SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6282, 22 June 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, Junb 21. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) His Honor took his Beat at 10 a.m. FORGERY. Pu alias Puiawaha pleaded noi guilty to a charge of having on the 17th of December, 1881, forged an order on Mr M. R. Miller. The offence consisted in having altered an order from the sum of £6 8s 6d to £16 8s 6d, by the insertion of the figure "1 " before the amount in figures, and of the syllable " teen " between the words '•' six " and " pounds " in the body of the document. The details of the case were published in the' Herald at the time of the preliminary examination before the Resident Magistrate. The prisoner made a long statement, in which he sought to prove that he had not altered the order, but that it had been altered by another native, who had persuaded him that it would not lead to serious consequences. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a brief retirement, found the prisoner not guilty of forgery, but guilty of uttering. The prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labor. . LABOENY A 8 A BAILEE. Phillip John Murtagh was charged under the Chattels Security Act with larceny as a bailee, for that he did on the 20th of March last feloniously sell and dispose of the mare Phoenix, the property of Mr James Heron. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr M'Lean. Henry Lascelles deposed that a mortgage for £110 had been given by the prisoner to James Heron, but he could not say how much money had been paid ; practically only £100 was the consideration money, the £10 being added for interest. A mortgage of stock usually had a rate of interest stated, but it was not in this instance, for what reason he could not say. Witness oould not remember whether Mr Heron did not want it known that 20 per cent, interest was charged. There were other sums deducted for expenses, but what the total amount deducted was he oould not say. The mortgage was prepared by Mr Ward, of Grisborne, and the cost was paid by witness to him. He did not pay it by cheque, nor did he get a receipt for it. He had heard that in January the prisoner had paid an amount to Heron, but he oould not say whether the prisoner or Heron had informed him of it, or what amount it was. Mr Heron had not told witness that he (Heron) had given prisoner permission to sell tho horses. Heron said the prisoner had asked for permission. Witness oould not say exactly on what date this was. He saw the advertisements in the Hawke'e Bay Herald headed " Important Bale of thoroughbreds." [Newspaper produced, and advertisement recognised by tha witness.] The advertisement appeared for some long time. Mr Heron told witness that he had lent the prisoner £50 more on the horses with some addiI tional security, but he know of no amount that was lent under the stock mortgage except fcfae original amount.. Permission was given for the two horses to be taken to Auokland, if £45 were paid by Cartwright Brown. There had been £60 paid already, and witness understood the prisoner hod received that amount back again. He understood that £65 would be still due when £45 was paid, but oould not say. who gave him so to understand ; £46 only had been paid, consequently £65 was still due.

Hia Honor : I ,am afraid your " consequently " i 3 very inoonsequont. Examination continued. — The £45 was tho proceeds of the Bale of a dog-oart and harness, which were not included in the mortgage. Witness understood that when the £45 was paid a further arrangement had been made that the horses could be removed. The prisoner offered to pay off the whole amount, but a further amount was claimed by Heron and witness for time and expenses. The prisoner gave Heron and witness £1 each: He would not swear that £10 had not boon demanded. It waa arranged that Angler and St. Patrick should g» to Auckland. The prisoner did not insist that that arrangement should be put in writing, but asked for an authority. There were two copies of the authority written — the prisoner had one and the witness kept the other for Mr Heron, and produced It at the Resident Magistrate's Court. It set out that the balance of £65 should be paid out of the sale of Angler and St. Patrick. Witness had heard that Phoenix was already Bold. He had no document that would throw alight upon the case further than those already in the Court. He had had only one or two receipts which he had handed over to Mr Heron. On the 25th of January there was a payment of £50, he believed, but he could not say whether it was in liquidation of the mortgage or of another loan. Witness supposed Heron expected the horses to be sold on the 13th of March, the date advertised, but he did not know. There was £65 due on that date. Witness made out an account of the amount due from the prisoner to Heron. It amounted to £79 16s to fully release the mortgage. There was a detailed account besides the one produced. Witness had paid £5 to the captain of the Oreti to release the horsoß, but he oould not say what other items made up the £9 16s remaining. It might have been the expenses of tho seizure and auctioneer's commission. His Honor: Do I understand that; after authority had been given on the Monday for tho removal of these two horse*, they were, seised on the Wednea-

