SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 1785, 6 September 1866, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, Sept. 4. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gresson.) The Court assembled at 10 a.m. STEALING TROM A DWELLING IIOUSE, Benjamin Joseph was indicted on this charge. Mr. Duncan appeared for the Crown. The prisoner, who was undefended, and who is a Portuguese, pleaded " Not Guilty." The prisoner, professed himself unable to speak English, and an interpreter was employed. Mr. Duncan stated the case, and called David Nile, a police constable at Lyttelton, who stated that from information received by him he went to the house of Mr. T. Leslie, situated on Norwich Quay, Lyttelton, where the prisoner and the prosecutor were lodging. There was a box belonging to the hitter, which had been broken open. He found a knife in the possession of the prisoner, which corresponded with the marks of violence on the box. Some property had been abstracted from the box. Witnessfound the prisoner in a bedroom of Leslie's house. Witness after some conversation arrested him, On asking prisoner how much money he had in his possession, he replied that he had 15s. Witness searched prisoner's bed, and found a handkerchief kuotted up. On opening it, he found a watch, a gold ring, and small bag containing a watch-key. The handkerchief also contained Ave one pound notes. Prisoner stated that he had purchased the articles, but he could not identify the person from whom he had bought them. Leslie was present in the bedroom at the same time.' William Barron was called, and stated that in June last he was lodging at Leslie's Board-ing-house, Norwich Quay, Lyttelton. He had a box containing a watch and some other articles in his possession. There was also the sum of £8 10s, and some clothes. The money was in notes, £1 in silver, and half a sovereign. Witness could not say on what bank the whole of the notes were; he knew that some were on the Union Bank. Witness quitted Leslie's early in June, leaving his box in a bed-room occupied by the prisoner. The box was locked and tied up. When he returned he found the box in another room. The lashing was cut, and the box had been forced open. He missed the watch, the £8 10a he had mentioned, a pair, of boots, a ring and a chain with two keys. The value of the goods was about £l7. Witness identified the watch and ring produced as being his property. He could not 8w ear to the bank-notes produced. The prisoner knew that witness was possessed of a watch. He had examined the works of it.

Thomas Leslie was the next witness, and corroborated the evidence of the former witnesses. Both the prosecutor and the prisoner were staying in his house in June. The former left on June 5, returning on the night of the 12th. Witness looked for the box, and found it in room No. 4. The lushing was cur, and the box had been broken open. Witness found a knife in the prisoner's bedroom. The knife produced is the one in question; it belonged to the prisoner ; witness had frequently seen it in his possession. The knife exactly corresponded with the injuries done to the clasp of the box, which had been prised open. Witness was present when the Sergeant of Police searched prisoner's bed. [The witness corroborated the testimony of the sergeant, with reference to the articles found in the handkerchief concealed in the bed]. Witness had some conversation with the prisoner with reference to the payment of his board. The prisoner said in May, that as he was without funds, he must owe witness ss. This was the case for the prosecution. The prisoner on being asked if he bad any statement to make, replied that he had never been guilty of any theft. He had no one in Christchurch to speak as to his character, but he had many friends in Auckland who could testify as to his good conduct. He entered into a long rambling statement asserting that he had been robbed of £2 and some other articles. His Honor summed np, and the Jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." Sentence was deferred until the termination of the succeeding case, The property found in the prisoner's possession was ordered to be given up to the prosecutor. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Charles Yates, Mary Holmes, and Mary Anne Greaves were indicted on this charge. The prisoners pleaded " Not; Guilty." Mr. Duncan appeared for the proiecution. The prisoners were undefended. The Crown Prosecutor having stated the case to the jury, called, as the first witness, Harry Feast, who stated that he was a constable of police. He remembered July 13, He arrested the prisoners in a house in Tuam street, kept by Yates, All three prisoners were there. He charged them with having robbed the prosecutor, who was with him, of £6. Prisoner Yates produced a purse, and said to prosecutor, "la this your money ?" Prisoner Holmes asked prosecutor if he could identify the money. Prisoner Greaves denied all knowledge of the transaction. Witness searched prisoner Yates, and found upon him £4 12s 3d. The notes produced were loose in his pocket; the remainder of the money was in the purse produced. The female searcher gave him the money produced, which was found on the prisoner Holmes. Nothing was found on the prisoner Greaves. Yates told witness that the house was in his occupation for the last three months. Prisoner Greaves and a mate of Yates' lived in the house. Davis had been drinking, but was quite collected in bis manner when be came to the depot. By the prisoner Yates: To the best of my belief prosecutor was sober when he came to the depot. Thomas Davis: lam the prosecutor in this case. On July 13 I was living at the White Horse, Tuam street. I know the prisoners by sight. I saw them that day at the public-house. It was about 4 p.m. I had some drink there. I paid for it by giving the landlady £5, but she could not change it, so I told her to keep it until I came in again. I had £6 in my possession in addition ; I only pulled out one £5 ncte. The money was in my pocket-book. When I gave the landlady the £5, I did not notice any one in the bar except the barman. I did not notice the prisoners. I saw them come in ; I had no conversation with them. After I had given the £5 note to Mrs. Samuels, the landlady, I saw the prisoners; it was a quarter of an hour afterwards. I left the tavei n shortly after the priso 'crs came in, I was alone; they left before I did, I was in the house a quarter of an hour after they went. I went straight from the tavern to the house of the prisoner Greaves; I was never there before. I went there, because the prisoners Greaves and Holmes asked me to do so. I entered the house, i risoner Yates was there. Prisoner Holmes shut the door at soon as I went in. I sat down on a sofa in the room. Prisoner Yates caught hold of my cravat, and having twisted it round my neck, tightly held me down. Prisoner Greaves look my pocket-book out of my left trousers pocket, and pulled the money out of it, and put it, I believe, into her pocket. She threw the pocket-hook hack to me. There was then no money in it. The other two prisoners held me down on the sofa. I took up the pocket-book, and walked out of the house. I should not know the notes if I saw them, as I do not know the numbers. I gave in formation to the police, and went with two policemen back to the prisoners' house. The money was taken fiom me against my will. By the prisoner, Bates: Both the female prisoners were in the tavern, I did not drink with them. I never told the Eesident Magistrate, that only one was present. By the prisoner, Holmes: ]'. never asked prisoner Greaves to drink. I never said that I had no money to pay for drink. i By the prisoner Gnaves: I never asked you to driuk. I did not pay 5s for a bottle of i wine.. I never said that I had no change • left. j

