SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 11252, 28 May 1900, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. {Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The Court sat at 10.30 a.m. THR GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury consisted of James Fotheringham (foreman). A. Begg, F. E. Brittain, G. Caldcr. R. M. Clark.. H. Crust. T. S. Culling. C. Enstabrook. R. Jllendining, G. W. Gough. H. Hart, A. H. Hcycock. .1. Hitchcock, C. W. Kerr, G. H. Moodic, J. Samson, T. Short, Cl H. Statham, A. Todd, IV. Wardrop, and John Wright. Ms honor's charge. His Honor delivered the following charge : —Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—The calendar on the present occasion is heavier than it lifts been for some time. There are no less than twenty-three persons charged with various offences. The greater part of the offences are, however, not of a serious character. There are eleven cases of offences of various kinds, none of them involving serious issues. There is a case of perjurv : there is a case where two .persons arc charged with assault and robbery ; there is a case of attempted rape ; and there are two cases where persons are charged with •ssault occasioning actual bodily harm. There is a. case of perjury, the circumstances of which are peculiar. Ib appears that a woman named Annie Nishet laid an information against a man named Gray for discharging firearms with the intent to intimidate nod annoy the occupier of a dwelling-house. That Js an indictable offence. The case was brought before the magistrate at Oainaru, when evidence was given by Mrs Nisbet and her husband that a man fired two shots, and the woman swore that she recognised Gray as the man who fired them. Hhe said that she was up that night attending to a cow that Was going to calve shortly, and then she made the statement in respect to which the present charge is laid. She appears to have made it on cross-examination. She is charged with perjury in respect to the statement that a certain cow calved on Tuesday, the 15th May. that the calf was killed on the 21st, and that she gave the body to James Russell for his dogs. The occurrence of the shots being fired by the man said to be Gray was on the night before—the Monday, and the statements she made that the cow calved the next night and that the calf was killed on the 21st, and that she gave the body to Russell really did not help her case at all. That is what the witnesses say. And, more than this, while under examination in the Magistrate’s Court she admitted that she was wrong in saying that she gave the body to Russell. Those are the facts of the ca.se. Perjury is defined by the Code to be an assertion as to a matter of fact made by a witness in a judicial proceeding, such assertion being known to such witness to be false, and being intended by him to mislead tbe Court, jury, or person holding the proceeding. You will have all the circumstances before you. If you think a prima facie case is made out thaUhe person charged intended to mislead the Court, even though it was not upon the main issue of the inquiry. you will find a. true bill; if. on the other hand, you come to the conclusion that there was no intent to mislead, it will he your duty to ignore the hill. There are two cases where the persons accused arc charged with causing the death of another. One is a ease where a. man is charged with upsetting a cart through reckless 'driving, probably when under the influence of drink, and in consequence a. girl was thrown out. The law is that if a person through careless driving causes the death of another, then the person guilty of the careless driving is guilty of manslaughter. There is a case where three persons arc charged with causing the. death of another man under circumstances which seem to me In amount to manslaughter rather than murder. The accused were committed by the magistrate for murder, but I understand yon will have before you an indictment for manslaughter and also for murder, and it will be open for you to find a bill against the accused for either one offence or the other, according to what yog think the circumstances justify. Tbe facts of the case, as appearing by the depositions, arc as follow : —Deceased, who appears to have been a quarrelsome man. was going home, and the accused and some others were standing about, and deceased began to abuse the accused. Then he threw a atone at them, and the