THE COURTS-TODAY.

Evening Star, Issue 6802, 6 January 1886, Page 2

THE COURTS-TODAY.

» SUPREME COURT. —CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) SENTENCES. Frederick Henri/ Kesskr (aged 29), who yesterday pleaded guilty to two indictments charging him with embezzling the funds of the VictorialnsuraueeCompany, was brought up for sentence. His Honor: I have given careful consideration to your case, prisoner, and shall take into consideration the circumstance that you have pleaded guilty, and that you have afforded, as I understand, assistance in elucidating the frauds which you have committed. At the same time, however, wholesale depredations by persons placed in positions of trust must always necessarily be severely dealt with. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept to penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the term of four years—the Bame sentence on each indictment; the sentences to take effeet concurrently, four years in all. Robert Dickson (aged 32) pleaded guilty on the previous day to embezzling the funds of Marshall and Copeland, and was now brought up for sentence. His Honor: Your defalcations, prisoner, were not of such a large amount as those of the prisoner on whom I have just passed sentence. What I said in passing sentence on him applies, however, though in a Bomewhat less degree, to your case. I then said that in all cases where a person was placed in a position of trust, and abused that position by helping himself to large sums of money, a severe sentence was necessary. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept to penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the term of three years. Mr Solomon applied under the Convicts' Forfeiture Act that the sum of L 8 2s 6d, found on the prisoner when arrested in Molbonrne. might W. handed over to the prosecutor. These moneys were no doubt a portion of the proceeds of his defalcations. His Honor said he would' consider the application.

Alice Clayton (22) and William Ernest Harris (22), convicted of robbery in a brothel, were next placed in the dock. The female prisoner said the verdict returned in this case was the most unjust one a jury ever brought in. She was perfectly guiltless. The whole of the money which the prosecutor parted with was either spent on drink or given to herself, and had she so chosen she could have had his last L 5 note. If a man were foolish enough to go to a house of ill-fame and spend his money while in drink, it was unfair that when he recovered himself he should demand his money back, and, failing that, swear he had been robbed. This was the first time during her chequered career that she had been accused of robbery. She had nothing further to say, except that she was perfectly innocent. The prisoner Harris : I have only to repeat what I said in the lower Court. His Honor: The sentence of the Court on each of you is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for the term of six months, and kept to hard labor. EMBEZZLEMENT. Jose}7h Bland was indicted on further charges of embezzling Ll2 ss, the property of David Stewart Dawson.

Mr Wilkinson appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded guilty. The Crown Prosecutor intimated that there was a further charge of larceny as a bailee against the prisoner, but on this he proposed to offer no evidence.

Prisoner, on being called on, said he had nothing to say. His Honor: I have just had occasion, prisoner, to pass sentence on two other prisoners for a crime somewhat similar to your own, and to pass sentences apparently severe. Your case, however, appears to me to be of a worse charaoter than that of either of those two prisoners on whom sentence has just been passed. You were placed in a position of very great trust and responsibility—of exceptional trust and responsibility—and you have altogether abused that position. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept to penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the term of five years—the same sentence on each indiotment; the sentence to take effect concurrently. Mr Haggitt said that the sum of L4O odd was found on the prisoner at the time of his arrest, and he asked for an order for the payment of this money to the prosecutor. The money consisted of one L2O and two LlO National Bank notes, and it was pretty clear from the evidence that these, at all events, formed part of the proceeds of the embezzlement.

Mr Wilkinson urged that portion of the money found on the prisoner must be deemed to have been his own. Moreover, it was only fair that some of the money should be set aside for the purposes of his defence.

His Honor : That is to say he should be allowed to defend himself at the expense of the person whom he had robbed. Mr Wilkinson : Not at all, your Honor. He wished to point out that so far as the three sovereigns were concerned it was reasonable to infer that these were the prisoner's property. He urged that the prisoner should be allowed the cost of his defence. His Honor: That last contention is a ridiculous one. Mr Wilkinson; Of course, your Honor, it is quite discretionary with the Court to award the money.

His Honor: I shall conclude from the evidence at the trial that these National Bank notes at any rate were the proceeds of the cheque. But whether they were or not it seems to me there is sufficient to justify me in making an order. I look at the case in this way: Supposing a man, who is about to commit a larceny or embezzlement, has say L 5 in his pocket, he steals or embezzles other L 5; he puts that money together with his own in his pocket, and expends in one way or another L 5 out of the mixed fund. He is arrested, and L 5 are found on him. In that case it could not be proved that these L 5 are the actual coins or notes which were stolen or embezzled. I think, however, under the circumstances it would be fairly held that this L 5 represented for the purposes of the Statute the L 5 which had been stolen or embezzled. Had it not been for the larceny or embezzlement he would not have had this L 5. That seema to me to be the case here. I make an order therefore in aspect of all the moneys found on the prisoner; and the same order will be made in Mr Solomon's case. INDECENT ASSAULT. John Naonan (29) surrendered to his bail to answer to an indictment charging him with indecently assaulting Margaret Ellen Jennings, aged seventeen, on November 10. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Messrs F. R. Chapman and Gallaway. Mr Haggitt briefly opened the case. The prosecutrix was a domestic servant at the Bay View Hotel, and the prisoner a vendor of Wertheim sewing machines. On the clay in question he followed the girl into the kitchen of the hotel, and endeavored to induce her to buy a machine. She replied that she did not want one, and prisoner then attempted to criminally assault her. When subsequently arrested and charged with the offence the prisoner said: " Drink got me into this trouble. I would not have been in this trouble but for drink." The prosecutrix, Mrs Scott, D. Foley, and Sergeant Macdonnejl gave evidence for the prosepution. No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr Chapman pointed out a few salient facts of the case, and urged in a case presented so unsatisfactorily the jury wpuld not be justified in convicting the prisoner. The prisoner's statement was that iie had been robbed by Scott, the proprietor of the hotel, and that the present charge had been laid by the girl at Scott's instigation. The