day and sold in order to pay off the mort- J gage ? ! Witness : The horses were brought up ! from the Spifc and put in Mr Monteith's hands. Mr Heron had been advised to do so by his solicitor. Mr M'Lean : You were a willing tool in the hands of Mr Heron. His Honor : How is it that the mortgage was wholly paid off on the 22nd of March, and this information was laid on the Friday following ? ; Witness : There is a miatakfi there. The information was wrongly drawn at first. Mr Sheath dictated and T wrote it. Mr Sheath was acting for Heron. I had not reckoned up what the prisoner had, paid for hi 3 money. I could not say whether 150 or 200 per cent, per annum had been paid. Mr M'Lean : You were served with a subpoena on Monday last, and yet you are not prepared with any books or documents. Witness said he did not manage the whole affair. He had made up an account which had been handed in. He could not produce any roceipttf. Re-examined by Mr ©ottorill : Witness believed the first information was laid on the 21st ©f March and the horses were seized on the same day. Witness was ' present when the horses were seized. They were seized because witness had received positive evidence that the horse Phoenix had been sold. James Heron, examined by Mr M'Lean, stated that the prisoner had received £100 in cash in the first oase. Witness had given Mr Lascelle'S instructions to prepare the mortgage, and to state the amount at £110, to be repaid in six months from date. Interest had not been mentioned between himself and the prisoner. The mortgage was made out as had been agreed between them. Witness could not offer any other explanation of the usual interest clause not being: in the mortgage. He was not ashamed to show that the interest was at the rate of 29 per cent. It was settled on the 23rd of Juno. Cheques were given for £100, one cheque to the prisoner for £95 Bs, and one for expenses for £4 12s, which wa« retained by himself and the last witness. On the 25th of January witness received a cheque for £60 from the prisoner, and on the same day witness received £5 in cash. The £5 was given for allowing the mortgage to remain for a month, and the prisoner had given witness another £5 on the 25th of Deeeroberfor the same reason. Witness had power to seize the horses because the mortgage had not been paid off. On the 20th of September the prisoner wanted a loan of £25 on a bill of sale. Witness was not at first disposed to advance the money, but at last he consented, and they went to the office of the last witness. Witness then told the prisoner that the mortgage money must be paid on the 26 th of December. Witness took £5 for the use of the balance for a month, and another £5 at tho end of the month. The prisoner said the money was worth more than that to him- he would be able to make good use of it on the racecourse. On the 9th of March the prisoner came to witness and said he intended to advertise the horses for sale on the 18th, adding that he was positive that he could get good offers for them, and he would then pay witness. Witness knew that the prisoner was trying to get private offers for the horses. The prisoner also asked witness to give him £50, and he would give up the receipt for £60. The prisoner said ho would pay the money in eleven days — that was, on the 20th of March. There was not another sum of £5 paid for entering into this arrangement. The prisoner wanted permission to take two horses to Auckland. Witness accepted Mr. Cartwright Brown's offer to pay over to witness £45. That amount was the proceeds of the sale of a dog oart. Prisoner said he would pay the whole of the money when terms could be come to. Witness consented to the horses being taken to Auckland in consideration of having received the £45 aud something else. Two other horses were offered as security. Witness did not give permission for the horses to be taken away. The other two horses were not valuable ones. Witness held security over four horses — Phoenix, Oomet, Angler, and St. Patrick — until he got hia money. When the horses were Bold, witness wag first to get his money. Witness never gave up tho security. At this point the Court adjourned until 2 o'olock. Upon resuming, the Crown Proseputor said that, having considered the evidence that had been given by the two witnesses examined before the adjournment, he did not feel that the jury could be asked to believe that there was any larceny intended. He therefore did not intend to call any further witnesses. His Honor said that the Crown Prosecutor had exercised a wise discretion, and that it was the duty of the Crown Prose r cutor to see that justice was done, and not merely to endeavor to obtain a conviction. The evidence of the mortgagee, and of his agent, was of such a thoroughly discreditable character that he considered the course which the Crown Proseoutor had adopted was entirely justified. He would therefore direct the jury to formally acquit the prisoner. The jury accordingly returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. MAXiaiOTTSLY "WOUNDING AN ANIMAL. Neil Thompson was charged with maliciously wounding a bull, tha property of Charles Wilson, at Woodville, on the 6th of December last. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Lascelles. I Phillis Ann Wilson stated that on the 6th of December last the barking of a dog attracted her attention, and upon going to ascertain the cause she found the prisoner with his two sons and a dog bailing up her husband's bull among some logs. The prisoner had in his hand an axe with which he cut the bull about the hindquarters, inflicting several severe injuries. Mary Aim Giles gave corroborative evidence. Constable Motley described the injuries the animal had . sustained; and the place where the offence was alleged to have been committed. Patrick M'Cormick, who was oalled by Mr Lascelles for the defence, stated that he was a shoemaker residing in Napier. He knew the prisoner, and had been asked by him to examine the locality where it was alleged by Mr Wilson the offenoe had been committed. He Had done so, and had been unable to find a place near the sections of the prisoner or Mr Wilson where a bull could be bailed up. He had known animals to injure themselves against barbed fences and freshly cut saplings in the manner that the bull was said to have been injured. Frederick Cassin, Alexander M'Corraick and James Cunningham gave similar evidence. Mr Lascelles addressed the jury, and urged upon them the improbability of such an injury being inflicted, and the difficulty of bailing up and cutting a bull with an axo. He directed their attention to the rebutting evidence of the four witnesses for the defence, who could not discover a place near tho alleged locality of the offence where a bull could be bailed up. His Honor having summed up, tho jury retired at 5 o'clock. At half-past five the foreman reported that there was not the remotest prospect of a decision being arrived at, but his Honor said he could not order their discharge until they had been together twelve hours. He would adjourn tho Court until 7 o'clock. At that hour the foreman reported that the j jury were etill unable to agree, and asked that refreshmentß might be provided for them. His Honor assented to the request^ and further adjourned the Court till 10 o'clock. At that hour the jury were still unable to agree, and the Court was adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning.

Notice to the JfuuLio. — U. Sakffbb, o 4 the American Tobacco and Cigar Divan ant 1 Hair-dressing Saloon, Hastings-street, Napier has received 12,000 of the celebrated Mai,sbsb Kaisbb-I-BTind Cigabrttkb. BTe has also received another large consignment ot the El Uni verso Cigars, and will sell them at 6 for Is. Ormond's Swisa, 8 for Is. Thre« Bticka Nailroad, Is. Regular Customers for Hair-cutting and Shaving, 4s 6d per month. Amoricm illustrated papers received by every mail.— f Advt."l 833