SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Star, Issue 8530, 1 June 1891, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

MomuT, Jukb l. (Before HisJfonor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honojf>*uok his seat at 10 a.m. '.■'.. tffll •HASD /TJBT. ' The Grand Jury was constituted as follows: 6. P. Farquhar (foreman), J. Braithwajfie, J. J. Connor, J. Dryden, J, D. Dunn, G. Esther, W. J. Gore, T. K. Harty, T. H. Haskell, W. Henderson, J. P. Jones, W. Kettle, A. F. W. Lorie, T. R. Manning, W. Martin, Jan., A, Maxwell, B. Throp, A. B. Sidford, W. C. Todd, H. J. Walter, and T. Brown. his honor's charge. His Honor: Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—l am glad to say that there are not many oases to come before you this morning, and that these oases are not of a very serious oharaoter. There are two oases of assault and robbery ; there is a oase of assault with intent to rob; there is a oase of attempted house-breaking; there is a oase where a person is charged with maliciously shooting a mare; and there is a case where a person is oharged with horsestealing. This oase presents some peculiarities, but there is no real difficulty about it. The peculiarity is that the man took the horse, not for the purpose of appropriating it for his own use, but the case made out against aooused by the depositions is this: that a person entrusted the horse to acoused to break in, he, of course, having to pay accused for his trouble. Aooused got someone else's horse and took it to the person who gave him horse to break in, and insisted that it was the horse with whioh he had been entrusted. This, of course, was done for the purpose of obtaining the promised reward for his trouble of breaking in the horse. He, therefore, did not intend to appropriate the horse to his own use. But, in order to constitute the crime of larceny, it is sufficient if a person takes a thing with intent to deprive the owner of his property in it. Well, if the oase made out by the Crown is oorreot he did this, because he took the'horse, and took it with the intention of giving it to the person who had given him a horse to break in, and of making out that it was his horse, and not the property of the person whose horse it really was. Therefore, if the evidence brought before yon in support of the case for the Crown is truthful, you should find a true bill. There la a case of obtaining property by false pretences. A Sirson bought some horses off Mr Donald eid and gave him a valueless cheque for them. Mr Reid says he parted with the horses on the faith that this cheque was a good cheque. That, if that is so, is sufficient to constitute the offence oharged. There is a oaße where a man is oharged with the emberzlement of some moneys from the lodge of a friendly society. As to that I think you will have no difficulty: he received the money and appears to have gone away and to have kept the money. These are all the oases. Gentlemen, if you will be kind enough to retire to your room the bills will be laid before you. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases: George BarntU, horsestealing ; James Curny and Roderick M'Kenzie, assault and robbery; William Nichols, assault and robbery; George Berry, assault with intent to rob; Waiter Snarling, false pretences; Edward Martin, attempted house breaking; James Riddle, burglary; Henry Sibelin, jun.. unlawfully killing a mare; George James Clark, embezzlement (two charges). EMBEMLEMENT. George James Clark was oharged with embeuling the sums of L 5 16s 8d and L 8 Os 6d, the property of the Loyal Prince of Wales Lodge, M.U.1.0 O.F. A seoond indictment oharged prisoner with embezzling LI 4s and LI. Prisoner, who pleaded guilty, gave his age as 35. Mr Solomon, appearing as counsel for prisoner, said that he would like to point out that prisoner was a comparatively young man, and had been plaoed in a position of most extraordinary temptation. His Honor would see by the depositions that Clark was secretary of a friendly society at Port Chalmers. There was also a treasurer in connection with the lodge, but the negligenoe with which the affairs of the institution were conducted seemed to be almost oriminal, and almost offering a premium lor dishonesty. He (learned oounsel) did not go so far as to say that this excused prisoner's conduct, but it should be mentioned that there was no one to look after him. The treasurer carried outhis duties by knowing nothing aboutthem, and merely signed cheques as they were put before him. If the duties of the officers of the lodge had been carried out in anything like a proper way it would have been impossible to commit the offence. No oheck was placed on the secretary to see whether he really did place in the bank the moneys that he received ; and it was possible for him during the interval of the half-yearly audits to put the money in his pockets, aud no one would have been any the wiser. He (learned oounsel) submitted that the remarks made by His Honor in the case of the Standard Company applied here, Clark's temptation had been very great indeed. It might also be mentioned that he had been in custody for about two months.

Id answer to His Honor, The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Haggitt) said that the total amount said to be involved was L 350. Clark arrived in the colony about eleven years ago, and was in the employ of Thomson Bros, at Port Chalmers, as clerk, for eight years.