accused, or some of them, threw stones at him. He appears to have been hit on the head, above the eyebrow, bv one of the stones, and that caused bis death.. That is the case made out by the depositions. It is not suggested that there was any previous animosity by accused against the deceased. Murder is defined by the Code as “ if the offender means to cause the death of the person killed” ; and again, “if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily iniury which is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not.” The evidence in this case shows that it was dark when the occurrence took place, and that the stones were thrown a distance of twenty or thirty yards. If yon think the circumstances show that there was an intention to cause to the person killed any bodily i'rtur- which to the knowledge of the persons inflicting it would he likely to cause death, then it will be your duty to find a true bill for murder. If, however, you do not think there is a, prima facie cas.c of intention to inflict bodily injury which was known to the persons inflicting it to lie likely to cause death, then you will find a. true bill for manslaughter. I need hardly say that if there are two or three persons together, all engaged in throwing stones, and death occurs through one of the stones hitting the .-*»>• ceased, then all the persons who joined in the stone-throwing are equally guilty, though yon mav not be able to sav who throw the parrtcular stone that caused death. I do not know that I Lave anything further to add. If yon will retire to your room the bills will be laid before you. THR FINDINGS. Tbe Grand Jury threw nut the hills in the cases of Esther Davis (charged with housebreaking and theft) and Timothy Hauralmn (charged with manslaughter at Niiseby). In respect to the case against Alexander Eddington. Henry EdjKngton, and Robert Burns, charged with murder at Oantani, the. Grand Jury found a true bill for manslaughter only. True bills were found in the other cases, •ml the Grand Jury rose at 3.45 p.m. ATTEMPTED RAPE. Robert Davis, chargee! with this offence a-, Fratiktcm on the 12th May. pleaded guilty, gave his age as twenty-one years, and had nothing to say. Mr J. F. M. Eraser, the Crown Prosecutor, said that nothing was known against the prisoner before this. His Honor, in inflicting a sentence’of five rears’ hard labor, said : As nothing has been known against your character before, and as yon have pleaded guilty. I shall not inflict the additional punishment of flogging which the law allows to be inflicted in cases of this kind. FORGERY. Joseph Jackson, charged with forging the name of J. Gamble to a document purporting to be a cheque for £4 2s 6d. pleaded not guiltv to forging but guilty of uttering. The Crown Prosecutor accepted the plea, Saying it was practically the same offence. Accused, who had nothing to say, gave his age as twenty-five years. ‘ " The Crown Prosecutor said that' accused was described as a laborer and a bad character, the associate of thieves. A year ago he was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for forgery. Sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. 1 STEALING A BICYCLE. William Stanley Bourke (19) pleaded guiltv to stealing a bicycle, the property of' John Gebbie, on the 7th November last.' He said that he was very sorry, and hoped the sentence would he a light one—he would never do wrong again. The Crown Prosecutor said the police gave accused an indifferent character, while (he records showed two previous convictions for theft. Sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. THEFT OF A GUN. . Frederick James Page, charged with breaking into the dwelling of William David Murray Qlaister, at Mornington, on the 19th March, 1899, and stealing a gun, gave his age os nineteen, and pleaded guilty. Mr Hanlon asked that accused he admitted to probation. Tho probation officer reported * a ™ rft - ’ and gun had been returned. The Crown Prosecutor said that nothing was known against the accused excepting o y cara of age he was fined xs od for defacing a fence* Practically there

was nothing against him, and he bore a good character.

His Honor said hw gathered from the probation officer's report that Mr Mnconaid would employ accused at 3s a day if he were barton *l' t He i WO " W b ® released llno " l,roinHn, p? wolvo i months conditional on his I • mg 4,6 towards the expenses of the trial m instalments of 2 S 6d per week.

