SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Star, Issue 7411, 5 January 1888, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, January 4,

(Before Mr justice Williams.)

At the time we went to press the case of Regina v. Arthur was proceeding, tho charge being one pf robbery with violence from a Chinel|9;siQctor r ~ For.theidefence Michael Dowdcll deposed that'on the.evening in question the prisoner was not oiit of. his company till twenty minutes.past nine. They were in the West Coast Hotel together. The first they knew of the affair was hearing a noise, and they went out together.—Corroborative evidence was given by John Baird } and evidence wasalso given for tho defence by Ellen Wilson, Mary Corrigan, Robert Anderson, William Brenchley, and Mrs O'Brien.—Constable Walker was also called, and stated that accused was of a very respectable family, that the reputation of the accused was good, and that he (witness) knew nothing against him, as he believed ho would have done had the accused been given to " larrikin" ways. Constable Christie, recalled, deposed that when he went to the hotel the glass door was closed, and no one but the prisoner and the girl were on the street side of the glasß door. He knew the prisoner went about with tho larrikin class and frequented Chinamen's dens at night. Mr Macdonald, in addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, submitted that beyond all doubt an alibi had been proved. Mr Haggitt reviewed the evidence for the Crown, and His Honor having summed up, The jury, after retiring for a few minutes, returned a verdict of " Not guilty," and the accused was discharged. The Court adjourned at twenty ■ fivo miuutcs past seven p.m.

Thursday, January 5.

FORGERY AND UTTERING. James Johnston alias Lavery (37) pleaded guilty to two charges of this naturo, committed, one on tho 23rd and the other on the 26th December.

In answer to the usual question, prisoner said " I was in drink, and I did not know what I was doing." His Honor passed a sentence of twelve months' hard labor, the same on each indictment, to take effect concurrently.

LARCENY. Joseph Spiers, James Hunter, Edward Adams, and Maty M'Naught were charged with having stolen, on the 7th November last, one pier-class, two boxes of candles, eight pound of candles, three show-glasses, two saws, ono steel, seven show-cards, and one plane, the property of Donald Alexander Ross } and on a second count the three men were charged with receiving the goods, knowing them to have been stolen. Prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr Stanford appeared for Spiers; the other prisoners were Undefended. In opening the case the Crown Prosecutor said that the prosecutor, D. A. Ross, who is now lessee of the Dunedin Coffee Palace, formerly occupied a shop at the corner of George and Hanover streets. When he left that place to go to the Coffee Palace he left behind him the goods mentioned in the indictment. These goods were to a certain extent left 111 charge of the prisoner Spiers. Spiers was not actually charged with the care of these goods, but he had occupation of the premises and held the keys. These goods were seen to be all right on the 3rd of November, but on the night of the 7th they were removed, and were subsequently traced to premises occupied by Hunter and M'Naught. It would be proved that the woman and one of the men were seen carrying something to all appearance one of the stolen articles—the witness would not swear positively that it was so, but he believed it to be such—and it would be further proved that these goods were brought on to the premises where they were found in the night time, and when all four prisoners were in possession of the premises. The evidence was clear that the four prisoners were more or less connected with the removal of these goods, but, with the exception of a statement made by the female prisoner, there was no account of the part taken by the several prisoners in the removal. It would be sufficient, however, for the jury to be satisfied that all had guilty participation to be able to find prisoners guilty on one of the counts in the indictment. The statement made by M'Naught in the Magistrate's Court, after all the evidence had been taken, and after being cautioned, was as follows : " I am guilty. Adams and me are guilty. We did it all. This man Hunter had nothing to do with it. Adams and me are the only guilty parties. I was drunk." It would be seen, then, that although M'Naught had to-day pleaded not guilty, she had admitted in the other Court that she was guilty. As to the other prisoners' statements in the lower Court, Spiers and Hunter had pleaded not guilty ; Adams said he was not guilty, but pleaded guilty to shifting and carrying some of the things.

