SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 7254, 4 July 1887, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, Judy 4. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court commenced at ten o’clock this morning. THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were empannelled to serve as the Grand Jury:— Messrs Arthur J. Burns (foreman), Thomas Brydone, John Barnes, William Christie, James Curie, Latham O. Beal, jun., Michael R. Duncan, Thomas Fogo, David Grant, Henry Green, Bendix Hallenstein, James Hogg, Henry Samuel Jones, Jchn Matthews, James Macandrew, Donald M'Donald, John M'Kenzie, Thomas Short, Donald Stronach, William A. Walton, and N. Y. A. Wales. Ms honor's charge. His Honor said : Mr Foreman and gentle men of the Grand Jury—The calendar is somewhat heavier than usual. There are as many as eighteen prisoners who -will come before you. The offences charged, with one or two exceptions, are very much the same kind that usually come under your consideration. Perhaps there are more offences against the person than is usual in this district, None of them, however, are of a very serious character. The most serious case on the calendar is a case of arson, where a man is charged with setting fire to his house with the intention of defrauding an insurance company—the company in which the furniture was insured. The evidence is circumstantial, and is rather voluminous. You will have an opportunity of seeing the witnesses and judging for yourselves whether aprima facie case is made out. There is a case of concealment of birth. As to that I think you will have but little difficulty, because the accused has practically admitted the offence. There are two cases of an unusual kind. One is where one of the accused is charged with setting fire to a bridge, and another accused is charged with being present and aiding and abetting him in so doing. This offence is created by statute—by the 33rd section of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1867, which makes it a felony for any person to do any injury to a bridge with intent to thereby render such bridge as a roadway dangerous or impassable. Now, the depositions show that the male accused set fire to the bridge, and that his object in so doing was to destroy it, as he alleges the effect of the bridge was to back up the water on to Ins farm. The act makes the crime ; and although his motive in attempting to destroy the bridge was to prevent the water backing up on to his farm, yet if the motive which operated on his mind was to get rid of the bridge because it was a nuisance to him, and his intention in carrying out the act was to destroy the bridge —so if he set fire to the bridge with the intention to destroy it that was sufficient to bring him within the Act, although he may have had some ulterior motive. There is another case which is also of a somewhat unusual kind ; and that is a case where the accused gave a mortgage over certain stock on his farm, and he is accused of larceny as a bailee in respect to such stock. The offence is created by the 19th section of the Chattels Security Act, 1880, and the section is in these terms : “ Every grantor of any mortgage of stock under this Act shall be deemed to be the bailee of the stock within the provisions of the Larceny Act, 1867,” so that if a mortgagor of the stock makes away with it with the intent of fraudulently defrauding the mortgagee of it, he commits the offence of larceny as a bailee. I do not think you will have any difficulty with the rest of the cases. Gentlemen, if you will be kind enough to retire to your room the bills will be laid before you.

TRUE BILLS. In the following cases true bills were returned : — John Williams, larceny ; John Edward Taylor, larceny after a previous conviction for felony; James Henry Wilson, forging and littering; Robert Howie, robbery; Thomas Edwards, unlawfully wounding; Ah You, unlawfully wounding; Mary Ann Halliday, endavoring to conceal the birth of a child ; Robert M'Gunn, indecent assault; Arthur Smart, indecent assault; Daniel Berry, robbery; John Hunter, robbery ; John Atkinson, robbery ; Charles Richards, forgery and uttering; William Taylor, malicious injury to a bridge; Ada Cameron, principal in the second degree to last-mentioned offence ; Thomas Fahey, larceny ; Beauchamp Thome, arson. NO BILL was returned on the indictment charging William Hunter with shooting with intent, and the prisoner was accordingly discharged. ROBBERY FROM A RESTAURANT. John Williams alias John Allen, a colored man, pleaded . to an indictment charging him with stealing, on May 3, a coat, the property of William Fewins. Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor stated that prosecutor was, on the date mentioned, lodging at a restaurant known as Kelly’s Restaurant. On the morning that his coat was stolen he saw it on a chair in his bedroom. He went out, and on his return it was gone. The police were at once communicated with, and they found that the prisoner, who had been seen about the restaurant, had pawned the coat. The case was therefore this : A coat was stolen, it was traced to the possession of the prisoner immediately after it was stolen, and the prisoner was found dealing with it as his own property. Prisoner offered no defence, and the jury without leaving the box returned a verdict of “Guilty.” The prisoner, when called upon, gave his age at twenty-seven, and had nothing to say. Mr Haggitt stated that there were a number of previous convictions for larceny and one for housebreaking against the prisoner. His Honor: The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for a term of two years and kept to hard labor. forgery. James Henry Wilson alias G. Thornton pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with forgery and uttering at Dunedin, on May 14. He stated that Tie was awaiting trial at Invercargill for a similar offence, committed there about the same date. Both offences were committed while he was on a drinking bout. The Crown Prosecutor, in answer to the Court, said that prisoner, who was a clerk by occupation, only arrived in the Colony last year, so that he was not long here before he began a career of crime. His Honor, in passing sentence, said: You seem to have been convicted of larceny before, prisoner, and of course that has to be taken into consideration in passing sentence upon you. As to the other charges oi which you stand committed, when they come on they will be disposed of on their merits, and if you plead guilty or bo found guilty upon them, then if whal you state now is correct, that they were really committed during the same bout of dissipation as the present has been, that ol course will be taken into consideration. At the present, however, these committals are outside the question. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for the term of two years, and kept to hard labor.

