SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3930, 12 June 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, June 11. (Before liis Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) His Honok took his seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock. Tlxe following gentlenieix were sworn on THE GHANIM JURY. Joseph Rhodes (foreman), Frederick Martin Chapman, John Chambers, Edmund Sutton, John James Torre, George Thomas Scale, Kenrick James Hill, James Rochfort, William Orr, John Giblin, Robert Ashley Warre Brathwaite, Mathew Robertson Miller, Samuel Begg, Hutton Troutbeck, Robert Farmer, William Douglas, Massey Hutchinson, Rees Powell Williams, Alexander Kennedy, John Bennett, William Elmes, Alexander Ferrier Hamilton, William Ellison. His Honor delivered the following on AUG e :— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, — The calendar is not of such a nature as will give you much troublo. The cases, lam glad to say, are mostly of an ordinary kind— a few cases of petty theft and petty frauds, one or two charges of larceny and a petty charge of forgery. There is one case of arson, but it does not appear on tlxe depositions to be very clear, nor to be of a very serious nature. The district may therefore be congratulated on the comparative lightness of tlxe criminal charges. I have to say to you a few words regarding a charge of forcible entry. You may have had cases of tlxe kind before you on previous occasions — they are not very uncommon in New Zealand. I have before noticed a tendency in this colony to have recourse to that rough and ready mode of asserting rights, which has probably grown up in imitation of Maori px*actice in that respect. The offence is dealt with in a very old statute— as far back as Richard 11. The gist of the offence lies in breaking upon tlxe peaceable possession by a person of freehold property— the breaking being with tho strong hand, or with a multitude of people so as to overawe all resistance. That was what, in the language of the law, was called forcible entry. For some purposes it would be a question whether the entry was made with little or more title to enter upon tho property. That, however, does not concern you at all. You will not have to decide the question Avhether tho forcible entry was with title or otherwise, that question not beingraised. What you will have to decide is whether, when the forcible entry was made, there was a person in peaceable possession of the property, and. the persons charged in the indictment entered with force ancl violence and with considerable numbers. It might probably arise whether one of tlxe persons entering had title, but that is not a question that will come before you. But even if it were raised, if you found that there was forcible entry you should find a true bill, as the law prescribes that a man shall assert his title by peaceable means, and not by means tending to create a breach of the peace. You can now retire, gentlemen ; I have no further observations to , make to you. ' LAKUE-.Y. r Archibald M'Eachan pleaded guilty to two indictments, charging him with steal- . ing sundry goods, the property of Stephen Hooper. Mr Rees (who came in after the prisoner had pleaded to the arraignment) addressed the Court on behalf of the px-isoner in mitigation of the sentence to be passed upon him. He said that though the prisoner had pleaded guilty to both the indictments, it was understood that if he pleaded guilty to one of them tlxe Crown woulcl withdraw the other or enter a nolle prosequi. However, perhaps that would not matter much. He wished to bring under notice of the Court, in mitigation of punishment, that tlxe prisoner had already been in gaol veiy nearly three months. His wife liacl been for a long time very ill, ancl needed comforts wliich were beyond his means to provide, and it was in the endeavor to obtain them that the prisoner had been led step by step into the commission of the thefts with which he stood indicted. His Honor said that it seemed from the depositions that tlxe offences were continuous — that he had offered to supply a person regularly. However, as the prisoner had pleaded guilty his Honor would look into the depositions again, and would defer passing sentence until_the following morning. Tho prisoner was then removed. LAI.UKXY. John Hayraan was charged with stealing a watch ancl chain, the property of James Knowles. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Lascelles. The following jury was impannelled : — Thomas Morrison (foreman), J. Cooper, J. Beattie, W. C. Hunt, J. Neagle, J. Wall, W. Tuckwell, W. Hughes, J. Smith, P. Hall, W. T. Newton, and G. Merritt. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Cotterill) bx-iefiy stated the nature of the case, and called the following witnesses : — James Knowles deposed : I am a seaman employed on the steamer Fairy. I had a watch and chain before the 10th of February last ; 1 missed both on that clay; they were attached together, ancl were hanging at the .side of niy bunk. I saw the chain on the 28th of March at Henry Maunder.