Mr Solomon submitted that it would not be fair to read the report of the police, as it oontained, he understood, something that he had never heard of.

His Honor said that the police report ought to be oonfined to previous convictions or general oharacter. It would be better not to go into details. The Crown Proseoutor, continuing, said that Clark had been secretary of the Oddfellows' Lodge for six or seven years, and appeared to have been thoroughly trusted. He was a married man, with no family, and was addioted to drink and gambling. He had been arrested in Sydney. Hia Honor: No doubt, prisoner, there has not been that check upon you that there ought to have been, and it may be and probably is the case that this oiroumstance has been one of the factors that has induoed you to ootnmit the orime to which you have pleaded guilty. I shall take that into consideration in passing sentence. At the same time, however, the particular kind of theft whioh you have committed is a very mean one. The moneys which you have stolen are the hard-earned savings of men who live by their labor, and were accumulated for the benefit of the sick, and the widow, and the orphan. These you have robbed. As I have said, I shall take into consideration the faot that yon may have been to Borne extent led into temptation by not beiDg overlooked ; but I am bound to pass an exemplary sentence. Hia Honor then sentenced prisoner to three years' penal servitude on eaoh indictment, the sentences to take effect concurrently. VALSa MWTIKfIW. Walter Spurting (twenty-two years of age) pleaded guilty to a oharge of falsely representing that he possessed a credit of L 154 at the Union Bank, by whioh pretenoe' he Obtained possession of eight horses. Mr Solomon applied that' prisoner be admitted to the benefits of the First Offenders' Probation Aot. Spurling was in the habit of dealing with various stock agents in Dunedin - for some considerable time. On this particular oooasion he bought goods to the value of L 154 from Donald Reid, and gave a cheque whioh waa dishonored, The case on which the case in thebwer Court waa founded was Regina v. Hazleton, whioh laid down that the onus remained on the person who issued the cheque to show that there was a reasonable probability of the oheque being honored, and that being so it was useless to defend the case. He (learned oounsel) would, however, point out that Spurling waa a young man who had never been convicted before, and that several people with whom he had had dealings were prepared to give him a good oharaoter. Further, prisoner himself always aaid that he intended to pay, and that this waa only an ordinary business mistake. It might also be mentioned that Mi Reid had not suffered by the oheque being dishonored, because by-a decision- of the House of Lords the property did not pass in tfueh a casp. Mr Reid also said tn»t

ha did not want the man punished, and believed that Sparling had been led astray, and was more fool than rogue. Mr John Stephenson alao aaid that he had alwayt fonnd prisoner totesMghtforwatd in bustnets transactions. Sparling had a wife and yonng child, and he (]|r Solomon) submitted that the case was one b which the clemency of the Court might bo exerobed. His Honor wonld see that there was another man con* neoted with the matter, and this man was rather severely handled by his (Mr Solomon's) learned friend in the Court below.

The Crown Prosecutor said it was the case, as stated, that there had been no previous convictions. Prisoner had been only a short time in the colony, and was said to have come from Sydney. The police there knew nothing about him, nor the other man either.

His Honor: I have read the depositions in this case, and do not think it is a case where I shonld be justified in extending the benefits of the Probation Aet to acoused. It speaks very well for Mr Donald Reid that, under the circumstances, he shonld allow Mr Solomon to say what Mr Solomon has said. Mr Reid does not wish that the man should be punished. However, of course, the question of whether he should or should not be punished must depend upon other considerations. As I have said, I have read the depositions, and it seems to me pretty clear that the accused made a deliberate attempt to swindle Mr Reid, and that the attempt was on a pretty big soale. It is impossible to suppose that a man who does a thing of this kind is not, to speak colloquially, a bad lot. I shall, of course, take into consideration the faot that he has never been convicted before. Nothing about him is known to the police, and I shall pass a light sentence, as it is a first conviction. His Honor then sentenced prisoner to twelve months' hard labor, and made an order for the restitution of the property. BREAKING PROBATION. Christopher Conway was brought before the Court. The Probation Offioer (Mr Phillips) narrated on oath the oironmßtances under which this was done. Conway was sentenced in December, 1890, to probation for twelve months. His conduct whilst in Dunedin, after sentence, was not satisfactory as regarded drink. About the latter end of January last prisoner obtained a situation at Waimate, and waa thereupon transferred to the oversight of the probation offioer in that district, but on April 3 he appeared before the resident magistrate at Dunedin on two charges of drunkenness, having left Waimate without permission, thereby breaking the provisions of the Probation Act. Prisoner said that he had come to Dnnedin specially to draw his pension, and that if opportunity were given he wonld retnrn to Waimate, where he had employment. Witness represented the matter to the magistrate, who dismissed the charges of drunkenness, it being arranged by witness that prisoner shonld leave on the 4th April. On the night of the sth April, however, he went to the gaol drunk and broke the windows of witness's house, for whioh he was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. Prisoner had paid L2 out of the Lfl charged against him. His Honor: What was his original offence ?

