SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 10648, 30 June 1897, Page 4

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Tuesday, June 29. (Before bit Honor Mr Juetlce Edwards,) His Honor took his seat at 10 a,m, 1 STEALING LETTERS. John M'Connoohle Brown, who pleaded guilty yesterday to stealing letters from the Napier Poat<office, came op for senteuoe. Mr Cornford said after the remarks that had fallen from bio Honor yesterday he felt considerable dlffidenoe in miking An application on prlaone»'a behalf. He •übmltted that tho provision* of the Act Of 18SB might well be applied in the ease of the acoußed, for there had been no aeriona or irreparable resulto ot the Mime. His Honor had oalled his tcouuaorsj attention to the fact that the effeots of prisoner's crime were fot-reaoblng, HeimratIng probably a husband from his wife, and a father from his children. He urged thai in the present case the prisonnrs •oath, ha was only 22, and the faot that he was the only one ot homo supporting a widowed mother, might be tßkon into consideration, > Bat there was this difficulty, that the fatally was not in a position to pay the costs Incurred In tbo prosecution, ■ Hit Honor: Snoh oosta are made light by beiDg paid by Instalments. , Mr Comford tald that relieved him of •ome part of his difficulty. la urging that the accused be admitted to probation he pointed ont that the families of Downes, Flnlayeon, and Boott had not .been Injured by the aoonaed's crime t that was to say there had been no irreparable tetnltt, and If there had been there wai the postal officials 1 paarantoe fund, upon whlob. any olaims oould have been made. All crime seemed to him a manifestation of some tort of dementia. A young man In the accused's position hardly realised what he was doing at a time like this. Couaeel stated that tho mother was dependent upon the aooused. Although the oharge was a seriona one, covering as it did foruory aa well, he urged his Honor to extend the olemenoy . Of the Crown to the prl? oner. He referred his . Honor to the Probation Offioer'a report, whloh oonnsel said he had not been permitted to see. Hit Honor.sftld It had been held by the Court of Appeal that a probation officer's report need not necessarily be made public It might be extremely inadvisable to do to, though the Judge oould •late snoh portions as ho might think fit In the present oaie the Probation Officer teported adversely ; that the licensed was a gambler and spent his niehta In hotels. Brown : May Ibe permitted to apeak ? I have not been gambling in hotels for the list 12 months. Mr Comford polntad out that the Offences had bsen committed during the period ooverlng the J9bh April and 26th May. His Honor aald he wag very loth to Bend the prisoner to gaol, but be waa afraid that he onght to do ao, Ho thought that the orime of whloh the accused had been convicted on hit own confession was, in kls Honor's mind, an obomlnable one. Tbii orime of stealing small sums of money from lettors entrusted to him os a postal offiolal, sums sent by absent persons for their wlvei and children, was a moid serlonß one, and there could be no more serious form of crime. As he had aald. yesterday, he looked upon the theft of a large sum of money from a great Corporation like the Union Batik os comparatively light when compared with the orime of stealing small amounts, whloh whloh were Intended for the maintenance Of wlvea and ehlldren, aent by husbands from different parts of the colony, and the nondelivery of whloh might be the cause of deplorable reanlta. Farther, his Honor thought that he mast take Into aooount hie doty to the oountry, to make the sentence a deterrent to all person* In acoused's position, and that sevete punishment maat follow where a person yielded to temptation. He thought he had been extremely liberal in applying the Pint Offenders 1 Probation Aot, but he did not feel that he could apply the Aot to this oase, Aooused wonld bs sentenced to two yeava' Imprisonment. ' THEFT, J. Davleß, alias Drljooll, was oharged withhavlng, on May Ist last, stolen a j« of brandy from the Danevlrke railway ■tatlon, the property of 8. Penny, pnbll. can, of Weber, and also with having broached the same, The following jury was empanelled :- Meisra Georee Bradley, W Klrkham, T. O'Connor, F. Jensen, E. Sobnltz, T. Fjtzaerald, J. A. Fryer, John Anderson, w. Foster, J. Cattanaoh, F. Triggs, J. King, Mr Bradley was ohosen foreman, Prisoner was represented by Mr Bamford, of Danevlrke, and pleaded not gnilty. .Mr Cotterlll related the facts for the Grown. On the night of May Ist lost s nnmber of oases arrived at the Danevlrke railway station, for Mr S. Penny, pnbiloan of Weber. Amongst them was a jar of brandy. Prisoner at the time of the committal was a oarrler at Weber and took away a nnmber of oases that were delivered to him by the railway officials. Amongst the cases taken away by (prisoner was a jar of brandy belonging to Mr Penny, whloh it would be proved that he had no right to take away. Davleß drank nome of the oontents. but in the meantime tho railway porter missed the jar, and went after the prisoner, whom he found on the road to Weber with the jar la his possession. Robert Hlslop deposed he