SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Star, Issue 7410, 4 January 1888, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, January 4,

(Before Mr Justice Williams.) The quarterly Bitting of the Supreme Court commenced this morning at ten o'clock. THE GBAND JURY. The following were sworn as the Grand Jury: —A. Livingston (foreman), W. B. Boyd, 0. H. Statham, W. Snow, W. Smith, J. Oughton, N". M'Lean, J. M'Kenzie, J. M'Fee, J. M'Arthur, P. Laurenson, F. G. Laing, R. A. Kelsey, R. Hudson, J. Gray, J. L. Godfrey, G. Esther, A. Dow, T. Coull, and G. P. Auating. his honor's charge. Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand j ur y—The calendar on this occasion is rather heavier than usual. Eighteen persons are charged with different offences. None of the charges, however, are of a very serious character. The most serious charge is one of arson. The accused is charged with burning down his house at Kaitangata. Owing to some extraordinary misconception the wife of the accused was called as a witness for the Crown, and examined before the committing Magistrate. The law is quite clear that her evidence is inadmissible, either for or against her husband, and she cannot be called upon to give evidence before you. You will therefore have to deal with the case upon the testimony of the other witnesses only. There is a charge against a man for failing to provide for his child adequate means of support, and going to reside out of the Colony. This was made an offence by the Destitute Persons Act 1877 Amendment Act 1884. In this case also the principal witness is the wife of the accused. I have considerable doubt as to whether, under this Statute, her evidence is properly receivable, but as the question may be arguable, it may be better that you should hear her evidence, and the point can be discussed if necessary at a later stage. There is a case of attempting to extort money by means of a threatening letter. Fortunately cases of this kind are exceedingly rare. The depositions show that the police displayed considerable acuteness in the detection of the offender. There are two charges against a man named Wilkins—one of embezzlement and the other of obtaining a cheque by false pre-

tences from aMr Harty. The latter charge should, I think, more properly have been for the stealing of the bill of exchange which the accused gave to Mr Harty in exchange for the cheque. It is possible, however, that, although the charge before the Magistrate was as I have stated, the accused may have been indicted for larceny. In any case, if you think a prima facie case of fraud is made out, you should find a true bill. The other cases are of the kind that habitually come before you, and I do not think you will have any difficulty in dealing with them. I would just simply remind you that your duty is not to try the cases, but to hear the evidence that is tendered on the part of the Crown ; and if you think a prima fack case is made out, which the accused should be called upon to answer, you should find a true bill. Gentlemen, if you will retire to your room the bills will be laid before you. TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned in the cases of F. L. Flint, false pretences; Thomas Pep perill alias Shelton, forgery and uttering; James Marshall, housebreaking; Hugh Anderson, attempting suicide; James Philpot, child desertion; Eliza Whittet, larceny; James Johnston, forging and uttering; Alfred Holmes Palmer, breaking into and stealing from a dwelling; William Kirk, unlawfully wounding ; Henry Davidson, de-

manding money by menaces ; Edward Adams, Jamep Hunter, Joseph Spiers, and Mary M'Naught, larceny; and Charles Wilson, false pretences, embezzlement, and larceny. NO TRUE BILL. The Grand Jury threw out the bill in the case of Archibald Buchanan, charged with indecent assault, and Fitz Anderson, arson. His Honor then thauked the Grand Jury, and finally discharged them. KALSE PRETENCES. Frederick L. Flint was charged that on October sth he obtained by false pretences, by means of a valueless warrant for the payment of money, the sum of L2 18s from Amelia Bilson. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended. The Crown Prosecutor said that the indictment just read was the ordinary form of charge of obtaining money by means of a valueless cheque. The facts were very simple. Prosecutor was a man named Bilson, who kept an oyster shop in Frederick street. Prisoner went there on the afternoon of Wednesday, the sth October last, and from Mrs Bilson, who was in charge, he ordered some oysters, which were supplied. Prisoner remarked

that they were very dry, and at hia request a pint of porter was procured for him. He then asked if Mrs Bilson could cash a cheque. She replied that fihe could, but did not know whether it would be safe to do so. Prisoner professed to be very indignant, said that he was well known in town, and that he had plenty of money in the bank ; and ultimately persuaded Mrs Bilson that she had been very wrong to doubt his solvency and honesty. Mrs Bilson went off to get a cheque, but prisoner said that she need uot mind getting a cheque form, as his order on a sheet of note-paper would be sufficient for the bank. He then wrote out an order very much in the form of a cheque. Mrs Uilsoll took, this, deducted the price of the oysters and porter, and gave prisoner the balance. On being presented at the Union Bank this order was dishonored, no person of that name having an account there. When in the lower Court prisoner seemed to recognise that his was a hopeless case, for he made this statement: "I have nothing to say except that drink caused it. I got LlO through the Post Office, and got drunk and don't know what happened after that. I don't know what possesses me ■when I get drunk; I cannot look after myself." To-day, however, he pleaded not guilty. He (Mr Haggitt) would call the shopkeeper and the accountant of the Bank to establish the case.