information was not laid until eight days after the alleged assault, a fact which showed that this was not a bona fide prosecution. He asked the jury to believe that the prosecutrix had been .tutored 1 by her father and bv Scott, and that the girl's evidence'in the monstrous charge now made was very different to what really took place. After an hour's retirement the jury returned into Court. The Foreman (Mr T. Moodie): The jury wish to" know if the verdict must be unanimous, or if a verdict of ben could be taken.

His Honor: No; I am afraid you will have to be unanimous, Mr Foreman. The Foreman: The jury request me to ask if there is a back door from the kitchen leading into the yard—that is to say, was there any means of escape for the girl had she chosen except through the passage. His Honor: There is no evidence as to that, except what the plan shows. Sergeant Macdonell (recalled) said the only door from the kitchen led into the passage. A person having got into the passage could then get into the yard, and on to the Anderson Bay road. The jury had not returned a verdict when we went to press. [By Tewsgbaph.J

AUCKLAND. John Meehan, for indecent assault, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and twenty-five lashes; William Bennett, for forgery, nine months. WELLINGTON. Frederick Harris, alias Johnston, pleaded guilty of horse-stealing, and was sentenced to twelve months' hard labor. Middleton, alias Williams, and Herbert Allendale, ali&B Harvey, were convicted on a charge of escaping from gaol, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, to take effect after the completion of their present sentences. C. Toll, for larceny from the person, was acquitted. M. Wickham, for larceny, was sentenced to two years' imprisonmrnt. GHRISTCHURCH. James Dungan, alias Malcolm Christian, pleaded guilty to stealing a watch, and was sentenced to to three years' penal servitude. Frank Daley was acquitted of embezzlement. George Barrett pleaded guilty of burglary, and was sentenced to twelve months hard labor. Henry Fitzsimmons, for assault with intent, was acquitted. Emma Juncker pleaded guilty of abandoning her infant, and was sentenced to one day's imprisonment, on account of extenuating circumstances. She was absolutely destitute when the offence was committed. Sarah Hazelhurst, mother of the boy who died at Woodend the other day, was sentenced to twelve months' for stealing from the person.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) J. Curie and another v. J. Rowers. Claim, Lls 10s, on a judgment summons. Mr Solomon appeared for the plaintiffs; there was no appearance of, or on behalf of, the defendant.—An order was made for the payment of the debt by instalments of 10a per week—the first instalment to be paid by the 11th inst.—in default, fourteen days' imprisonment. X. Heffernan v. J. Shcchy.— Claim, L 5 ss, for goods supplied. Mr James appeared for the plaintiff. —Judgment was given by default for the amount claimed, with coats. H._ Holt v. Williamson and Murray (trading as the Dunedin Iron and Woodware Company).—Claim, L 3 4s, for seaman's wages. Mr Denniston appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Hosking for the defendants.— Judgment was given for plaintiff for LI 6b Bd, with costs. D. Stewart Dawson v. New Zealand Shipping Company.—Claim, Lls 15s, value of a sealskin jacket pillaged from passengers' luggage during the voyage of the Rimutaka from Plymouth to Port Chalmers. Mr Denniston appeared for plaintiff; Mr Hosking for the Company. Tbia case had been previously heard, and plaintiff was nonsuited on the ground that the endorsement on the back of the bill of lading protected the Company from loss of luggage. This point was again taken, and His Worship said he saw no reason to alter his former opinion.—Judgment was given for defendant with costs. Mr Denniston gave notice of appeal. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs G. Penwick, G. P. Farquhar, and J. Elmer, J.P.'a.) False Pketences.— Julius Walsgott was charged with having obtained by means of false pretences the sum of LI 10s from A. H. Krausie.—After prosecutor had given evidence the Bench dismissed the case, as they did not consider the offence proved. Fruit-stealing.—A boy named Henry Campbell was charged with stealing cherries from the garden of Stephen Stevens.—He pleaded guilty to being in the garden, but not to stealing the fruit.—After evidence, the Bench ordered accused to pay the value of the stolen cherries in addition to a fine of ss.

_ William Norman was charged with a similar offence, and also with breaking the fence surrounding prosecutor's orchard.— The Bench inflicted a fine of LI and coats. (Before Messrs J. Logan, G. P. Farquhar, and J. Elmer, J.P.p.) Assault.—The adjourned case of Jarvis v. Hunt was again brought or. Mr J. A. D. Adams appeared for defendant.—The prosecutor repeated his evidence given at the first hearing of the case.—After hearing all particulars of the case the Bench fined defendant 10s and costs.