SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Star, Issue 7412, 6 January 1888, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Thursday, January 5.

(Before Mr Justice Williama,)

The case of Regina v. Davidson, a charge of demanding money with menaces, was proceeding when we went to press yesterday. ' On behalf of the defence, Mr Dennlston raised the point as to whether evidence was admissible that at the time he wrote the letter prisoner had reasonable ground for believing that the allegation was true. After aome discussion he said he would not risk calling such evidence, but would only call witnesses as to character. Thomas Alexander Peterkin, William Dawson, Elijah Titchener, and James Mitchell gave prisoner a good character, and said that he was the last man. they would have expected to attempt to extort money in such a manner. The Prisoner then made a statement to the jury, saying that about September 26 he went out intending to go to a committee meeting bf a bowling club. Near the railway bridge an elderly man passed him, whom he thought to be Slater, followed by three little girls. Thinking it was unusual, he watched and went on to the top of the bridge, where a man named George Hannan was standing. He asked the latter if he had seen a man and three little girls pass, and the man said no j that they were under the bridge, and he had been watching them. The elderly man below presently came round the side of the bridge and began taking liberties With one of the girls. Hannan asked whether he should throw a stone down, and prisoner said no, he might strike one of the girls. He told Hannan he knew the man and would have some fun with him, ahd also told him to call out and frighten him, which was done, the man running away in one direction and the girls in the other. Prisoner then went up Jetty street and told Hannan that the man they had seen was a shopmate of his, and he would write him a letter and have a good joke with him. Prisoner also told a few people he saw _at the meeting about it, but did not mention the man's name, as he was a friend of his. He then wrote the letter in question, never thinking for a moment that he was doing any harm. It was not for money, because he did not need it; and it was not for spite, because Slater was a particular friend of his. He had found the man Hannan, who had related the above facts in Mr Denniston's office ; but two weeks ago he had left Dunedin, prisoner believed for Melbourne. He had advertised for him without result.

Mr Denniston addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, contending that from the evidence it was apparent that the prisoner had not contemplated the commission of a crime, but had indulged in a very stupid, he might say a perfectly idiotic, practical jeke. The prisoner was not a man who was in want of money, and bore an excellent character, and was indeed not a man likely to commit the crime of which he stood charged. As the result of this foolish act he was practically a ruined man, he had suffered severely, and was socially degraded, which was of itself a severe penalty to a man of the prisoner's character and temperament. As the jury must give the accused the benefit of any doubt, tho learned counsel would ask them to consider whether the Crown had established its case, or whether there was not reason to believe that the prisoner was simply carrying out a senseless practical joke, and should be acquitted of the charge upon which he had been indicted. His Honor summed up, and the jury after retiring for a few minutes returned to the Court.

The Foreman of the jury said : The jury are unanimously of opinion that the prisoner was guilty of a practical joke. His Honor : Do you mean that he was not guilty of the offence—that it was in mere joke he wrote the letter? Is that the meaning ? The Foreman : Yes, your Honor. His Honor: I suppose that means not guilty—that there was no criminal intention? The Foreman: Yes. His Honor: Then the accused is discharged. The Court rose at 5.45 p.m.

Friday, January 6. unlawful wounding. William Kirk was charged with having, on December 5, unlawfully and maliciously wounded one John Gerald Minogue. Mr Denniston appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said that prosecutor is a miner resident at Arthur Point. Some time prior to the committal of the offence with which accused was charged a married man named Smith left his home for some days and left liis place in charge of the prosecutor. On December 5 a daughter of Smith was visiting a Mr M'Carthy, and prosecutor went to fetch her home. Accused was at M'Carthy's, and refused to allow Miss Smith to go home, saying that if prosecutor attempted to take her he would intercept them on the bridge and do him an iujury. Accused then left and went towards the bridge, and prosecutor rode off towards Queenstown to inform the police of accused's behaviour. Asj[he was riding along accused rode up behind him, and, after asking where he was going, struck him on the head with a stirrup-iron, knocking him oil' his horse. Prosecutor went on to Queenstown as soon as he was able. His skull was found to be fractured, and he was detained in the Frankton Hospital for some time. Evidence for the prosecution was given by John G. Minogue, John Richards, Philip Kelly, Dr James Douglas, and Michael Morrison.