Evidence was then given by Amelia Bilson and F. A. Cutten.

Prisoner did not cross-examine the witnesses, nor call any evidence for the defence, but made a statement the gist of which was that he was well connected in Melbourne, and received money from his sons and daughter there ; and that through this his signature was well known in differentparts of New Zealand. He hoped His Honor would alio rv him to throw himself on the morcy of the Court, for though he had done a very stupid thing that deserved punishment there was no criminality in the matter. The jury, after two minutes' consideration, returned a vsrdiot of " Guilty." Prisoner, Who said his age was fiftyseven, had nothing to say. The Crown Prosecutor said that prisoner arrived here in 1685, and since then had been three times convicted of offences similfti to this One. On May 6, 1887, he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment at Wellington; on July 7, 1887, to one month in Christchuroh j and on August 30, 1887, to one month in Dunedin. He had also been.charged on two other occasions, but had got off. Prisoner was sentenced to two years' hard labor.

FORGING AND UTTERING. Thomas Pepjwill alias Shelton(42) pleaded guilty to a charge of committing these offences on the 24th August, 18S5, and handed in a written statement for the consideration of His Honor.

The Crown Prosecutor explained that the reason why the prosecution had not been undertaken earlier was that prisoner had been serving a sentence in the Invercargill Gaol, and the police did not execute the warrant until this sentence had expired. His Honor remarked that prisoner in his statement complained of this delay. The Crown Prosecutor stated, in answer to His Honor, that besides the sentence just referred to prisoner had served three months at Invercargill on another charge of larceny. Prisoner had been in the Colony since 1864, and nothing was known against \\\m prior to these charges. His Honor said that this case should have been proceeded with as soon as the police were able to take action. He should take that into consideration, and also the fact that prisoner had been some time in gaol. The sentence of the Court would be three , months' imprisonment, with hard labor.

HOUSEBREAKING. James Marshall, seaman, aged thirtynine, pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking anot entering the warehouse of Robert Cleland, Bond street/on the 4th Novomber, and with removing therefrom 501b of rabbitskins.

This prisoner also handed in a written statement embodying what he wished to say. The Crown Prosecutor said that prisoner had been convicted of breaking and entering the premises, of his employer (a butcher) in

Auckland in 1886; and in 1882 he was acquitted of a charge of larceny. Prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.

ATTEMPTING SUICIDE. Hugh Anderson (40) pleaded guilty. He said that he was in delirium tremens at the time, and did not know how it was done. The Crown Prosecutor said that nothing at all was known of the prisoner. It was true that he had been drinking. He went into an hotel at Greytown on October 25 and cut his throat with a knife, and was found at the last gasp, having nearly bled to death. Prisoner had been treated at the Hospital at a cost to the country of about L 4, and as he had money he (Mr Haggitt) suggested that prisoner ought to be made to pay the expense of his maintenance. The Probation Officer mentioned that he would have recommended prisoner to probation, but lie could give no clue as to where he would be found, so that it would be impossible to look after him. His Honor supposed that the police would be able to look after him, but was not quite sure that this was a case that came under the Act. It would be sufficient if prisoner were called on to enter into his own recognisances in the sum of L 25 to come up for judgment when called on. If the Hospital authorities had a legal claim on prisoner, they could enforce it in the usual way. ROBBERY FROM A DWELLING. Alfred Holmes Palmer, a lad between twelve and thirteen years of age, was charged with breaking into the dwelling of Jacob Nickles, at Henley, on November 9fch last, and stealing therefrom the sum of L 5 12s 6d and a purse containing 2s. Prisoner pleaded guilty.

The Probation Officer mentioned that the police report was unfavorable.

The Crown Prosecutor said that there were no previous conviction against prisoner. Several petty thefts, however, had been traced to him, but the goods had been given up, and there had been no prosecution.

His Honor said that he should not pass sentence against the prisoner, but, in exercise of the power conferred by section 19 of the Industrial Schools Act, would direct that he be sent to the Caversham Industrial School and detained there until he reaches the age of fifteen ; prisoner's present age to be taken to be twelve years and three months. To be brought up in the Presbyterian form of faith. LARCENY. Eliza Whiltet was charged with having on the 21st March stolen a watch value L 6 Gs, a chain value L 4, and a locket value LI, the property of Charles William Smith ; also a watch value L2 15s and a chain value LI 10s, the property of Eliza Emily Smith. Prisoner pleaded Not guilty.