Donald Alexander Ross, in the course of his evidence, said that he had let the bakehouse in his old shop to Spiers's wifo, Spiers himself being an undischarged bankrupt. Spiers afterwards called on witness and said that someone had broken a window and taken away some lollies. Witness went down to the shop and told Spiers not to allow anyone to remove things from the shop without witness's written permission. A day or two later Detective Bain called on witness and they went to the shop, when witness missed the articles mentioned in the indictment. With Sergeant O'Neill, witness went to a house occupied by Hunter and M'Naught. They there saw Spiers, Hunter, M'Naught, and other women, and witness saw there the articles that had been taken from his shop.

In cross-examination witness said that after the lollies were missed Spiers accompanied him in the search for a constable. The shop was not locked up ; it was simply barred on the inside, the bar being put in position from the outside. Witness saw nothing of Adams at any time until the hearing in tho Police Court. Thomas Stonebridge, in the course of his evidence, said that on the night of the 7th he saw two persona, whom he believed to be Hunter and M'Naught, carrying something like the pier-glass produced. He could not swear that it was Hunter, but believed it was.

Emma Stacey also gave evidence ; and Detective Bain's deposition was read, Sergeant O'Neill being put into the box to prove that the detective left the Colony on the 23rd ult. for New South Wales. Sergeant O'Neill himself gave evidence to the effect that Detective Bain had given a correct account of the searching of Bain'd house.

The Crown Prosecutor then put in the statements made by prisoners in the lower Court, and intimated that that closed the case for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced for the defence, but

Mr Stanford addressed tho jury on behalf of Spiers, submitting that there was not an atom of evidence to connect his client either with the stealing and carrying away or with the receipt of the stolen property. The robbery must have taken place when Spiers was sound asleep ; and as to his being found in the house where the stolen property was discovered, he had in no way exercised ownership or a proprietary right over the goods in any way, and the mere fact of his being a lodger in Hunter's house did not make him responsible for anything that was in the house. Spiers was an industrious tradesman, nnd it was by the merest coincidence that he was implicated in the matter at all.

Hunter handed in a written statement, which he deßired Bhoiud bo read to the jury. In this statement ho denied having had anything to do with the robbery. Adams said that he had been given a shakedown at Hunter's, and as to what he (Adams) had said in the lower Court about the shifting of the goods, he was asked to do so, and didn't like to rcfuee, seeing that he was under an obligation. M'Naught said that she had been faulty of taking the goods out of an empty house and putting them into the shop, but was not further concerned in the affair.

His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, returning into Court in about twenty-five minutes with the following verdict :—Spiers, not guilty ; Hunter, guilty ; Adams, guilty of removing the goods knowing them to have been stolen; M'Naught, guilty. His Honor said that there might be some difficulty about the verdict in the case of Adams, and it would be as well to Bpeak of it before the jury went away. What was Mr Haggitt's opinion ? The Crown Prosecutor thought that the verdict was equivalent to one of guilty of stealing.

His Honor disagreed with this. The jury had found that the goods were stolen by M'Naught and Hunter; Adams had merely removed the goods. The Crown Prosecutor thought that it

was just a question of when the transportation took placet 11 is Honor said that it seemed to him that if the jury found that Adams knew the goods had been stolen, and had removed the goods at the suggestion of the other prisoners, with the intention of concealing than, he would, in law, be a receiver, or accessory after the fact. * That was if the jury found that Adams'ji intention in taking the goods was to assist the persons who had previously stolen them In concealing them. If that was the view the jury took, they might retire for a few minutes to reconsider their verdict.

The jury thereupon retired, and in a few minutes returned with a verdict against Adams of being guilty as a receiver. Tn reply to His Honor, The Crown Prosecutor said that there were two previous convictions for drunkenness against Hunter. As to M'Naught, she was convicted of larceny on the 27tb March, 1876, and sentenced to two months' hard labor. There were fifteen convictions against Adam." for drunkenness, and one for vagrancy, aud he had also received sentences of six months for larceny and three years for housebreaking.

