SUPREME-COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9489, 11 August 1891, Page 3

SUPREME-COURT.

■V CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, August 10. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniatou.) The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. GRAND .JURY. The following gentlemen constituted the Grand Jury Mr G. G. Stead (Foreman), Messrs W. F. Beatson, C. G. Matson, G. H, Greenwood, H. J. C. Jekyil, F. Strouts, J. Fulton, W. L. Clifford, H. Aitken, M. S. Campbell, J, Gott, S. Garforth, W. K. Macdonald, J, Anderson, junr., G. Taylor, W. 11. Bristow. J. Treat, F. D. Gibson. G. W. Humphreys, E. Struthers, H. J. AingerandP. Nind-Ward. THE JUDGE’S CHARGE. In his charge to the Grand Jury his Honor saidMr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, the calendar on this Occasion is both long and serious. I regret that I am not able to repeat the congratulations I made to the Grand Jury at the two previous sessions as to the absence of crimes of violence. On the present occasion, I regret to say, out of fifteen charges there are three of robbery with violence, one of attempted murder, and one of indecent assault. Many of the cases do not call for comment from me. Several of them depend upon identification, and I need hardly point out to you that the question of identification is one for the Petty Jury. His Honor then referred in detail to the cases on the calendar. The case of attempted murder, he said, did not present any features of difficulty for tho Grand Jury. With regard to the charge against an unmarried girl of manslaughter of her child, which died from want of proper attention, his Honor said that if the Grand Jury were satisfied that tho girl had wilfully neglected to take proper precautions, they would send the case to the Petty Jury. BREAKING AND ENTERING. Charles Dewar, Arthur Feast, Harry Feast junr., and Samuel Dobbinson, four youths, pleaded “Guilty” to an indictment charging them with having broken into tho shop of William Thomson, Colombo street, on August 2, with intent to steal. Mr Si ringer appeared for tho accused. His Honor said that as there was another charge against Dewar, ho would w; it until that had been disposed of before de .ling with this case.

Charles Dewar was then indicted for having, on July 28, broken into the warehouse of Aaron Ayers, Lichfield street, and having stolen dates, bananas, and thirty keys. Ho pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr J. C. Martin conducted tho case for the Crown.

Mr Stringer appeared for the accused. The facts of the esse disclosed by the evidence for the Crown, were that on tho evening of July 28 Mr Ayers’ warehouse was locked up, and tho keys which accused was charged with stealing were left therein. Next morning it was found that the place had been broken into,_ and the dates, bananas and keys were missed. Some of the keys wore found in accused’s possession when he was arrested on August N on tho previous charge, and others were discovered at hia lodgings. A screw-driver was also found in his possession, and on the drawers in Mr Ayers’ warehouse, which had been burst open, were marks such as would have been made by that instrument. William Baxter Ayersgava evidence as to the warehouse having been broken into. Identified the keys produced as some of those which had- bean missed from the warehouse.

Ernest Walter Barlow and Charles. John Innea gave corroborative evidence. Constable Sinclair deposed that he arrested Dewar, and found two of tlie keys and tho screw-driver produced on him. Chief Detective O’Connor deposed that he found some of the keys produced in the accused’s room. Accused said that he had found them about a month ago. The screw-driver produced fitted the marks on the drawers at Mr Ayers’ place. To MV Stringer: Said in the lower Court that accused said he had found them a month ago. ,■. , • . Mr Stringer put in the depositions taken in the Eesident Magistrate’s Court, pointing out that they did not show that Detective O’Connor said there that accused had said he found the keys a month ago. Thomas Dewar, brother of the accused, stated that Detective O’Connor found some of the keys produced in accused’s bedroom. This was tbe case for the Crown. Mr Stringer did not call evidence, but addressed the Jury. His Honor summed up. The Jury, after a retirement of half-an-il our, found the prisoner “ Guilty,” and recommended him to mercy on tho ground of his youth. The three youths assccip.ted with the accused in breaking into Mr Thomson’s shop were brought up with him for sentence.

