence of identification was doubtful, there was this fact that he was found in possession of a coat, which the owner idontined as having been safe on these premises before they were broken into, lnen ibere was a somewhat peculiar case «f a man who went into a hotel on the presence of looking for a friend staying there. Ho was found in the ro/>m of the manager's wife, apparently engaged in helping himself to some jewellery. He escaped. Evidence of identification would be given. The man was found to be in possession of soap with the mark of foe hotel on it. U had not been taken out of its wrapper. There would be evidence that it was specially made and branded for the ; hotel. There was also another case of forging a telegram they would have to investigate. ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CHILD. His Honour then referred to another case — a painful case for the Grand Jury to investigate. It was a charge against a woman of cruelty to a child. The law was sufficient to punish that kind of thing. If a person ill-treated a child, it was an indictable offence. The Grand Jury would have evidence that* the child had been ill-treated, fiat the neighbours hoard it crying, and heard beaming going on, that they spoke to the "woman, and she scarcely denied that the child | was beaten. By some mischance the house caught fire, and the child was rescued in a burnt condition. That wan .no part of the charge in itself, but it was part of the charge that the 'child was tied up when the fire occurred—^a serious act of wilful cruelty and neglect. The woman was in sole charge of the child, and was responsible to the court. "I need hardly say," declared his Honour, "that when this kind of thing is taking placo a prosecution should ensue." CHARGE OF PERJURY. Then there was a charge of perjury against a man over some litigation, continued^ his Honour. With a view of getting rid pf considerable obligation over a lease, he had wilfully made a false statement in endeavourmg to repudiate an agreement which he had signed. That he had signed it would be proved to the jury. It would also be shown that, after being repeatedly cautioned by his Honour the Chief Justice to be careful what he said, he apparently persisted in declaring that this signature was not lus, but that it had been fabricated for some fraudulent purpose. That was a very serious statement, apart from its being false, but what the jury had to consider was whether the man wilfully made this statement lmowing it lo be false, whether he deliberately for his own purposes made a false statement on oath. That constituted the crime of perjury. THE LEADER PICTURE. His Honour then went very fully into ' the intricate details of the remaining charge— that of the theft of the "Leader" picture— against Francis and Michael Tier. He referred to the correspondence carried on between the detectives who took the matter out of the hands of Mr Wardell, president of the society, having custody of the picture, and the holders of the picture, and specmcally mentioned certain exhibits in that correspondence for the guidance of the jury in the matter ot identification. He rehearsed the movements for the return of the picture which led to the arrest of Francis Tier' and subsequently of Michael Tier, and finally to the identification of the Tiers by boys who had acted as messengers. It is a case,"' said his Honour, "which will prooably occupy yuur attention some time, but which w' en approached in the right way will sot cause much difficulty." This concluded his Honour's address to the Grand Jury. THE FIRST CASE. The first prisoner to stand his trial was Robert Stewart, charged with forg- \ ing and sending a telegram with intent to defraud. A jury was empanelled, and Mr. Willoughby Knight was chosen foreman. Mr. H. H. Ostler Sweated for the Crtutfft. The prissner conducted his own defence. The ftrat count charged th» prisoner with having forged a telegram to J. Hobbs, Kaipara Flats, on the 26th March last, viz., "Wiro money j in trouble. — V. Sfce-wart." Other counts charged him with forging a receipt for a money-order telegram for £2 from Mr. Justus Hobbsj signing the- name of "Veronica Stewart. '.' The Crown Prosecutor intimated- that he proposed to submit ovidenca to show $feafc -the. jvqmaa had not telegranhed '

for money, and that the prisoner had cent the telegram and cashed the moneyorder received in reply. Veronica Skidmore, of Petone (known as Mrs. Stewart), was called to give evidence. She said that she knew Mr. Hobbs, but had Hot telegraphed him for money. She had obtained money from him previously. John Brackenridge, a telegraph official, said that tho telegram forwarded to Hobbs was sent by accused, whom he had afterwards identified at the Police Station. Other witnesses called were Justus Robbs (railway porter), Francis Ernest Stubberfield (money-order clerk), Patrick William Corby (license© of the Brunswick Hotel), and Frank George (boardinghouse-keeper, Ingestre-street). Detective Cassells said that accnsed, ■when asked to write at the Police Station, spelt "Flats" with two t's, as had been done J in the forged telegram. Giving evidence on his own behalf, accused attempted to set up an alibi. Witness did not know Hobbs, but the woman Stewart or Hobbs mentioned lhat a telegram from Auckland was awaiting her. When she went to get at she was " informed that a man had already received it. Witness advised r her to put the matter in tho hands of the poEce, but this was not done, as a matter of £2 was only involved. Wit-ffi-eas denied certain statements made by •evious witnesses, but admitted to the Crown Prosecutor that he had been in trouble in court before. (Left Sitting.) TEUE BILLS. Tip to the time of going to press, true ■ bills were returned as ■ follow :— Dong Hou (indecent assault), Robert Stewart (forgery and sending a telegram with intent to defraad), William Plain (indecent • act), George Brown (carnally knowing girl under 16 years of age), and James M'lntyre (theft). DUNEDIN SENTENCES. ' fBT TELEGRAPH — I'BBSS ABSOOIATIOK.I DUNEDIN, This Day. The following prisoners were sentenced this morning : — Arthur Mason, for breaking and entering, and theft at Duniroon, was admitted to probation. Horace Braithwaite, ' for breaking and en- - tering and theft at Balclutha, was admitted to -probation. William John * Newman, for breaking and entering and theftr at Dunedin, was sentenced to 12 > months' hard labour. Gwynne Yates, for re ceiving stolen property, was admitted to probation. CHRISTCHURCH CASES. OHKISTCHURCH, This Day. The Supreme Court criminal sessions opened to-day. There are eleven charges against nine persons. John Tre-mbath, for having escaped from custody, was sentenced to .six months' 1 impritvMiment in addition to the sentence he re now serving. E. E. Needham was sentenced fco 18 months' imprisonment for forgery and uttering, and James Lambert to nine months for breaking and entering.