SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1974, 2 September 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. This Day. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward.) His Honor took liis seat on the bench at ten o’clock. ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON’. Arthur Dimmock was indicted for having, at Dunedin, on the 31st May last-, stolen a watch from the person of one Richard Albion Strickland. The prisoner was undefended. The facts of the case are briefly these : On the day named in the indictment the prosecutor, who is a fellmonger, came into town for the purpose of drawing some money deposited in a bank in his name ; and meeting the prisoner, whom be had known previously, he asked him to accompany him to the bank for the purpose of identifying him (prosecutor), as the person entitled to the money'. The prisoner did accompany him, and lie drew the sum of L 5 out of the hank. They then went together to the City Buffet, in Princes street, and had some drink, the prosecutor getting intoxicated. He went to sleep, and at that time had in his possession four sovereigns and some silver, and also a watch and chain. When he woke up he found that his money and watch had been stolen. On the aftirnoon of the 21st May the prisoner went to the shop of Mr Solomon, pawnbroker, George

street, and offered a watch for sale. He asked L2 for it, which Mr Solomon refused to give, he offering, if the prisoner was hard up, to advance 10s upon it. Prisoner replied that ho wanted to sell the watch, and in reply to Mr Salomon’s enquiry, said that the watch was his own, he having brought it from England. Ultimately he pledged the watch for 12s 6d. Detective Farrell was present during the transaction, and imagining that something was wrong about the matter, he followed the prisoner after he left the shop, and spoke to him. He made an appointment with him for the same evening, for the purpose of purchasing another watch, the prisoner had spoken about while in the pawnbroker’s shop. The prisoner failed to keep his appointment, and in the meantime the prosecutor had reported the robbery t<> the police. The drisoner was arrested the next day, and the watch he had pawned was identified by the prosecutor, as being his property. At the request of the prisoner the case was put back, to enable him to subpoena two witnesses.

When the case was again called the witnesses were in attendance. Only one of them gave any evidence of importance. James Allen, proprietor of the City Buffet, stated that the prosecutor was very much intoxicated. The jury, after a short retirement, found the prisoner guilty with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of the prisoner’s youth “ and the shakiness of the evidence.” The Judge enquired of the foreman what the jury meant by the shakiness of the evidence. The foreman said that it had been proved that the prosecutor was very a-rnnk and no reliance could be placed on his evidence. The jury found the prisoner guilty because the stolen property was found in his possession. The Judge ; And a very proper verdict, gentlemen ; in a ve>y large proportion of cases juries convict on no stronger evidence. However, I shall take your verdict into consideration. In answer to the usual challenge, the prisoner stated that his age was 17 years. The Judge, in passing sentence, said he would take the fact of the prisoner’s youth into greater consideration, than any other ground stated by the jury in their recommendation. If every man finding another drunk were unable to keep bis hands out of that man’s pocket he (the Judge) was afraid that there W‘>uld be a great deal of robbery going on in Dunedin The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner ha sentenced to nine months imprisonment with hard labor. EMBEZZLEMENT. Edward Francis Cogan was indicted for having at, on the 21st April last, embezzled the sum of LB, the property of William Strachan, his empl yer. A second count charged the prisoner with embezzling the sum of L 5 10s ; and a third count, with embezzling the sum of LI6 10s. He was defended by Mr W. W. Wilson.

The facts of the case may be stated shortly as follows : —The prisoner was employed by Mr Strachan, brewer, Dunedin, as country traveller aud collector, and his duties were to receive orders, and collect monies, accounting to Mr Strachan or his clerk for all m mies collected mmediately on his return to town. On one of his trips, he collected the sum of Ll6 10s from Mr John Barr, Balclutha; on another occasion L 5 10s from Mr Duncan Soott, hotelkeeper, Waikouaiti, and on a j

third occasion L 8 from a Mr Jenkins, West Taieri. He did not account for these specific sums ; and in June on his return from a visit from the country he was questioned by the prosecutor with reference to those particular accounts. He stated that he supposed that if he had received the moneys, they were accounted for in his books of account. The prosecutor gave him until t e following Monday to ascertain what he had done with the moneys ; aud o*i that day he returned a book in which the entry of the receipt of L 8 from Mr Jenkins was made. Mr Barr’s account was settled hy cheque ; Mr Jenkins paid cash ; and the account of Mr Scott was settled by an order on Mr Gloag, draper, Waikouaiti, wh ; ch was paid. In each case the prisoner gave a receipt. The principal witness was Robert Kilgour, clerk to Mr Strachan. He stated that