Mr Stringer said that, as the Probation Officer had not reported on the co.ce, he would ask hia Honor to hear evidence as to character. His Honor said that he saw that one of the Feasts had been convicted of larceny before. Mr Stringer said that the lad had been simply in the company of a boy who had robbed the till of a shop, but took nothing himself, Dewar had been a good boy until lately, but the lads had been corrupted by reading pernicious literature, “ Robbery under Arms,” and the “Adventures of Jack Shepnard.”

His Honor: “Robbery under Arms” was written by a Magistrate. Mr Stringer said that Dewar’s uncle at Pigeon Bay was willing to take him till he could bo sent to the North Island, if he were allowed his liberty. He (Mr Stringer) understood that the Probation Officer had not reported on the case, because other places had been broken into recently, and the accused were suspected of having been the guilty parties. In reply to his Honor, Sergeant-Ale.jor IvPDonald, the Probation Officer, stated that several places —fruit shops—bad been broken into lately. Ho knew nothing else against the accused except that one of tho Feasts had been previously convicted. Detective Neill"deposed that several fruit shops had been broken into recently, but that the marks about the places showed that it was not the work of experienced burglars. Robert Beattie, of the firm of Black, Beattie and Co., deposed that Dewar had been in his employ for fifteen months and Harry Feast for eighteen months. They were well conducted boys, and had been found trustworthy. J. w. Mason, officer in charge of the Telegranh Office, deposed that Arthur Feast had been in the employ of the office for eighteen months. He frequently had charge of small sums of money, and did his work satisfactorily. Maurice Barclay, farmer. Pigeon Bay, said that ho was uncle to the lad Dewar, who'was a good lad. He was willing to take him till he could he sent to the North Island. , „ , , , R. 0. Gilmour deposed that he knew tbe lad Dobbinson, whose father had neglected him* The lad had promised to do the best he could if he were allowed his liberty. Some friends had interested themselves to get him employment*there was reason

to suppose that better influences would be brought to bear on him. Henry Paddy stated that he had lived next door to the Feasts for some years, and had never seen anything bad about the boys. Harry Feast, senior, stated that if his sons were placed on probation he would keep them in his own family. Detective Neill, re-called by his Honor, stated the lad who was associated with Feast in the previous robbery from a fruit shop wss much older than Feast. His Honor said that nothing could he worse than for tho idea to get about that any lad could commit a crime, and get off under the First Offenders Probation Act. Punishment was to be a deterrent, and its effect would be much weakened if any such idea got abroad. It was, however, a question in this case, whether the country would gain in the long run by sending these boys to gaol. Against Arthur Feast and Dobbinson, there was nothing to prevent them from receiving the benefit of the Act. While he could not consider Harry Feast as altogether a first offender, he would take care that he would not he injured by the evils of prison like. Ho had, however, considerable hesitation in regard to Dewar, who had just had another conviction recorded against him. The position in which the lads found themselves was the best proof of the folly of their allowing themselves to be led away by such literature as they had been reading. He would, however, give them all another chance. Arthur Feast and Dobbinson would be placed on probation for six months. Harry Feast and Dewar would each have to find one surety of .£SO, to come up for sentence when called upon, and to be of good behaviour for twelve months. FORGERY AND FALSE PRETENCES. William James Crisp pleaded “ Guilty” to an indictment charging him with having on July 15, obtained i£3 from William Henry Kiddey at Lyttelton by pretending that he had JSIOO in tho Post Office Savings Bank. The same accused pleaded “ Guilty ” to forging a deposit withdrawal notice for £5, of the Post Office Savings Bank, signed with the name of Patrick M‘S weeny, to uttering the same, to forging an authority to W. H. Kiddey to receive from the Post Office Savings Bank, Lyttelton, the sum of .£5 purported to be deposited in the name of Patrick M r Sweeny, and to uttering the same to W. H. Kiddey. Accused stated that, after long abstinence, he had been drinking for about a week, and had committed the acts when ho did not know what he was doing. He had never committed a theft before. He belonged to very good people, and the punishment would fall more on them than on him. His Honor said that he could not treat forgery as anything but a very serious offence. He would, however, give the prisoner the benefit of the present being his first offence. The prisoner would he sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. FORGERY. Mary Ann Smith pleaded “ Guilty ” to indictments charging her with having on July 31 forged the name of John Dillon to a promissory note for the sum of J5lO and having uttered the same. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, and asked that she might receive the benefit of the First Offenders’ Probation Act. He said that the girl had forged the name of a person at whose house she called for the purpose of getting his endorsement, and who, she believed, would endorse it. She had no fraudulent intention, as she had signed the note herself, and honestly intended to pay it. She was a young girl, and unaware of the gravity of the act.