AN OLD HAND. John Edward Taylor alias Thomson (aged forty-nine) pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a coat, the property of George Nelson, at Dunedin, and also to having been previously convicted of felony. Mr Haggitt stated that the prisoner ar : rived in the Colony in 1865, and that, with the exception of one period of three years, he had been in gaol since 1869 to 1887* principally upon charges of larceny of a similar character to the one to which he had now pleaded guilty. His Honor, in passing sentence, said: The offence, prisoner, to which you have pleaded guilty is in itself a comparatively trifling one. You have also, however, pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony ; and there are, it appears, innumerable other convictions against you. I have no wish to pass a sentence disproportionate to the actual offence which you have committed ; but the law contemplates, and rightly, that where a man has been previously convicted of felony a heavier sentence should be passed. Tnat is done in the interests of society, for if you were let loose after ashort period your previous career shows that you would immediately oome before the Court again. I feel therefore bound to pass a heavy sentence in order that you may be kept out of that mischief whioh, if you were loose, you would undoubtedly fall into. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept in penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the-term of four years. UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. Thomas Edwards was indicted upon a charge of unlawfully • and maliciously

wounding Thomas Pilling at Lawrence on the 16th of April, 1887. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, said he had two witnesses at Lawrence, but he did not know whether he could get them, as they were prisoners in the gaol there. His Honor thought it was only reasonable that the witnesses should be got. The Crown Prosecutor said that prisoners required from the Dunedin Gaol for the purpose of giving evidence were got by simple order; but, seeing that the witnesses now required would have to be removed to the Dunedin prison from another gaol, he thought it would be necessary for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. His Honor promised that steps should be taken to ensure the attendance of the witnesses, and the prisoner was remanded in the meantime. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Robert Howie was charged with assaulting Edward Stenberg, and with stealing from him LIS in money and an earring. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr D M. Stuart, pleaded not guilty. The case for the Crown was, shortly, that the prisoner had been working at Otautau; that he came to Dunedin on May 20; that on the 25th he attended the races, and afterwards was joined by the prisoner and three others, with whom he went from hotel to hotel; that they induced him to go to the cricket ground on the pretence of meeting some female ; and that while there they knocked him down and robbed him. The prosecutor could only identify the prisoner, and the question for the jury was. whether they weresatisfied with the identification. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Edward Stenberg, W. P. Simon, Richard Wise, Richard Jones, James Barron, Detective Henderson and William Henley. No witnesses were called for the defence, but Mr Stuart addressed the jury at some length. The jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” and prisoner was acquitted. CONCEALING CHILD-BIRTH. Mary Ann Halliday pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with endeavoring to conceal the birth of a child at Cromwell. His Honor ordered the prisoner to be released under the First Offenders Probationers Act, on probation, to extend over a period of six months. [Left sitting.] [By Telegraph.] CHRISTCHURCH. The criminal sittings opened to-day. Mr Justice Johnston congratulated the Grand Jury on the lightness of the calendar, which contains only ten cases, none presenting remarkable features. George Walter Foster, for forgery, was sentenced to two years’ hard labor.