In opening the case, the Crown Prosecutor said that Mr Smith, the prosecutor, was a warehouseman living in the Glen road, Mornington. The articles the prisoner was charged with stealing were taken from a chest of drawers in Smith's house. The only one of the stolen articles since found was the gold chain ; that was found in the possession of prisoner a very short time after it had been stolen. The case against the prisoner was that property, which it would be proved jwas stolen, had been found in her possession, and that prisoner had admitted in the Court below that the chain, which would be identified as Mr Smith's property, was one that she had sold to a Mrs Keeshan, who lives in Filleul street.

Evidence was given by Charles W. Smith, Mrs Keeshan, Ellen Collins, Charles Callaghan, Kate Cleaver, Constable Sullivan, and Mrs Smith ; after which Prisoner read a statement, in which she maintained that the chain produced was not the chain that she had sold to Mrs Keeshan. The chain had passed through so many hands that it was impossible for any conscientious English jury to convict on such evidence. There was not a particle of evidence to connect her with the theft.

His Honor, in summing up, said it was clear thot whoever stole the hain stole the other missing articles, for they were all missed at the same time. After reviewing the evidence His Honor continued by saying that the jury had to be satisfied that the chain had been identified satisfactorily by Mr and Mrs Smith as the one that had been stolen from them in March ; and then they had to be satisfied that the chain produced was identical with the chain that prisoner had sold to Mrs Keeshan. In the Court below prisoner did not deny this, but she did now. If the jury were satisfied that the chain produced was stolen and that the chain produced was sold by prisoner to Mrs Keeshan in March, they had this fact, that the chain was stolen and found in the possession of the prisoner, and it therefore devolved on prisonor to show how she became possessed of it. Prisoner addressed the Court, urging that if the stolen chain was not sold on the night it was stolen it was impossible that she could have sold it, as she oould account for her time from 10 a.m. on the 22nd.

His Honor understood prisoner to mean that rl<o had sold a chain to Mrs JJeeshan before the 21st March. The jury could take notice of what had been said.

The jury, after a few minutes' retirement, returned a verdict of Guilty. The Crown Prosecutor mentioned, in reply to His Honor, that there were a great number of previous convictions against the prisoner, from 1879 downwards. She was a woman who watched her opportunity in front of premises. There were four convic tions against her for larceny in 1879, one in ISSO for being illegally on the premises; in ISS2 she got three years' penal servitude for larceny ; in April, 1887, five years' hard labor at Timaru (two charges); and in September, 1887, at Oamaru, a three years' sentence, to run concurrently with that imposed at Timaru. Prisoner asked His Honor to read a paper that had been handed in, and pleaded for one more chance.

His Honor replied that he had read it before, when prisoner was before him at Oamaru. Prisoner was already serving five years for other offences—(Prisoner: All committed about the one time)—and the sentence of the Court would be two years' hard labor; this sentence to Commence at the expiration of the sentences now being served. BOBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Edward Arthur was indicted for having on the 26th December robbed Lung Chin Wah of 2s, and put prosecutor in fear of his life.

Prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr D. D. Maodonald. The Crown Proseoutor briefly opened the case, Prosecutor was a Chinese doctor, living in a right-of-way off Walker street. On the night of the 26th ult. he was coming down this right-of-way, when he saw prisoner, who beckoned to the proseoutor to come to him, Proseoutor would not do so, Prisoner followed proseoutor up the right* of-way, caught him by the arm, and said "Give me money," showing a knife at the same time, The Chinaman became frightened,, and gave prisoner a sixpence and a threepenny piece, Baying that he was poor and could not give more. Prisoner then struck proseoutor twice on the side of the head, knocked him down, and took another shilling and threepence. A second Chinaman came to proseoutor's assistance, but ran away for further help. Then a third Chinaman came up, and showed fight, and prisoner ran away. He was arrested by Constable Chriatie. The particular question for the jury to determine would be, he (Mr Haggitt) supposed, whether prisoner was the man who assaulted the prosecutor, as the defence, he understood, would be that it was not prisoner who was concerned. As to that point, the Chinese doctor himself and two other witnesses would speak positively as to the identity of the man.

Lung Chin Wah, in cross-examination, said that he identified prisoner by his general appearance. It was not dark at a quarter past nine, when the affair took place. Charley Sue, prosecutor's neighbor, recognised prisoner by his face and " a curious eye.'' He (witness) was forty feet away from the scene.

Kum Ching and John Ah Tong also gave evidence. "

[The case was still proceeding when we went to press.]

"" WELLINGTON. Mr Justice Richmond presided. There are'no cases of a serious nature.