waa stationmaster at Danevlrke, and remembered' ■ome goods arriving at the station for Mr Penny, hotelkeeper, of Weber, whloh laoluded a five- gallon j« of brandy. The jar remained at the station from the 15th April till the Ist May. Gooda were banded over on the production of written orders by the aooused. To Mr Bamford : Mistakes had been made at the station In delivering goods Knew that prevlonßly certain goods hod been delivered to Davleß by the porter in mistake; that was about five or b!x weeks before. TUeae goods were for Frenoh and Co,, Danevlrke. Had no order from the aooused to deliver the goods. Did not know that a paroal of wire had been delivered by mistake. William Pawaon, porter at Danevlrke, remembered the prisoner eomlng to the station on the day in question. Had goods of Mr Penny's In hie possession at the station at that time. Prisoner came Into the shed in the afternoon and he dellvered goods to him, bnt nono of Mr Penny's. Saw prisoner looking at Mr Pannya jars, and remarked to him, •• You don't want any of that." Accused

did not B6k for 'any of Penny's goodß. Miseed a jar just before looking np. In tho evening opoke to Henry Holdeu, who bad asasted Davies to load bis diay during the day, and from what he heard went after the accused, who had gob about a mile and a half from Danevlrke. The horses were ont of the dray on the elde of the road, and turning his (witness's) bloyole light on the dray he saw a jar of brandy addressed to Fenny, which bad been broached, with a pleoe of papor stack In the neck. Could not say If any of the contents were gone. Davleß was there bb well as his employ^, George Nelson. Witness remarked, " Ha, ha, Mr Davleß, I've got yon. this time \ I'll have to get yon looked up." Nelson said "I know nothing abont it." Took the jar away with him. Then Informed Constable Drake. Drove with tbo constable In a gig to the spot, bat afioneed was gone, thongh the dray had been loft behind. To Mr Bumford: Helped to load accused's dray, and flaw him drive away, bat did not notioo the jar on It. Did not supply Davies or Holden with drink during any time that they wens loading the dray, Davies had been drinklog, but was not drunk. Witness admitted that a mistake had been made in delivering goods once to ncoaaod, who took them Into Weber but subsequently returned them. Beexamlned by Mr Cotterlll t The ]»r of brandy was not given to the accused in mistake for a jar of vinegar. S. J. Fenny, licensed vlotualler of the Royal Oak Hotel, tfeber, deposed that in April last he received from Wellington a general assortment of goods, amongat them being five gallon* of brandy, Did not reoelve tbe brandy. Knew the prisoner, but had never authorised him to oarry goods for him. Gave him no authority to take tbli jar ot brandy. To Mr Bamfoid : Did not tell Nelson that he had goods at Danevlrke. It had happened that wines and spirits In transit had been broaohed ; sometimes bo much that very little was brought to tbe hotel. It was tbo custom, when the carrier* camped on the road, for them sometimes to broioh good* In transit, , Henry Holden, laborer at Danevirke, deposed that he had seen the aoouaed put a jar similar to the one In Conrt into hie dray. George F, Nelson, carrier, also gave evidence, In the oonrße of wbloh he said, "As a rnle Id is the can torn to tap anything we have on tbe dray." Constable Drake also gave evidence, which closed the case for the prosecution. In hie defenoe, counsel for tbe accused said the whole thing was a mistake. It was tbe custom for carrier a to load np at the station, and in doing this on tbe day in question the aooused intended to deliver the jar, The jar was in an open dray where everybody could see it. John Davies, the aoonied, sworn, deposed that he had had a good many drinks on the day In qnestion. In load' Ing his dray the jar of brandy might have been pnt on with the other oases } did not notloe it. When be wbb camping that night near Danevlrke he did not know what happened, except that Nelson had charge of tbe dray. To Mr Cotterlll: After camping he went twice to a publiohonee. Had carried goods for Mr Penny before, groceries, for whloh be had been paid. Did not remember taking the jar out of tbe station. Did not remember telling Nelson, when camping, that ho had a jar of brandy for Mr Penny. His veraolty had never been doubted nor hid Mr Stanford, S.M. at Daneyirke, disbelieved him when he was before tbe Court there in oonneotlon with somo civil oases. Tbe Crown Prosedotor, la addressing tbe jnry, said the defenoe seemed to be that the jit was put on the dray by mistake. But there conld bavo been no mistake, as the jar had been put In a separate portion of the railway shed altogether. Hli Honor In summing up said that It was quite plain that the prisoner had taken tbe jar from the railway Btatlon, As counsel had explained, It had been the custom for carriers to broach goods, and acoused no doubt thought that It would be s> fine thing to have the j»r on his dray. In one point the case was paltry ; lv another it set np a bad precedent that oarriers in the back districts should open cargo as they liked. Society sbonld be protected, and in coming to a decision they owed a dnty not only to