THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11895, 25 May 1903, Page 4

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The Court sat at 10.30 a.m the grand jury. Tho Grand Jurors called and sworn were: —The Hon. T. Fergus (foreman) and Messrs L. 0. Beal, F. O. Bridgman, J. C. Cannon, O. Calder. S. Crow, R. Maria Clark, W. Dali, Q. L. Denniston, C. Eastabrook, R. Forrest, G. W. Gibson, P. Hally, Q. R. Hercus, W. Hislop, D. S. Jolly, James Mollison, A. M'Farlane, F. W. Petre, R. Skeet, T. H. Thompson, R. Turnbull, and P. Y. Wales. Ms honor’s charge. His Honor said: Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—You will have to consider this morning charges against nine persons. As to the great part of these I do not think you will have any difficulty. There is a charge against two persons of attempting to break into a store in Manor street; there is a charge against a man and a woman for assaulting and robbing a man of a watch in Serpentine avenue; there is a charge against a man for stealing a pocketbook from tho pocket of another man in the street; there is a charge against a man for breaking into a house at Momington and stealing property; there is a charge against a man for breaking into a house at Heriot and stealing jewellery. The most important case is one against two men who are jointly .■'hanged with robbery with violence, and they are also charged with stealing from Outram, at the Taieri, a horse, a cart, and some harness. The facts of the two Cases are very much mixed up. It appears that on the night of Saturday, the 15th February, there wag a horse in a paddock at Outram. There was a man at Outram who had a cart in his stable, and there was another man at Outram who had a set of harness. These they missed on the Monday morning. Then the next thing is that at half-past four on the Monday morning a woman secs a man driving a cart on the reclaimed land. Tho cart and horse and harness are left there. The horse is taken out of the cart and left there. Then it is seen again. It seems to have been left there_ until somewhere about eleven in the morning. Two men are seen with the cart, and the evidence against the accused is the evidence of their identity with these two men, and both cases rest upon the evidence as to identity. Then these two men are seen looking into Sargood’s factory on the reclaimed land, and they are also seen in Cumberland street with the cart. Then shortly before three o’clock a witness says that they were seen to go from Cumberland street in tho direction of Rattray street, apparently after somebody. Then it appears that it is the duty of Mr Reid, who is employed by Sargoods, to take down the money from the office in tho Triangle to the workshop on the reclaimed land—money for the payment of the employees. He accordingly started at a quarter to three o’clock on the Monday with a bag with £2BO odd in money. He went down' in the usual way, and when ho had got a short distance from the factory on the reclaimed land ho was knocked down by somebody, and his money was taken from him. The next thing he knows is that he is in the hospital. Then almost immediately afterwards two men are seen in the neighborhood of Sargood’s factory with a horse and cart galloping away. The horse is put to its utmost speed, and goes down Cumberland street, and .is apparently left there. It Is very difficult from the depositions to give anything like a summary of the evidence. I have only given you some of the leading points. What you have to consider is whether there is prima facie evidence of the identity of the two men with those who had the cart and those who galloped off with the cart immediately after the robbery. If there is prima facie evidence of that it is your duty to find a true bill. If you will kindly retire to your room the bills will be laid before you. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned a true bill in every case, and were thanked and discharged by 11.35 a.m. HOUSEBREAKING. Carl Jriebe alias Carl Glandor, charged with breaking and entering the dwelling of Thomas Collins, at Heriot, on the 20th February, and stealing therefrom a quantity of valuable jewellery, pleaded guilty, said that his age was forty-nine years, and handed up a written statement which His Honor read. Mr Fraser, Crown Prosecutor, said that prisoner was convicted of theft at Wellington in September, 1901, and sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment; for committing a nuisance he was sentenced at Lyttelton in October, 1901, to seven days’ imprisonment; at Wellington, in May, 1902, lie was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment for theft; in June, 1902, at Dunedin, be was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for theft; at Christchurch, in April of tins year, he was sentenced to twelve months for theft; and in May last, also at Christchurch, he received "a sentence of three months for theft. In this case a considerable quantity of valuable jewellery was stolen, also a rug and a flute. None of the articles had been recovered, and the story told by prisoner as to his disposition of the stolen property was obviously incredible. Ho said that he offered them for sale to a jeweller at Balclutha, who would not buy them, whereupon he (accused) threw