Witness: Breaking Inglis's window in George street. His Honor : He is an army pensioner, is he not f

Witness: Yes, and whenever he draws his pension it is a time of warfare until it is all gone. Prisoner said that what Mr Phillips said was quite true. When be (Conway) left Waimate it was holiday time, and he thought he might come down, but he intended to go baok. If not punished this time he would leave the oolony or Syndey, where he had friends. His Honor: If he wants to leave the colony there is no reason why he should not. It is not as if he were a criminal.

Mr Phillips remarked that there was nothing against the man, except that drink got him into troable. He was well behaved in gaol, where he had been employed inside. Prisoner: Conscientiously, I cannot take probation, your Honor, and stop in the colony. I wish to get out of it. Mr Torrance, gaol chaplain, being questioned by His Honor, said that he proposed to draw the pension coming to Conway on the Ist July and keep an eye on him until he got off by the steamer. His Honor: I think the best thing for ydn, prisoner, is to stop where you are nntil a week or two after your pension is due; then yon will be able to get away. It will keep you out of mischief now. The sentence of the Court is that yon be imprisoned for six weeks. I will not say with hard labor. Mr Phillips pointed out that it would assist prisoner in the way of diet if he were sentenced to hard labor.

His Honor thereupon added " with hard labor."

Subsequently His Honor remarked, in reference to this case: It may be said, Mr Haggitt, that it is improper that we should send our undesirable characters—l will not say a criminal, for he is not a criminal—to other colonies; and it is perhaps right to mention that he came from Australia and wishes to go there again, and this is simply sending him back to the placo from whence he came. I should certainly be the last to do anything that would be contrary to what we may call the oolonial comity in sending our bad characters to oar neighbors. The Crown Proseontor: 1 may remark, your Honor, that you don't send the man back; yoa merely give him facilities for going back. His Honor: Yes, that is so ; but as I have said, one ought to be careful to be guided as far as possible by what we call intercolonial comity in these matters. ASSAULT AND BOBBEBY. James Curny (40) and Roderick M'Kenzie (32) pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting Richard Symes Faville, and robbing him of a pipe, chain, and pendant. Prisoners, asked what they had to say, handed in a written statement. The Grown Proseontor said that Curny arrived from Melbourne in 1879, and was a laborer by oooupation. In 1890 he was convicted of larceny and admitted to probation ; subsequently he was punished for failing to comply with the terms of the probation order, and in February last he was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for obscene language. M'Keng'e was a laborer, and arrived from Scotland in 1880. He had served a sentence of a month for obsoene language.

His Honor (to prisoners) : Yon both say in the papers handed in to me that yon were in drink at the time of this occurrence. I think it highly probable that drink m at the bottom of the trouble, and that the best thing for yon both is to send yon to gaol for suoh a period as will pnt yon out of the way of drink for a considerable time. His Honor proceeded to sentence each to two years' hard labor. BUMLABT. Janus Middle (34), charged with bnrglary of the premises of Ann Webb, at Oatram, and extraoting therefrom a watch and three bottles of whisky, pleaded gailty. Mr Hanlon was instructed to say a word or two on prisoner's behalf. No doubt, technically, the orime of bnrglary had been committed; but if His Honor would look at the depositions he would find that it was not a case of ordinary burglary. The fact was that the man had been knocking about the publio-house, where he was allowed to stay until two in the morning, when he was turned out; but later in the morning he was heard humbugging about in the bar, knocking bottles about and talking so as to be heard quite plainly by the girl from her bedroom, the whole thing was done while the man was in a drunken state. He (Mr Hanlon) asked His Honor to take this into consideration, and also the faot that prisoner had never previously been in serious trouble, His Honor said he noticed that there were several convictions for drunkenness. What was known about the man T The Crown Prosecutor said that his offences were principally owing to drunkenness. He was a laborer; had arrived in the colony nine years ago; and had worked principally in the Tafori district, flfcr Honor: I suppose it is the old storygood enough man when sober and a bad one when drunk.