tbe oountry, but to their own ooneolenoes. After a short abienoe the jury brought in a verdiot on tbe second ebarge of appropriating the brandy, with a strong recommendation to meroy, The Crown Froseoutor said the ooßts In the case were £28, His Honor said he did nob intend to send the prisoner to gaol, but he did Intend to make him pay the costs of bis most nnjnstlfiable aot. Altbongh the prisoner might not have intended to steal the whole of the brandy, he certainly Intended to steal what he took from the jar. Under these olronmstances it was plain that the prisoner must not be allowed to put tbe country to any expense. Aoonsed would be fined £30 His Honor asked how aconied purposed making the payment of this money. Counsel said tbe scorned was a hardworking man. The drays were not his own ; besides the man was in bad health. The acoused said tbe roads were in bad order just now at Weber, and he was only working half time. The teams belonged to his wife. His Honor : Well, you'll havo to get your wife to come to your assistance. I look upon that as a mere faroe, Counsel suggested the payment of £2 per month. The wife had received a little money from friends, for whloh the teams had been scoured to find employmont for aconied, wbo only a short time ago had beoome bankrupt. His Honor directed that the acoused be Imprisoned nntll tbe fine wbb paid, the order to be suspended so long bb the In • stalments of £2 per month were paid, beginning on Angust Ist. If accused did not make tbe payments he wonld be arrested. He also ordered the ec-used to enter into a recognisance of £100 for his future good behavior for a period of two years. SHEEP STEALING, , Robert) Todd was charged with having on the 12bh February lasb, at W&lkoplro, wilfully destroyed one sheep, stolen one sheep, and further with attempting to steal one sheep. Mr Laik appeared for the scouted, who pleaded not guilty. The following jury were drawn :— Messrs W. Tremaiu, J. Young, G. Harding, M. Welßman, G. Howse, E, J. Bull, B. Howlofct, W, Kolls, J, Carter, F. Webster, H. Yeandle, and W, E. Fenwlcke. Mr M. Rolls was chosen foreman. The Crown Prosecutor stated the foot* of the case. On the 12th February last n small Maori sheepfarmer living at the Walkopiro, possessing abont 900 halfbred merino sheep, with another native, tound that the acoused had shot one of their sheep. Prisoner said he had shot at r. pheasant but missed It. The ears of the sheep had been cut off, and the body was still quite warm when discovered. Prisoner admitted that he had shot the sheep, though he varied his story to the constable when arrested at Walpawa, saying that "he shot It In mistake for a rabbit." Fnkl Math!, James Wells, Frank Peterson, Meretl, Eanl Natnn, and Constable Brosnahan gave evidence. This closed the oase for the Crown. The Crawn Froseoator pointed out to the juty that It waa undisputed that the accused killed the sheep, that the sheep was Puhl'a, skinned on his ground, and taken away aoroas the fence Into Todd's property. If the jury believed that the prisoner killed the sheep by mistake for a pheasant or rabbit than they must have greater powers of credulity than he Imagined they had. The sheep was cut up, and even if it were an aooldent. it was dear that the aooueed Intended to steal the sheep. Mr Lnek, In addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said there were three counts. It was altogether lmprobable that aoonsed Intended to deliberately shoot the sheep in broad daylight, and thus run great risk of being prosecuted. The last thing a man would do wonld be to take a double-barrelled gun out In the afternoon and thus leave traces of shut for detection ; hod he intended to deliberately kill tbe sheep the aoensed would have got a knife and cut its throat. They did not deny that the sheep was killed, but they said it was killed by accident. Tho surrounding circumstances did cot point to theft, thongh prisoner's aotlon might have been that of a foolish man. His Honor, in summing np, said the facts were undisputed. The fact that the sheep was shot In broad daylight was certainly a point in tbe acoused's favor, but it they came to the ooßclaalon that by cuttlrjg off the ears and oarrylng the carcaae away, acoused intended to stßal tbe sheep, then they mnst return a verdiot accordingly. The prisoner was entitled to the benefit of any doubt, bud it appeared to him (bis Honor) that upon the last two counts the jury ought to be able to present to their mind* a theory whloh would In some way or other account for the prisoner's acts. It was a matter between the honest part of the comma, nlty and the dlelioneit part, who wanted to make a living in a dishonest way. It wan for the jury to say whether there was dishonest Intent In ibis oase. The jury returned after an absence of ohotib no boar, Tbe foreman eald they had decided to give the prisoner the benefit of the donbt, finding him not guilty on the fiist count, but guilty on tho second and third counts, with a strong recommendation to meroy. Hlb Honor adultied the prisoner to probation for two years, and ordered him to pay tha costn of pro«routlon, £22, which cjmiisul undertook would be paid. At 6 p.m. tue Court adjourned nntll 10,30 next day.