the things into the river. He had made no attempt to seriously explain or to make restitution. His Honor sentenced accused to two years’ imprisonment, the sentence to commence at the expiration of the term he is now serving. ’ MORE HOUSEBREAKING. John Harris was charged that on the Ist April he broke and entered by day the dwelling of Charles Hugh at 'Morning ton, and stole therefrom a quantity of bedding and clothing, also an alarm clock. Accused pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said that in March last Mr Reid went to the hospital ill, and the family temporarily left the house. A week later Mrs Reid visited the house, and found the back door open, but nothing was missing. Early in April she went back again and discovered that the place had been entered and robbed. The articles were sold by a man named James Eccles to a second-hand dealer. Eccles had been already dealt with by the law. The story told by accused was that he and, Eccles came to Dunedin after harvesting together, and spent their money in a spree; that Eccles then said that he (Eccles) had broken into a place at Momington and slept there, and Eccles then got accused to go np and assist him to carry away some of the things. It seemed to be a particularly impudent theft, and he (Mr Fraser) could not understand howi accused could imagine that ihe fact of Eccles being Reid's brother-in-law was any mitigation. The Crown witnesses were Ada Reid, Duncan M'Kenzie, Jane Williams, ami Plain-clothes Constable Connolly. Accused gave evidence on oath asserting that he had nothing to do with the robbery. that he did not know the articles were Mr Reid’s, and that Eccles had all to do with the selling. James Eccles. called by accused as a witness, said that he did ‘not tell accused he had broken into his sister’s p’nee, nor did accused know that he had done so. What he (Eccles) said to witness was that he had some things up at his sister’s. Accused did not po into the place, nor did he know what things they were that he assisted to remove. He (Eccles) brought the things out, and accused simply helped to carry then). Accused had nothing to do with selling the articles or handling the proceeds. Accused did not know they were stolen. The money was spent in drink. Accused addressed the maintaining

his innocence, and asserting that none of the evidence connected him with a crime. The Crown Prosecutor observed that at the most favorable view for the accused, he must have suspected'Ecdea’s story that tho stolen articles, including a counterpane and other house bedding, formed part of Eccles’s reserve swag. It was hard to avoid the conclusion that he believed the articles to have been stolen and consequently forbore from asking questions. There was no evidence that he actually went into the house. His Honor, in summing up, said that if the jury found accused guilty it would be on the second count. The evidence was that he assisted in the carrying away, and that was the stealing, so u the jury believed that be knew the things were stolen they would find accused guilty as a principal, though it was admitted that he copld not be connected with the actual housebreaking. The jury retired at 5 p.m., and returned m ten minutes witli n verdict of “ Not guutv.” THEFT FRO 51 THE PERSON. Martin Brady alias Michael Kelly was next put upon his trial to answer a charge of stealing £9 and a pocket book from the person of I als Jacobsen on the 20 th March. Accused pleaded not guilty, and conducted bis own defence. The Crown Prosecutor said that the case was of a common kind, snatching a pocket book from a sailor who was in liquor. Accused in this case had, however, committed an error of judgment as to his chances of escape. Jacobsen could not run himself, but he had two active mates who could, and they, upon seeing the theft, went in chase, saw the man tfifow something away, then overtook him and gave him mto custody. Next morning the pocket book was picked up on the spot where the accused had thrown it whilst pursued. The case was proceeding at 4 p.m. CITY police court. (Before Messrs J. Braithwaite and T. Ross J.P.s.) Drunkenness.— Three first offenders were convicted and fined respectively ss, or twenty-four hours; 10s, or forty-eight hours; and 10s, or forty-eight hours, with 2a costs. Obscene Language.—Mary Basan was charged with using obscene language in Princes street on Saturday night, and pleaded guilty.—Mr Irwin, who appeared for the accused, said she had not been before the Court for two years, and the language complained of was used under the stress of considerable excitement caused bv a family dispute—The Bench said they would fake a lenient view of the case, and find the offender 20s, or fourteen days with 2s costs. J A Rowdy Character. James Todd pleaded guilty to charges of drunkenness, resisting the police, and damaging a constabJes uniform—The Sub-inspector said that on Saturday night the man became fighting drunk,” and it took three or four constables to remove him to the police station He had been before the Court for similar offences before, but not during the past two years—The accused was conv.cted and discharged for the first offence fined 20s or forty-eight hours for resisting the police, and ordered to pay the cost of the damaged uniform. ,