The Crown Prosecutor; Apparently so, your Honor. His Honor: The beat thing for you, prisoner, and for the public* is to put yon for some time out of the way of.drink. Prisoner was then sentenced to eighteen noHonths- hard labor.

Aiuci* ahd icnm. William NiekoU waa obliged that, on the 14th April, he did assault one Edwin Harris and steal from him the torn of LI 16s 6d. Acoused, who pleaded not guilty, was not defended by oounsel. The Crown Prosecutor stated that previous to the date of the ootnmission of the offenoe thojposeeator had been harvesting in the CHwoodon district He came into town on the evening of Monday, 13th April, and put up attfae Central Restaurant in Manse street He had in his possession L 3 lis 3d in money. On the following afternoon he went for a walk down George street, and afterwards went into King street There he met prisoner, who spoke to him. After a little conversation they went together into the Harp of Erin Hotel, where they had soma drink. From the latter hotel they went to the Waverley Hotel in Moray place, where they met other men, and the prosecutor paid for more drinks. Afterwards the prosecutor went out into the backyard, where there waa a right-of-way next to the hotel. The prisoner followed him, and when they got outside he asked the prosecutor for some money. Prosecutor replied that he had none. Prisoner thereupon seized the prosecutor and knocked him over, put his hand in his pocket, and took out the money. There were two yonng women hanging out some clothes near by, and they cried out something to the effect that it was a shame to rob a man in open daylight. Prisoner replied that it was all right, that he knew the prosecutor, for whom he need to work, and that he was only minding bis money for him. Information was subsequently given to the police, and accused waa arrested in a brothel in Albion street.

Evidenoe was given by Edwin Harris, Maria Conway, Hettie Thompson, William Brown, and Constable Crawley. Prisoner desired to give evidence on his own behalf. He said that he was in bed on the Tuesday morning when prosecutor knocked at the window and asked him to get up. When witness let him in prosecutor asked if prhoner wonld have some beer, and sent three times altogether for beer. When prisoner went to get bis breakfast proseontor gave one of the women 3a, and also gave a boy Is 6d to get beer. After that prisoner said he thought he had had enough beer, and told prosecutor to go. Prosecutor asked if he waa getting jealous of the woman. Prisoner replied that if prosecutor wanted the woman he could have her. Tbey then went next door, and prosecutor then sent for more beer. He sent for it two or three times, until the party there aaid she wonld have no more beer brought into the house. They then crossed the right-of-way and went into another house, and prosecutor sent for some more beer. Be (prisoner) said if more beer was tent for the man would be growling, and he tried to get prosecutor away. Prisoner then left and returned in half an honr to try and get prosecutor to see Mr Ussher about getting work. Prosecutor then said they wonld have another shilling's worth of beer and then go. He sent for the beer which was drank by the three women in the house. They then left, and prosecutor wanted more drink. Prisoner said " Well, then, let's go to Graham's." Prosecutor said that Mr Graham wonld not serve him, as he had been there before. Prisoner said that it was no use going to Mr Ussher then, as they were muddled. Prosecutor then suggested that they should go to Infield's, Tbey went, and a good few who came in were shouted for by prosecutor, who then commenced to talk in the bar about the woman of whom they had been previously speaking. Mr Infield told him to hold his toogne or he would get no more drink. Infield said that be would not serve him with any more as he had had enough. Prosecutor pleaded for one round more, with which they were served, and Mr Infield then refused to serve any more, as Harris was drunk. A woman then came into the bar, and prosecutor got two mora rounds of drinks from her. Then he went out to the back. He had arranged to give Paddy Toole half a crown to show him some office in Moray place. He called prisoner to go with him to Moray place, and lour of them went together. They stood in front of the Waverley, and prosecutor gave the man the half-crown as though it was a Eecret. They then went into the Waverley and prosecutor shouted. While there he went out. Prisoner missed him and three others from the bar, and went himself to the back of the house, where be heard somebody whistling, and looking round he saw the three men standing there laughing. Tbey called prisoner, who went to them, and saw prosecutor lying on the floor of the back place. Prisoner remarked that it was no laughing matter, and told the men to oome away from him. Th'ey did eo, and went to the bar. Whilst talking there the three went out again; and prisoner and another chap also went out, and saw prosecutor lying close to the hotel, not far from the door. There were two women leaning over the fence chaffing with the three men, who said that prosecutor had laid down to have a sleep. Prisoner went into the hotel and asked to be trusted for a glass of bear, and after drinking it and going out he saw that they were all gone excepting prosecutor, who was Ijing asltep and drunk. This charge was tramped up against him (prisoner) because he had induced a man to leave the women's honse.

