CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 7332, 3 October 1887, Page 2

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

SUPREME COURT. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) THE GRAND JURY. The following were sworn in as a Grand Jury:—Messrs Henry Edward Williams (foreman), Samuel Young, James Wyper, James Wylie, George Alfred Tapper, John Simon, Thomas Short, John Philip Armstrong, Henry Purvis, Henry Palmer, Michael Meenan, Alexander Mathiebon, Henry Guthrie, Isaac Green, Henry William Dowling, Alexander Dow, John Davie, John Leach Butterworth, Joseph Braithwaite. Alexander Brown, and Henry Beckingsale. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, said that he was glad to say that their labors this morning would be very light; there were only eight charges against a total number of ten prisoners, and none of the cases presented any difficulty, so that he really thought it hardly worth while to make any remarks on them. They were aware, he supposed, of their duty, which was simply to ascertain in each case whether there was evidence which made a case that the accused should be called upon to answer. If they considered there was such evidence, it was their duty to return a true bill. That was their proper function—simply to ascertain if a prima facie case was made out, and not go further and attempt to decide as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned in the following cases Barrowman, horse-stealing; William Morrison, house-breakiue. Michael Carey, malicious damage; John Mathieson, assault and robbery; Annie Currie, larceny; Peter Williamson, forging and uttering ; and George Thomson, larceny. NO BILLS. The Grand Jury threw out the bills charging David Goldsmid, Daniel Hamilton, and Andrew Craig with indecent assault. HORSE-STEALING. John Barrowman (16) pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing on July 2 a mare, the property of William Goodlet. Mr Sim, who appeared for accused, said this was unfortunately a case in which an application to have his client brought under the provisions of the First Offenders' Probation Act could not be made. The accused had served a sentence of three months' imprisonment for stealing a saddle, but, though technically a different offence, it was practically the same as that with which he was now charged. The facts were that he stole a saddle and bridle at Port Chalmers, put them on the mare, and, riding up to Dunedin, put the lot into a saleyard for sale. Counsel would call evidence as to character.

Captain Thomson, surveyor to the Underwriters' Association, said that he had known accused all his life, and always looked on him as a simple, stupid boy ; but he knew nothing against his character. His parents were respectable people, and he lived with them.

Alexander Rae, licensed shipping-master, give similar evidence, and added that he was willing to get accused a situation if he were discharged. Dr Drysdale gave evidence to the effect that accused was a boy of weak intellect. Mr Phillips, gaoler at Dunedin, said that accused's behavior while serving his sentence was good, and that he was industrious and quiet; while, as a first offender, he had been kept separate from the other prisoners. His sentence would expire on Friday next. In answer to His Honor, the Grown Prosecutor said that nothing against the accused was known prior to these offences, which, as Mr Sim had said, were practically one. The saddle and bridle were sold in the yard, but the horse was not, and it had been restored to its owner.