Mr Denniston called no witnesses for the defence, but submitted that the only fact proved was that the prosecutor turned up one day with a broken head, and there was nothing to show how he got it. There were no witnesses to the alleged assault, and lie might have got it by falling off his horse. The question for the jury was not how prosecutor got his head broken, but whether the Crown had proved that the injury was done by accused. His Honor having summed up, The jury retired at ten minutes to one o'clock.

The jury, after being absent for about two hours, returned a verdict that the accused was guilty of committing a common assault by throwing the prosecutor off his horse. His Honor said that the jury had found accused guilty of a common assault only, and the offence was not of so serious a kind as that charged in the indictment. Had the accused not been in trouble before, as shown in the police records, he would have been let oil with a fine ; as it was, he would

bo seat to prison for a short period. The sentence of the Court would be a mouth's imprisonment, with hard labor. LARCENY. Charles Wilkins (47) was charged with having on July 20, 1887, stolen a promissory note for the payment of L 35 14s, the property of William Grant. Mr Thornton appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said that there

were two counts in the indictment—one charging accused with stealing a valuable security, the other with having stolen a piece of paper. The reason for this was that if it appeared that the promissory note was irregular, the jury would have the second count before them. In March last prosecutor purchased from accused his business of cordial manufacturer, and agreed to retain accused as manager for a period of twelve months at a salary of L 5 per week. Prosecutor was to receive all the profits of the business. Goods were obtained from, among others, T. K. Harty and Co., and in July their account amounted to L 35 14s. Prosecutor received this account with two promissory noteseach for L 35 14s, but one at two months and the other at three months—attached. With them was a note from accused asking prosecutor to sign the two notes, and stating that he would first offer Harty and Co. thethrce months' bill, and if he was not agreeable to take it, would give him that at two months, and return the other to prosecutor. Harty and Co. took the three months' bill without demur, but accused, instead of returning the other bill to prosecutor, got Harty and Co. to discount it. When prosecutor asked accused about the second bill, the latter replied that ho had destroyed it. Now, the legal position of accused with regard to the second bill was that he was bailee of it, and it was his duty to have returned it to | prosecutor, whose property it was, as soon as the transaction for the settlement of which it was given was arranged. The accused did not, however, do so, but converted it to His own use, and he thus committed larceny as a bailee. Evidence for the prosecution was given by William Grant, Thomas Kew Harty, William Atkinson, and Thomas F. Mont gomery, Mr Thornton called no witnesses for the

defence, but in addressing the jury suM mitted that the prooeeds of the bill dia.J counted by Harty and Co. for aocused wore applied to'the prosecutor's busineßs account, and that there was no intention on aeousefi'i part to defraud. v ;^' His .Honor summed iip, saying that etccuaed was in the position of bailee of the bill. He was a servant of the prosecutor and got the bill from him, and if after getting if he fraudulently appropriated it to his own use he was guilty of the offence with" which he was charged. If, however, what he did was not done with the intention of appropriating the proceeds of the bill to his own Use he was entitled to an acquittal. The jury retired at five minutes to four o'clook, and returned a verdict of "Guilty;" The same accused was then charged, before a fresh jury, with having,.on July 29 last, embezzled the sum of L 3 3s, the property of his employer, William Grant. " [Left sitting.]

WELLINGTON. In the case of Sylvester Dennis Egan, for breaking and entering, the jury were locked up all night without agreeing, and were discharged this morning. Prisoner is to be retried to-morrow. Clement G. Harding, for false pretences, was sentenced to three years', liaviDg just come out of gaol. John Johnstone alias Ticklepenny, and Charles James Sharp, larceny, were each sentenced to one year's hard labor. The case of Uriah James Williams, indecent aesault, is proceeding.