T I u r if:ALIN(; A WATCH. John Moffatt was charged with havimr *". r ; r b r .i 1 ""* Be ' • ™‘"Si Them , t PC r° n ° f ?- vdne :>- Hislop. nere was a second count charging the ic cused with having received tlufstolen propeitj knowing the same to have been stokn JST* " i,S ,mdcfendei1 ’ pleaded not

TlMnt Gro ' rn Prosecutor said that Svdnev YohT 'TV- "’ atcll ™alier residing in the he e ?Bn ll rt , He ? me town March, and went into the Globe Hotel with a man named M'Neill, and had some liquor. M'Nciil left Hislop sittmg m a backroom in the hotel, and although Hislop said he did not think that ° ’ ld “ lore ‘T IO1 ’ than was good for him . ( , Cro "’ n Prosecutor) thought tho jurv vould come to the Conclusion that he just too* so much that he dozed off and -went to sleep m the room, and when he woke iif) and came out into the street he missed his watch and chain. It was about halfpast twelve when he went into the hotel, and ho missed the watch at two o’clock. I hen between 2 and 3_ o'clock. the accused went to Mrs Engstrom, a second-hand dealer in M alker street, and wanted to sell ie watch and chain. Mrs Engstrom, however would not give him what he wanted lor them, and he then wejit to a Mrs Williams. another second-hand dealer in Staftord street, and sold them for 10s. Evidence for the prosecution was riven 7 Hislop, Mary Hannah Engsrtom, Jane Williams, and Constable Connolly. Accused, who elected to give evidence said that about 1.30 o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon he and another “ party ” were going down Princes street south. As thev passed the Globe Hotel Mr Hislop out of the building, and seemed to be under the influence of liquor. He staggered up against accused, and said he was sorry he could not shout for him and his friend ’ Ho however, gave him his watch and chain and told him to try and get some money on H ° Went f0 the Ballarat Pawn Office to pawn the lliiims, but it was closed Ho then went to Mrs Engstrom’s, but as he could not get anything for the watch and chain there he went to Mrs Williams, where ho gob 10s. He afterwards tried to find rtislop, but could not do so. Cross-examined: The name of accused's friend was Eduard Myers. He last raw him in gaol. Accused was then awaiting trial, and Myers, who was also in gaol, had since been remanded to 'Wellington. lh'e jury, after five minutes’ retirement said “Guilty.” ’ Accused, who gave his age as twenty years, was described as a waiter and the associate of thieves. There were three previous convictions against, him. His Honor: The offence of the accused is of much the same gravity as Howard's, and their careers are" identical, but it is nob desirable that, being associates, Moffatt should be liberated on the same day as Howard. The sentence will be that Moffatt bo imprisoned for a year and eleven months and kept to hard labor. THEFT. Andrew Howard pleaded guilty to stealing (on or about April 19) a bicycle, the property of Gavin Wilson, of Sandymount. The accused was also further charged with having, on March 24, stolen from the dwellinghouse of John Gobble, Stafford street, one overcoat, the prop-rty of George Sheath. There was also a. second count charging the accused with receiving the stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. Accused, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty to the second charge. The Crown Prosecutor said George Sheath (who was a shepherd at Barewood Station) came to Dunedin, as many other people did, to see the troops off to South Africa. He brought with him an overcoat, which he had purchased in November last from the Zealandia Waterproof Company. He hung the coat up in the Provincial Hotel, where be was stopping, and he missed it on the Sunday morning. On the previous Saturday night a Airs Williams, who was a secondhand dealer, purchased from the accused the coat produced. This coat was sworn to bv Sheath as being the coat he purchased, and the man who made the coat at the. factory would say that he supplied Sheath with a coat of the same class. The case then turned upon the identity of the coat, ami tho identity of the accused. The coat was undoubtedly stolen, and it was in the possession of the accused directly after it was stolen. ’ The accused was therefore called upon to explain his possession of it. Evidence for the prosecution was given by George Sheath, Albert Edward Ussherwood, Jane Williams, and Detective Cooney. The accused did not wish to give evidence, and had nothing to say in his own defence. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired at 12.18. and after being absent for ten minutes returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” Accused had nothing to say excepting that he was twenty-two years of age. The Crown Prosecutor said that Howard had been thrice convicted of theft previously, and while out on bail for the theft of the overcoat he stole the bicycle. Sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. THEFT FROM A DWELLING. Marv O’Neill (47). charged with stealing from the dwelling of John Robert Sinclair an overcoat, an umbrella, a. parasol, and a pot of mnidon-hair fern, confessed that she sold the things, hut said she did not take them, and this was accepted as a plea of not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said the facts were simple. Mr Sinclair missed the articles named on the sth inst. They were kept in the hall of his residence. He reported the matter to the police, and subsequently identified the coat and the parasol shown to him bv Detective Boddam. who got them from Airs Williams, a second-hand dealer, to whom accused sold the, two articles, with a quilt, for 3s. on the 7th. When arrested, accused said she remembered selling the things, but did not know where she got them from, adding “I must have been drunk at the time.” There was no attempt at a defence, and the jury agreed to a. verdict of ” Guilty ’’ without leaving the box. • The Crown Prosecutor said that there were forty previous convictions. His Honor remarked that the accused seemed to be not very well. Mr Phillips replied that she was generally very weak, and worse than usual just now owing to having come off a big drinking bout. His Honor said that it would be the best thing for the public and for accused herself that she should be put in gaol for a considerable tunc. If unable to do the work required of her the medical officer would see she was not put to it. The sentence would be three years’ imprisonment. THEFT FROM THE PERSON. Elizabeth Rackley pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing a purse containing £l7 from Robert Vallance. The case for the Crown was that Yallance, a 'Studholmc fanner, came to Dunedin on the 22nd inst.. was accosted by accused, shouted for hey. and refused to give her money, whereupon she caught hold of his coat and then ran away, after which he missed his purse. The jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” The police put in a record of forty-three convictions. Sentenced to three years' hard labor. BROACHING CARGO. William. Campbell and Joseph Barnes, represented by Mr D. D. Macdonald, pleaded guilty to attempting to steal from the hold of the ship Aberfoyle, and were .sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. ASSAULT. Thomas Ritchie was being tried at 4 p.m, WELLINGTON. The criminal sessions began this morning, tho calendar containing thirty-three cases against iweiity-tive prisoners. ‘ Sir R. Stout said he was sorry to see such a large number of prisoners. The cases ranged from murder to theft. It seemed extraordinary that there should he so much of the latter class of crime. It could not be for want of employment. There must be a number of persons who would not work, but preferred to steal. In tho murder case no doubt the accused had killed his child. Ho understood the defence would be that the man waa not responsible

for the act. < It was not enough, however, for a doctor to gay that a man was insane. Our law laid down that a person was' not Jnsnne if he was capable of knowing right from wrong, and that would be a subject for investigation by the common jury. Patrick,M’Guire pleaded guilty to assault, and James M'Lean to receiving goods knowing them to be stolen. Both were remanded for sentence till to-morrow. AUCKLAND. . At the Supreme Court, Edwin Holloway, charged with the.theft of money of the Public trustee, m whoso office he was employed, was sentenced to three years’ hard labor. CHRISTCHURCH. Tbe criminal sessions at the Supreme bourt were opened this morning. Mr Justice Edwards, in charging the Grand Jury, remarked that out of thirty cases sixteen were young New Zealanders. He mentioned this with regret, .because if there were any place where there was no excuse for crime it was in this country. He expressed the opinion that gambling in its many forms, such as the totalisalor, was largely responsible. Drink was bad enough, but the gambling spirit which pervaded the youth of the colony was worse. The matter was beyond our control, but he could not avoid mentioning that. Breaking and entering appeared to be the fashionable crime in the country gust mow. That crime ran in cycles was a peculiar thing, but it became apparent to those who had to deal with it. He then referred briefly to two charges on the list. A young woman, Isabella Alexander, who pleaded not guilty, was charged with stealing a number "“of articles. She was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. A boy named Archibald Wilson, for forgery, was placed on probation for six months. • James Wintcrbourn, for bicycle-stcaling. was released on probation for two years. Tho Judge remarked that these cases were getting serious, as the machines were often stolen fiom poor people. A boy, Harry Mills, pleaded guilty to breaking and entering. Sentence was deferred pending the hearing of another case. Joseph Thackwell pleaded guilty to stealing jewellery and other goods. He was placed on probation for two years. Alexander M'Lean. on a similar charge, was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. William O’Connell, a young man, for stealing money received six months. Thomas Falvey, for attempted i breaking and entering, with burglarious tools in his possession, two years’* probation. William M'Donald Fraser, a lad. who pleaded guilty to forging a cheque, was admitted to probation.