His Honor said that looking at thb youth of the accused, and considering the evidence given as to his character, it seemed a pity that the provisions of the Probation Act could not be applied. He thought it would be sufficient to meet the case if accused entered into recognisances to come up for sentence when called upon. If after being discharged he did not conduct himself properly, he could be brought up for sentence and be punished accordingly. He would therefore not pass sentence on accused at present, but the latter would have to enter into his own recognisance in the sum of L 25 to come up for sentence when called on. HOUSEBREAKING. William Morrison (21) pleaded guilty to having', on August 1, broken into and entered the dwelling-house "of John Cook and others in Chalmers place and stolen an accordion therefrom. The Crown Prosecutor sa.id that the accused bad been several times convicted for pepty larcenies. Detective Henderson stated that the accused was a shoemaker by trade, but did little or no work, and mixed with bad characters. His Honor said that tjie aptual theft in this c? y se waa a trifling one, but it had been effected by feloniously entering a dwelling, which was in itself a serious matter. Looking at his previous career, it was necessary that a substantial sentence should be passed on him.' Accused would be sentenced to three years' imprisonment, with hard labor. MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. Michael Carey (34) pleaded guilty to having qn September 1 broken tiyo windows, valued at LlB 18s, in the Bank of New Zealand building. Mr Stewart, who appeared for accused, said that the act was done while accused wag drunk, and while he was committing a series of outrages of a similar description. He fjrst broke the bank windows, then broke some windows in Court's Hotel, and assaulted the police when hemg arrested, He was brought up at the Police Court and sentenced to various punishments for drunkenness, breaking the hotel, windows, and assaulting the po^ce—the sentences amounting to six weeks and two days, and there were eighteen days still to run. The Grown Proseoufor said that nothing was known to accused's discredit heyond his having been previously fined for drunkenness, and for a hreaoh of the peace. He was well known as a hard-working man, and was always well employed. His Honor said he would consider what had been said in accused's favor, and the circumstance that he had already undergone some weeks' imprisonment for what was really part of the same outrage; still, h,§ would have to give a sufficient warning to pther drunken men that valuable property which was necessarily exposed to attack could not be destroyed with impunity. Accused would be sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labor, concurrent with the remainder of the Sentence he was at present serving. ASSAULT ANB ROBBERY. John Mathieson (32) was charged with having, on August 22, assaulted Ah Sing and stolen from him the sum of 10s, Mr Stua/t, who appeared for the accused, said the latter would plead guilty to the second count of the indictment, but that he denied having used violence; The Crown Prosecutor agreed to accept the plea of guilty as caverjngp the whole of the indictment, 1 Mr Stuart then said that he would apply for> the accused to be placed under the provisions of the Probation Act. The aocused remembered nothing of having'committed the offence, and could only explain it by his having done it as a drunkeu lark. Counsel Would call evidence as to character. ' Angijs Wilson, 1 Bootmaker; Alexander Matheson, manager of the' Mutual Agency Company ; Abraham Salomon, pawnbroker; and Archibald Ai'Mastpr, hqtelkeeper, gave evidence as haying ljppwn accused for periods varying fpom a ypar to swenty years, and to his having always "conducted himself well till of late, when he had given way at times to drink. In answer to His Honor, the Probation Officer (Mr Phillips) said that he had no report to submit, inasmuch as accused was indicted for robbery with violence, which was excluded by the Acfy'and he jiaij %erPfore made no inquiries." The Crown Prosecutor said that pothing against the accused was known. He came to the Colony in 1883, was first employed as a warder at the Seacliff Asylum, and since as a traveller and canvasser. His Honor said the question was of the conijtruptiop pf the PjQbajiion Act, and he thought accused was entitled to come w{tb|n the limits of the Act as he had never before been indicted or arrested on warrant for an indictable offence, and he was therefore a first offender under the Act. The offence to whioh he had pleaded guilty was not one which should exclude the accused from the benefit of the Act, and the mere fact that he was in the same indictment charged with an offence of a more serious character should not necessarily exclude him, especially when the Crown admitted that the evidence was not sufficient under that count to convict. His (His Honor's) own opinion was that the evidence would not justify a conviction on that count. Therefore, as there was >