-' in tho possession of Fredericks. Tho chain produced is the one. I liave seen the prisoner about the Spit. I did not see him about the time T missed the watch and chain. I saw him afterwards, ancl 1 had seen him before. He used to como down and lend us a band at taking in and discn urging cargo, i never saw hinx in the cabin ; ' i. only saw him about the deck.. 1 did not give hinx the watch and chain, nor authorise him to deal with them in any way. Tbe cook was on board when I missed the watch and chain. The cabin is locked when there is no one in the cabin. The cook should bo in the cabin when on board. The Fairy is at present at sea ; the same cook is on board of her. By Mr Lascelles : When 1 was giving evidence up at tlio gaol I gave tlio wrong date of the day when 1 missed the watch and chain ; I then gave the 23rd of February as the date, but I afterwards remembered it was the lOlh of February, because 1 was married on that day. l gave information to Constable Harvey on the clay that I missed the watch ancl chain. That was on a Saturday. I had seen tliem on tlxe Thursday before. At that time 1 did not see the prisoner about the vessel. Mary Ann Stone deposed : T am the wife of Joseph Stono, carrier, residing at tbe Spit. Tho prisoner was boarding at my house. He left in February ;on the Kith and 17th. After he left 1 found inthe house a chain and a pouch. 1 found theni in our front room. The articles produced are those i found. 1. had seen the punch in the prisoner's possossion ; it belonged to him. 1 bad never seen the chain before. I showed them to my husband, ; and h<^ told nxe to put theni back again i where T found theni. Afterwards I gave ; theni to Fredericks, who used to lie a mate < of (lie prisoner. ! never saw theni after- ] wards until tbey were brought to me by Inspector Scully and Constable Harvey. ( The room where I found the articles was ( the one tbe prisoner had occupied. The chain was inside the pouch when I found 1 them. ] By Mr Lascelles : Thu pouch was in a * box where there were odds and ends. ; Fredericks lodged at my house at the samo time as the prisoner, but left about a i month before him. The prisoner was ' arrested at my house on the 17th of i February on another charge. Fredericks t did not come after the prisoner left. A 1 man named Hammond used to come. ] The prisoner occupied a front room ; it 1 was not locked when ho was away. I t often was away. r John Fredericks deposed : I am a ] carter residing at the Spit. 1 remember 1 Mrs Stone giving me a pouch ami chain i

at the latter end of February last. The articles produced are those she gave me. I had never seen either of them before. I took them up to the prisoner on the same day that I got theni from Mrs Stone. I told lxini 1 had the pouch and chain aix'd he told me to keep them. I did not slxow him tlxe chain. He said, when I told him I had the pouch and chain, '-All right; you can keep them." About a week afterwards I took him some clothes. I told the prisoner that I had found the owner of tlxe chain, and that there had been a watch attached to it. I asked him if he knew where the watch was. He said no. I did not ask him on any occasion about the chain. I asked him again where the watch was, ancl he told mo he gave it to Mr Hammond. I did not ask him where he got tlxe watch. I gave the chain to tlxe owner, Mr Knowles. The prisoner did not at all account to nxe for tlxe articles being in his possession. By Mr Lascelles : I spoke to prisoner about the pouch before 1 got it from Mrs Stone. I asked prisoner if he knew what was in tlxe pouch. He said yes. I did not myself know at the time what was in tlxe pouch. Mrs Stone had told me to ask the prisoner if he knew what was in the pouch. 1 had not the pouch and. chain in my possession then. Tlxe prisoner , asked me to bi'ing him up a change of clothes. Mrs Stone recalled and examined by his Honor ; Tlxe witness in tlxe box was to ask the prisoner what the pouch meant, and what was in the pouch. To Mr Lascelles : I cannot tell whether I gave tlxe pouch and chain to tlxe prisoner on the same day that I told him of them. i I showed him the chain on tlxe day that ; I told him of it. John Fredei-icks' cross-examination continued : The governor of tlxe gaol was | L not present at the last interview I had ; with tlxe prisoner. It was on a Sunday i night ; Mr Scully was with me. He [ asked the governor of the gaol to let me . see the prisoner then, as I could not ; come anj' othei' time. I mentioned tlxe name of Mr Knowles when I told him * that I had found an owner for the chain. ) It was a week after the prisoner had told i- mo to keep the chain that Knowles * claimed it. On the same night I went , up to tlxe prisoner and asked him about the watch. I told prisoner that he had i better tell me about it beforo there was - any row over it, or else it would get him >■ into trouble. I did not go xxp to the gaol 3 to get the prisoner into trouble. I was _ about half an hour getting out of prisoner _ that he had given the watch to Hammond. 