Having been cross-examined on behalf of the Crown, Prisoner said that he bad nothing to tell to the jury further than that he had come to town about three weeks before this occurrence, bringing a good sum of money, wnich he had got through in drink. Bia witnesses had cleared oat. He would like it to be remembered that he had never been in the hands of the police before this affair. His Honor having summed up, The jary retired at 3.20 p m., and returned at 3.30 with a verdict of "Guilty." Sentence was deferred.

ATTEMPTED HOUSKBBEAKIKO. Edward Martin, charged with this offence, pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hanlon.

The Crown Prosecutor, opening the case, said that Mr Cable was a produce merchant carrying on business at a store in George street, which was looked up every night, no one living on the premises. On the night of the 6th May the plice was locked up as usual, by Mr Cable, with a pud look and an ordinary Carpenter's lock. About half past ten o'clock that night Constable M'Allan was going down the street, when he saw prisoner go into the entrance of the door and apparently try the look. The constable heard the jingling of keys, and saw Martin leave, upon which he arrested him, and search revealed the fact that prisoner had in his possession six ordinary door keys and five smaller keys. He asked prisoner what he was doing, and the reply was "Nothing." Prisoner tried to run away, but the constable would not let him. One of the keys found on him would look and unlock the door. Prisoner did not succeed in entering the premises, therefore nothing was taken away. Evidence was given by Jas. Cable, ConStable M'Allan, and Frank H Guinness. Mr Hanlon called no evidence, bat proceeded to address the jury. The evince was that of a constable, who had his picions aroused by seeing a boy standing at a door, and set himself to watch. The keys that he heard jingling might have been four smaller ones which were bunched together keys that were fit for opening workboxes, or something of that kind; and all that the constable saw was the boy stooping down apparently to examine the lock, and then walk away without being disturbed by anyone. Arresting the boy, the constable found on him a handful of rusty old keys of a very common kind, that he might have pioked up on a dungheap, and these were the implements with which he was supposed to be going about committing burglaries. Learned counsel submitted that at the width of a street the constable could not see what the boy was doing. Was that the evidence on which the jury oould aay there was no reasonable doubt in their minds that the boy was trying to force an entrance ? He ventured to aay it waa not. The jury retired at 4.30, SBKTXHGI. Nichols, previously oonvicted, was then brought up and aeotenoed to twelve months' hard labor, [Left sitting.] AUCKLAND. The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court opei/eSd this nttnuivg. In his cimrge

to the Srand Jury Judge Conolly remarked on the small number of indictments, but pointed out that there were two serious charges—one of murder and one of embezzlement. The latter was especially serious, as being against a public official (O'flaUoran) who had been postmaster and receiver under the Property Tax at Whangarei. The Grand Jury fonnd true bills against John Henry Taylor, for larceny, and on bis pleading guilty he was sentenced to twelve months ; against Gnstave Petersen, who pleaded guilty to burglary, and got a like sentence. WELLINGTON. The Supreme Court opened this morning, Chief Justice Prendergast presiding. The calendar contains the names of ten persons, the charges being for the most part of the ordinary character. Referring to the case against Coleman Phillips for dummyum, His Honor said there were two indictments: (1) inciting certain persons to make a wilful, false declaration; (2) aiding and abetting them to commit a breach of the Land Act. After reviewing at length the evidence taken in the lower court the learned judge said that, although he had gone very carefully through the Land Act, he could find nothing expressed in its provisions to prevent anyone taking up land for another. This, however, was a point of law, and he directed the Grand Jury, if they thought the facts warranted it, to bring in a bill against Phillips, and leave the point for argument when the case came before the common jury. His Honor remarked that the Legislature were evidently under the impression that they had made provision iu the Act to prevent persons obta'ning land on deferred payment or perpetual lease not exclusively for their own use, as section 13 had fixed the penalty to be inflicted in the case of anyone taking up land other than for his own use. Amy Jackson alias Brooks, for larceny at Palmerston North, was sentenced to twelve months' hard labor. CHRISTCHURCH. The criminal session was opened this morning before Mr Justice Denniston. Athole Stewart Lamb pleaded guilty to four charges of forgery, sentence being deferred. Thomas Gorman (unlawfully wounding) was found guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the absence of premeditation. His Honor said, loosing at the circumstances, that he would inflict a comparatively light sentence of twelve months hard labor. The Grand Jury threw out the bill against Alexander Rennie (larceny), on account of the abseuca of the proseoutor Samuel Northey (forgery and uttering) pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to two years' hard labor.