no technical reason arising from the colt* struction of the Act why accused should not be admitted to the benefit of the Act; it was reasonable enough that he should be so admitted. Accused would be released on pro bation for twelvemonths, but he would have' to pay something towards the expense of the prosecution j and also some recompense to the prosecutor. He would be ordered to pay 5s every week during his term of probation; L2 of the whole sum to go to the prosecutor as some and the remainder to go towards the expense of the prosecution. STEALING FROM THE PERSON. Annie Currie was charged with having, on January 11, stolen a watch and chain from the person of Gilbert M'Nichol. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The Crown prosecutor stated that the facte of the case were that the prosecutor is a storekeeper at Eaikorai Valley; that on January 11 he, while drunk, went to the North Dunedin Hotel; that there he got very drunk indeed; that he was in accused's company there, and lost his watch and chain; and that the accused subsequently pledged the watch at Goldstein the pawnbroker's shop, giving the name of Black. Evidence to the above effect was given by the prosecutor, Samuel Goldstein, and Sergeant Shirley. In defence the accused.called Mrs Harry Millar, who was unable to appear owing to ill- health. Her husband, however, appeared, and accused asked him if it were not a fact that on the day in question she spent the whole of the afternoon at their house ? The witness said he remembered accused's calling in one day early in January, but he could not remember what day it was. His wife oould probably do so. The case was adjourned for an hour to allow Mrs Millar to be called. Mrs Millar, on going into the witness-box, stated that she could not remember on what day it was that accused called on her. His. Honor having summed up, the jury without leaving the box returned a verdict of "Guilty," The Grown Prosecutor stated that the accused had been convicted six times of larceny and five times of drunkenness. Her husband at one time occupied a good position in Dunedin, but lost it through accused's drinking habits. He took to drinking himself, but had since left for another colony and had recovered himself there. His Honor said that it would be best for the accused and for everyone else if she were sent to gaol for a time that might reasonably be expected to wean her from drink. She would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard labor, FORGING AND UTTERING. Peter Williamson (23) was charged on two counts with forging and uttering a LI Bank of New Zealand note with intent to defraud. Accused, for whom Mr Denniaton appeared, pleaded guilty to the charges of uttering in each instance. Mr Denniston said that the only point in accused's favor was that he had lived in Dunedin for twelve years, and this was the f}rst suggestion even of a charge against him. He had a certificate for good conduct from his employer, and also a numerously signed petition on his behalf. The Crown Prosecutor said that nothing against the accused was known. His Honor asked if the two cases were isolated ones. The Crown Prosecutor said that four notes in all had been traced, but only three of them to the accused. The notes were simply photographs of a good one. His Honor said that fortunately for the accused the forgeries were to an extent of a trifling nature. He would take that into consideration, and also the fact that he had hitherto borne a good character. At the same time the offence was a serious one, and he was bound to pass a substantial sentence —accused would be sentenced to three years' imprisonment, with hard labor. LARCENY FROM AN HOTEL. George Thomson was charged with having on July 17 stolen from the house of Frank. \ M 'Govern, at Kaitangata, a cashbox and i L 42 in money. Mr M'Gregor appeared for accused, who i pleaded not guilty. j The Crown Prosecutor sa.id that the prosecutor kept the Club Hotel at Kaitangata, and on the night of the 17th of July, which was a Sunday, accused was there. During the evening he was seen to go into the sitting-room and try door after door in various cheffoniers and cupboards. He was then seen to go into the prosecutor's bed-, r, ,om and come out with something in his hands. Prosecutor's sister gave the alarm, and several people went to see what was the matter. Some men went out of the house in the direction of the coal-shed, and as they ! did so met accused coming from it. They ; went to the shed, and found the cashbox i lying there. Accused was charged with ; stealing it, but denied having done so. That day he was not detained, but next day he ' wa3 arrested. ! Evidence was given by the prosecutor, [ Bedelia M'Govern, Susan Burt, William . Lyons, Archibald Muir, aud Constable Hobßon. Mr Macgregor, after intimating that he would call no witnesses for the defence, addressed the jury on behalf of the accused. The jury returned, a verdict; of "Not gvuity," _«__„ CHRISTCHURCH, The Chief Justice presided, and in his charge said: " I find that there are twentyone persons against whom there are twentyseven charges. The number, I believe, is rather greater than usual at the criminal sittings here, I regret to find that amongst them are several youths—lads of sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen years of age—and that more than one of these | appear to he returned as New Zea- [ land born. These are features which are not by any means satisfactory. I ! regret also to state that there is no • adequate means of dealing with prisoners 'of this age, should they be convicted. They are too old for the reformatories, and it is not desirable that they should be sent to gaol, where there is no provision for classification. The probationary system again will not apply to these ! persons, because they would require to be ! put under the control of some strict > but well-qualified master. There is no provision under which that can be done in New Zealand." Charles Bilson pleaded guilty to the larceny of a bicycle, and James Stevenson to horse-stealing. John Fisher was found guilty of breaking into and stealing. Sentences were deferred. welt^ngt^-^ There are thirteen charges against fifteen prisoners, but none of the cases are of a serious character.