3 Knowles had told nxe that if he got the 1 watch and chain there would be no row - about it. By tlxe Court : The warder did not take y any part in the conversation with the t prisoner. t Tlxe Crown Prosecutor was about to s address the jury, when , His Honor pointed oxxt that there was 1 a difficulty in respect to the confession 1 made to the witness Fredericks. If it i was made upon inducement, then it was - inadmissable. He was sorry the rule was , so, nor was it a rule of which he could approve, but it was a rule nevertheless, though a very absurd one, ancl it woulcl ;> lie his duty to tell the jury to disregard - the evidence relating to tlxe confession. i Mr Cotterell thought that what had tlxe appearance of inducement was more - in the way Mr Lascelles had put the ) question to the witness than in tlxe 3 answer to it. . His Honor said that perhaps it was so, i but he had taken down the question as i well as the answer, and he still thought f that inducement had. been held oxxt to the 3 prisoner by the witness Fredericks. l- Mr Lascelles said, in reply to his t Honor, that he was going to contend so. . His Honor said he was very sorry that the rule was so strict, but it appeared l- plain enough that Fredericks was in the 3 position of a person in authority, acting r on behalf of the prosecutor. He had i found in Knowles an owner for the watch t and chain, and he asked the prisoner to i confess about the watch, so that there ) might not be a row about it. Veiy proi perly the Inspector of Police, the gaoler, and the warder had not interfered at all, * no doubt aware of the difficulty that - woulcl attend a confession made to either i of them, they being persons in authority, - but the witness was at the time in that [ position. The jury woulcl have to dis- [ chax-ge from their minds, if they could, ; what thoy had heard about tlxe confession, as the rule was that no kind of inducement should be held out. They must therefore take the evidence as if it stood apart from any confession. \ The Crown Prosecutor then addressed the jury on the evidence without referring to the confession. Mr Lascelles having then made a very able address on behalf of the prisoner, His Honor summed xxp, pointing out that if a person found in recent possession of property that had been stolen did not give a credible account for tbe possession of tho property, he was presumed to have stolen it. In the present ease the chain ( was found by Mrs Stone in a box where there were odds ancl ends, but it was in a I pouch which she said belonged to the pi-i---soner. Mr Lascelles had, however, put it that tho pouch was a common one enough, and might have belonged to any other person. The evidence for the px'osecution, however, went further than that. When Fredericks went to the prisoner and told him about the chain the prisoner admitted ownership, and told Fredericks to keep it for himself. Tho witness had certainly displayed some confusion in giving his evidence, ancl it was for them (the jxuy)to say whother it arose from obliviousness — a lnuddlehcadednuss — or whether he was a dishonest witness. For his Honor's part he would not say that the witness appeared to be at all dishonest in giving his evidence. His Honor then read over to the jury the principal part of the evidence, and directed them to consider their verdict. The jury then retired, but wero unable to agree to a verdict when the Court was adjourned at 10 p.m., and they were therefore locked up all night. liAI-l'l-NY. John Haynxan was indicted with stealing from tbo dwelling-house of George Wilson sundry moneys to the amount of C2l. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Lascelles. The following juiy was impannelled : — James Gray (foreman), A. M' Roberts, T. Murphy, .'I. Morgan, T. Euright, C. Loundes, J. Harris, J. Trask, J. Marshall, G. E. Toop, T. H. Gale, and C. Saunders. The Crown Prosecutor having stated to the jury the facts of the caso, the following evidence was taken : — George Wilson, boot and shoemaker at ' the Spit, deposed that the prisoner had worked for him and knew of his having | money in the house. On the evening of the robbery the witness, his wife, and the - prisoner went out. On returning the wit- J ness found that the house had been entered, and all the money had been taken away from three different boxes. On that - evening the prisoner was weaving a black hat, no coat, light colored trousers and vest, and a Crimean shirt of light color. s One of the notes had a hole in it, and tho j other bore Neal ancl Close's stamp. Thoholo ' was made by the bolt of the box in which . the note was kept with others. Would not, x however, swear that tlio noto produced was the same. The note that had Neal j and Close's stamp was like the one produced, but could not swear to it. Was ( not aware of what bank the note was. - The prisoner was at witness's houso the } next day. Mrs M'Bride was there at the - time, and then witness reminded her of bey having seen two persons in witness's J house on the previous evening, and asked her if she would know them. She said -. that ono of them bad a black moustache. , The prison ex- changed color when Mrs K MM. ride said that. On tho Saturday following Mrs M'Bride was again at witness's house, Inspector Scully put the