Eliza Samuels: I am the wife of the landlord of the White Horse Hotel, Tuara street. On July 13, in the afternoon, I was in the

bar. Davis had some drink then. After the prisoner had gone,!ie gave me a £5 note.to pay for what himself and another man had been supplied with. I saw some more money in liia possession. I know the prisoners by sight. They were there at the same time that prosecutor was there; the)' left before he did. They lire at a short distance from our hotel. The prosecutor left about half an-hour before the prisoner did. By the prisoner Yates: I asked Dayis if he had any smaller change. He replied—- " Never mind, I want change fer £5." I did not give him back any change. By the Court: Davis had been drinking, and was not quite sober, but he knew what ho was doing. lam confident of this. Eosanna McGinley stated that she was the wife of the watch-house keeper at Christchurch. On July 14 she searched the prisoners Holmes and Greaves, and found on the former £3 15s 6d, in notes, gold, and silver. She found nothing on the prisoner Greaves. She (witness) sealed up the money, and gave it to Constable Feast. This was the case for the Crown.

The prisoner Yates called as a witness, ] John Hart, who stated: Ihavebeen working with prisoner Yates for some time. I gave him a leather purse which belonged to me, on July 13. The barman at the Prince of Wales Hotel saw me do so; there were six £1 notes in it. Cross-examined; I was in conversation one day with Davis, I said that I was sorry for my mate, the prisoner Yates, who I did not believe was guilty of the charge made against him. Davis said that if he got his money he would not proceed further in the matter. I said that, if I had the money, I would give it to him rather than see Yates go to gaol. Ido not remember if anything was said about Davis getting out of the way. I "was not sober when I gave Tates the money. " I was hal f and half." Edward Phillips the bar-man of the Prince of Wales Hotel, was called by the prisoner Yates and stated that on July 13 or thereabouts, prisoner Yates was at the Prince of Wales Hotel. He saw Hart give Yates some notes.

The prisoner Holmes called a witness named Macdonald, but he was not forth-com-ing. The prisoner Greaves said that she also wished to have Macdonald called. The prisoner Yates made a long statement to the effect that Davis forced his way into the house and shortly afterwards stated that he had been robbed. Davis went out and shortly afterwards returned with the constables. He (prisoner) most positively denied all knowledge of the robbery, The prisoner Holmes made a similar statement to that of the prisoner Yates. The prisoner Greaves denied all knowledge of the robbery. His Honor summed up the evidence, defining the nature of the crime, which, the prisoners had been accused of committing. He read over some of the evidence, commenting upon it as he proceeded. The jury found all the prisoners" Guilty." His Honor expressed his concurrence in the verdict, and sentenced Yates to imprisonment with hard labour, in the gaol at Lyttelton, for three years; Mary Holmes and Mary Anne Greaves to imprisonment for two years in Christchurch gaol, also with hard labour. SENTENCE. Benjamin Joseph was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, with hard labour. The Court adjourned until Monday, September 10, when the civil cases will be proceeded with.