His Honor: The sentence of the Court on each of you, Hunter and M'Naught, is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Duncdin for a term of twelve months, and kept to hard labor. As for you, Adams, you are an old offender, and I shall pass on you a heavier sentence. I shall also take into consideration your age. 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.

CHILD DESERTION, James Philpot pleaded not guilty to a charge of deserting his child Robert James Philpot and leaving it without adequate means of support. Mr Calvert appeared to defend the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor Baid that the indictment was framed under the Destitute Persons Act 1877 Amendment Act 1884. There were four counts to the indictment, but this was only done to meet tho exigencies of the section. The gist of the offence was that a person must have deserted his child under the age of fourteen, and left it without adequate means of support, and gone to reside beyond the Colony. In the previous Act, of which the present Act is an amendment, desertion is defined to be when a person shall have been absent for Bixty days, during fourteen of which ho provided no means of support. That was a prima fade case. Ho (Mr Haggitt) would provo that prisoner was married nine years ago to his present wife ; that the child, the subject of this charge, was born the following year; that prisoner left his wife in October, 1885, but up till August, 1886, contributed LI a week towards the support of his children; and that he then went to Victoria, Shortly after this the wife found herself unable to support the children, and they were sent to the Industrial School, and had ever since been a charge on the community. The section of the Act of 1884 was no doubt intended to meet such a case. An information was laid ; accused was arrested in Victoria, brought over here, charged bi f >re the Magistrate, and was now before the jury. If the jury were satisfied that the child in question was the child of the prisoner, that ho was deserted by his father and that father was away for more than sixty days, that for fourteen days the father did not contribute in any way towards the support of tlie child, and that the father was out of the Colony at the frime—if these things were established, the crime created by the Act must be held to be proved. He would first call Mrs Philpot. Mr Calvert objected, and submitted that the wife was not a competent witness. Until the Act of 1886, when an amendment was made, there was nothing to permit a wife to give evidence against her husband. Section 2 of that Act made a wife a competent witness in certain cases, but he submitted that this was not one of those cases Only in a charge which was in the nature of an offence against herself was the wife a competent witness. In a case in which the offence was against a child, the facts could be proved by persons other than the wife. The present case was not a proceeding against a husband, but against a father. The Crown Prosecutor contended that it was a proceeding against a father who is a husband, and that therefore the Act did apply. There was no distinction in the Act such as his learned friend said there ought to be.

His Honor said that he supposed Mr Haggitt's case depended on this witness. The Crown Prosecutor replied that it did not altogether depend on her. To a certain extent it did.

After further argument, His Honor said that it was the rule of common law that a wife could not give evidence against her husband. The section proposed to alter that rule. When in doubt as to whether the section did really alter that rule, he took it that the alteration should not be made. Ho would admit the evidence, and consider later on whether it was necessary to reserve the point. He did not reserve the point at present. Mary Ann Philpot, in giving her evidence, stated that she was married on the 25th December, 187S, at her father's house in George street, Dunedin, by the Rev. Lindsay Mackie. Her maiden name was M'Kay. She had had four children. Prisoner ceased to live with her in October, 1885, but con tinucd to live in the Colony until the 14th August, 1886. Prisoner was a groom. Evidence was'also given by John M'Kay (brother to the last witness), Elijah Titchener, and Constable Grey. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Calvert said that it must have struck the jury that it was a rather peculiar crime that prisoner was charged with. The peculiarity was that the Crown had made no attempt to show that the prisoner bad moans with which to support his child. He (Mr Calvert) submitted that if he could show that prisoner was unable to get work here, but went away to get work, and that he had no intention of deserting his children, the jury would give a verdict in his favor. On behalf of the defence,

David Bacon said that prisoner was in his employ until the Bth August, ISB6, when witness gave him notice. Witness had no complaint against prisoner. When witness was in Melbourne for twelve or fifteen days in July last he met prisoner, who was unable to get work. Grooms were not much wanted then, and in Glasscock's yards they were only getting 15s and LI a week.