prisoner in the passage where Mrs M -Bride had seen a man on tlxe night of the > robbery. The prisoner spoke, and Mrs M'Bride then said that the voice was veiy much like that of the man she had seen, | and the prisoner also looked like him. The prisoner said he was not the man. Hoi Pxni, wife of the prosecutor, George Wilson, examined through an interpreter (Mr Master-), deposed that on the night of tlxe robbery the prisoner and her husband went down to Golding's togethex-, but she went to Morrison's. She had. £14 ixx her box in the bedroom all in onepound notes. There was other money ixx tlxe shop, but she did . not know how much. Tlxe window of the bedroom was not quite shut. On returning home she found that the curtain of the window was down, and tlxe window itself was more open that when she left. Looked into her box and found that all her money was gone. Went down to Mr Golding's ancl informed her husband that the house had been broken open and tlxe money stolen. Jane M'Bride deposed that on tlxe night of the robbery she saw a man in tlxe passage at the side of tlxe prosecutor's house. Asked hinx if Mr Wilson was at home, ancl he said no, that he would be home in half an hour. The man was in his shirt-sleeves and his shirt seemed to be light. He was wearing a black felt hat. Saw his face ; he had a dark moustache. He was about the prisoner's height. Afterwax-ds witness saw the prisoner at tlxe pi-osecutor's house. Inspector Scully was there. Prisoner asked witness whether she knew him, and witness answered that he looked very suspiciously like the man she had soen in tlxe passage on tlxe night of the robbery. He said that he was not the man. The prisoner's voice was like that of the man she spoke to on that night. By Mr Lascelless : I recollect Constable Harvey asking nxe whether I should know tlxe man, and I said no. I had nover seen him before. John Young deposed that on tlxe 14th of February the prisoner was at the Railway Hotel. He was in his shirt-sleeves, ) ancl was wearing a grey Crimean shirt ancl a black felt hat. Thomas Scully, Inspector of Police, deposed that he arrested tlxe prisoner on the 17th of February. Searched him and found upon hinx two one-pound notes and half-a-crown. Prisoner said that he had not paid away any money lately. Witness asked Mrs Stone afterwards, and she said, in the prisoner's presence, that she had received £2 from hinx for board ancl lodging. William Mevan deposed that he had seen the prisoner several times before the money was stolen. About tlxe Friday week before that the px-isoner wanted to borrow a shilling from witness. Did not lend it to hinx. Margarent Denholm, wife of William Denholm, storekeeper at the Spit, deposed that in the beginning of February — i about tlxe Sth — the prisoner bought some things at her husband's shop. They were ; bought before the robbery, but were i not paid for until some time afterwards, i Believed it was after tlxe robbery that the prisoner paid for the articles. He paid tlxe money in a one-pound note. It was a new note. Tlxe note produced was tlxe L one witness gave to Constable Harvey, but witness did not believe it was the one she received from • the prisoner, as that was a new note. ! By Mr Lascelles : Constable Harvey > asked to look if I had not a note with holes in it. I gave him tlxe one produced, but at tlxe same time I told hinx s that it was not tlxe one I had received ; from the prisoner. Inspector Scully being recalled at tlxe request of tlxe Crown Prosecutor, he i stated that tlxe two one-pound notes now shown to him were those he found upon the prisoner when arresting hinx. The case for the prosecution having : closed, Mr Lascelles said that he did not ; intend to offer any evidence for tlxe defence. His Honor, addressing the Crown Proi socutor, remarked that he was not clear : that there was a case to go to tlxe jury " You do not identify the property," hiHonor went on to say, " ancl you clo not identify the man. He is found with some , notes in his possession, but there is no evidence that they were part of those that belonged to the prosecutor, and tlxe evidence that the prisoner was a moneyless man is very slight." With regard to tlxe evidence to identify tlxe px-isoner with the person who was near tlxe prosecutor's house on the night of the robbery, his Honor, speaking in reference to the evidence of Mrs M'Bride, said that his experience had shown him the danger of accepting evidence of identity where the person identified was unknown to tlxe witness, as was the case in the present instance. He remembered a caso wlxere several witnesses identified the prisoner at the bar with more or less certitude ; one witness said he was like the person, others said he was very like, j and at last one of them said that he was I positive the prisoner was the man. Yet, J after that, his Honor had a complete case of alibi proved to hinx that satisfied both hinx ancl the jury. After that experience his Honor had felt the necessity of taking with caution evidence of identity where the witness did not know the prisoner. In the present case Mrs M'Bride did not know the man before tlxe night of the robbery, ancl even then she saw him veiy indistinctly. His Honor therefore felt bound to direct the jury to acquit the prisoner. The jury having, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of not guilty, his Honor remarked that ordinarily they were the judges of fact, but he was bound to tell them when thero was no evidence for them to weigh. The prisoner was then removed.