the pris"ner made three trips into the country. His first trip was to the South, and during it he forwarded from Balclutha a draft for Lol 12., The draft was made up of two sums, one of L2l 12s from Mr J. Bur, Balclutha ; and the other of L 29, from Mr J. Scott, Waiwera. On that trip he collected LlO3 10s. He retained LlO 16s, which, was deducted from his commission ; and he spent L 25 on the journej'. The balance of the LlO3 10s was handed over on his return to town. He collected the sum of L 5 10s from Mr Jenkins on that trip, hut he did not tell witness so ; neither did he account for that amout. The next trip he made was to the North, by way of Oaniajm. He started on the 10th June, and collected altogether L 46 7s 9d. He sent a dra : 't, the amount of « hich he accounted for. Amongst the moneys so accounted for, no mention was made of the sum of L 5 10s, received by him from Mr Scott, of Waikouaiti. The next trip he made was to the South, on the 20th May ; and he then collected L 153 10s 4d. The names of the persons from whom he collected the money were specified in his own books. From Lawrence, he forwarded two drafts one for L4O, and the other forLll, and an acceptance f‘>r L 36 16s. The L4O draft was got at Balclutha. The balance was accounted for by the prisoner, but in that account no mention was made of the receipt by him of Ll6 10s, from Mr Barr, at Balclutha. Mr Wilson, in addressing the jury, remarked that the prisoner hitherto hud home an irreproachable character. As presented by the prosecution, the case looked black against the prisoner, yet he thought he should be able to show that two of the sums he was charged with embezzling, were accounted for. With reference to Burr’s cheque, he would prove distinctly, that it was passed into the bank by the prisoner, and remitted as a portion of the draft sent to the prosecutor. According to his instructions he would prove the same thing in regard to the money received from Mr Scott at Waikouaiti. Having so disposed of two of the charges, he thought it would he a fair presumption that the money received from Jenkins, although mention was not made of i s receipt in the hooks was also remilted. The fact of it not appearing in the book arose poss bly from forgetfulness. He called the following evidence :

George Robert Turner: I am agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Balclutha. I km.w the prisoner. Be received a draft from me in favor of Mr Strachan for LAO, on or about the 29th of May last. A cheque of John Barr’s, for 116 10s, is included in the amount of the draft.

Henry F. Pizey : I am agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Waikouaiti. Ido not recollect seeing the prisoner about the 10th of May last, nor do I recollect seeing _ Mr Scott along with him about that time. I recollect the prisoner purchasing a draft about that time at toe bank. I produced a “paid in” slip, signed by R. Cogan. I don’t know that any money was paid by Mr Gloag on account of Mr Scott. Mr Wilson again addressed the jury, referring to the impracticability of persons in the prisoner’s situation accounting for moneys received at a moment’s notice. He asked the jury to take a merciful view of the case, if they were pe 1 fectly convinced that the prisoner had feloniously taken those two amounts which had not been perfectly accounted for. He asked them to be fully satisfied that the prisoner had really embezzled those amounts ; and suggested that they might be a portion of outstanding accounts which be had omitted through carelessness or neglect to account for. He submitted that Mr Barr s amount was entirely accounted for. The Crown Prosecutor, in reply, submitted that the counsel for the defendant had failed to break down the case for the prosecution. If it was to be taken as an excuse that the prisoner had been forgetful, it would be utterly impossible to convict on any case of embezzlement because forgetfulness would be urged under a variety of circumstances. The Judge, in summing up, pointed out that, with regard to the first count, the crime was complete if a man received money for his master, and subsequently neglected or refused to account for it. With regard to the second count, if the jury believed the evidence, they could not do otherwise than convict; and with respect to the third count, there might arias the question of law whether a roan could he convicted of cmbcEisloment in a case where the particular sum was really paid in by him. He should probably rule, were he called upon to do so, if a man receive money from a debtor for his master by virtue of bis employment a sum which, amongst others, he paid in without making a specific direction as to its application, the master would have a perfect right to apply it to the general account of the person. However, it was scarcely necessary to decide the question, inasmuch as if the prisoner was found guilty on the other two counts, it was sufficient. The jury found the prisoner guilty on the first and second counts, and he was remanded until to-morrow morning, when witnesses as to character will be ca led. ASSAULT. James Madigan was indicted for having at Port Chalmers, on the 22ud July last, assaulted and wounded William Boucher, with intent to do him actual bodily harm. He was defended by Mr James Smith. The facts of the case are shortly as follow: —The prosecutor is a butcher at Port Chalmers, and on the afternoon of the day in question he put off in a waterman’s boat, in compauy with two men named Jewiss and Turner respectively, to the ship Agnes Muir, then lying at the Heads. On going round the vessel they saw r another boat, in which were Mr Wilson, another butcher, also of Port Chalmers, his clerk, and theprisoner. Both parties had some friendly conversation, and eventually Wilson proposed that both crews should go on shore. After a litrle demur prosecutor agreed to do so. On the shore being reached, Wilson said he had some business to traosact with a man named Miller, at the Mari, kaik, aud asked prosecutor to accompany him there. The latter refused to go to the house, and remained outside with prisoner and some others. Shortly afterwards he left for the purpose of going to his boat, but when he had got about 50 yards, he was struck from behind by the prisoner, who beat and kicked him in such a manner, as to cause most serious injuries. The assault was witnessed by Jewiss. Turner, and a woman named Hartwood. Jewiss interfered, aud he was also assaulted by the prisoner. The Court was left sitting.