William Hugh Taggart last saw prisoner in 1886, when Philpot asked him for a job, but witness could not give him one, it being a slack time of the year. Hugh Gourley also gave evidence to the effect that prisoner had on several occasions asked him for work. Prisoner made a statement, in which he said that he was discharged from Mr Bacon's service through no fault of his own, and being unable to get work here he went to Melbourne. Prior to this his wife and himself had differences, and agreed to separate, ho to pay his wife LI per week. He had only LI when he landed in Melbourne, was thirteen weeks out of employment there, and when he did get work it was at such low wages that he was unable to remit money to New Zealand. He had only 8s 6d in his pocket when arrested. Mr Calvert contended that the evidence he had called, with the prisoner's statement, fully substantiated the remarks with which he had opened the case for the defence. If a man left his children without adequate means of support and went to reside beyond fclio Colony, fcluere "wets & 'prima, facie. case of desertion according to the Act, but before the prisoner could be found guilty of wilfully deserting it must be shown that he had means. The only crime that could be proved against the prisoner was that he had not any money. The Crown Prosecutor in the course of his reply Baid that bis learned friend had practically admitted that the defence he had set up was no defence at all. The jury had nothing to do with intentions; they had simply to deal with a question of fact, and that was whether prisoner had left his children without providing them with means of support, and had bo allowed them to become a charge on the Colony. The Legislature did not say that if a man has means and does not maintain his children he is liable, but that if a man begets children in New Zealand or brings them here he should not leave them to be chargeable on the people of the Colony. His Honor summed up and the jury retired.

After an absence of twenty minutes, the jury brought in the following verdict : " \Vc find the prisoner guilty according to law, but the jury strongly recommend accused to mercy, and hope that your Honor will make the sentence as light ns possible." Prisoner, who gave his age as twenty-six, had nothing further to Bay. His Honor remarked that prisoner seemed

to have a good character from Mr Bacon and others in whose employ be had been.

Mr Calvort would point out that prisoner had been in custody since the 17th November.

His Honor said that, in view of the recommendation of the jury .and the evidence, he thought the best thing would be to turn prisoner out to get a living for his children. (To prisoner): You will be released on probation, the term of probation to be six months.

DEMANDING MONET WITH MENACES. Henry Daindnon was charged with having on the 15th October sent a letter to one Joseph Slater demanding money with menaces, to which charge prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Denniston appeared to defend the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said that the charge wan laid under section 44 of the Lerocny Act, 1867. The indictment charged prisoner on the first count with having sent to prosecutor a letter demanding money with menaces, and on the second count with having nttered the letter, which was publishing the letter. If after wiiting thut letter the writer . had kept it in hiH own pockot there would have been no offence. The letter contained a threat that the writer would accuse Mr Slater of scducinghis daughter unless Mr Slater sent him LlO. The only other fact necessary to prove would be . that prisoner wrote the letter and sent it or caused it to be delivered to the prosecator (Slater). Mr Haggitt then briefly narrated the circumstances that led to the arrest of prisoner by Constable Crnickshank. Evidence for the Crown was given by Joseph Slater, Robert L. Marth), George Webster, John Kerr, J. Churchward, and Constablo Cruickshank,

This concluded the case for the prosecution, and the trial was proceeding when we went to press.

WELLINGTON. Thomas Connolly, for horse stealing, two years'. Annie M'Kiulay, breaking and entering, was found not guilty, and dis: charged. In the case against Mary Jackson, larceDy, the Crown Prosecutor entered a voile ])roscqvi. No bill was submitted la the case of alleged criminal libel brought by Henry Anderson, journalist, against Natior, proprietor of the ' Wairarapa Observer.' In the case of Henry Stephenßon, for felony, the Grand Jury threw out the bill. John Bennett, for unlawfully wounding, got two months'.