His Hofior said that he was satisfied that this was a case for the First Offenders Probation Act. He asked why the girl wanted the money. / ■ . Hr Donnelly said that it was owing to her good nature and generosity in assisting other people. Her character was very good. His Honor said that it was a very peculiar case. No doubt the girl was not aware of the full gravity of her. act, and she was evidently not of a criminal class. She would, however, have to pay the costs of tho prosecution, as she had, after all, committed an act which the law looked on as very serious. Mr Martin said that these amounted to £5. Mr Donnelly said that the principal witness for the Crown did not press for his expenses. His Honor ordered the accused to be placed on probation for three months, and. to pay £S in instalments of 10s a month. HOUSEBREAKING. Walter Ulmer pleaded “ Not Guilty ” to an indictment charging him with having, on May 21 last, broken into the dwelling house of Peter Dewar Boag, Upper Riccarton, and stolen £4s 10s, the money of Michael Coffey, therefrom. Mr J. C. Alartin conducted the case for the Crown. The accused was undefended by counsel. The facta disclosed by the evidence for the prosecution were that on May 21, Coffey and a fellow-workman in the employ of Mr Boag went out to work, leaving the door of the house where they lived locked, and the key “planted.” On returning Coffey missed the money which had been left in the house, including a sovereign with a hole in it filled up with copper. The prisoner knew the premises, and a few hours later changed the sovereign at an eating-house in Christchurch. A key, which, fitted the door of Mr Boag’s house, was found on him when arrested. Seven witnesses gave evidence for the Crown, Tho accused called Isaac Burt, who did not appear. Accused elected to give evidence himself, and said that he was not at Eiccarton on May 21, or in the restaurant where it was alleged he changed the sovereigni which ho denied all knowledge of. He was not cross-examined, and addressed the Jury. His Honor summed up; The Jury, 'after a retirement of five minutes, found the prisoner “ Guilty.” Mr Martin said that the accused had been convicted of larceny at Oamaru in 1876, larceny at Dunedin in 1877, and of housebreaking in Christchurch. His Honor passed a sentence of four years’ penal servitude. WORK OF THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury returned true bills in tbe following cases: Charles Dewar, Arthur Feast, Harry Feast, junior and Samuel Dobbinson, breaking and entering; Charles Dewar, breaking into and stealing; William James Crisp, forgery and false pretences; Walter Ulmer, house-breaking; James Taylor, robbery with violence; George Syrett, uttering counterfeit coin; Frederick Porter, and James White, robbery with violence ; John Doyle and Arthur George Hinge, larceny ;" Mary Ann Smith, forgery; George Bull, false pretences; Joseph Meynell and William James, robbery with violence ; Albert Edward Moss, attempted murder; William M'Gregor, indecent assault (two charges). The Grand Jury found no bill against Alary Jane Amos, charged with the manslaughter of her infant, and his Honor ordered her to be discharged. Tho Foreman said that the Grand Jury wished to complain of the draught in tho room in which they had to sit. His Honor said that he would see that the matter complained of was attended to. He discharged the Grand Jury with the thanks of the Queen and Colony. LARCENY. John Doyle and Arthur George Hinge pleaded “ Nob-guilty ” to an indictment charging them with having, on July 21 last, stolen .EG 10s, tho money of William Lindsay. Mr J. C. Martin conducted the case for the Crown. Mr Stringer appeared for the accused. The facts of the case, as disclosed by the evidence for tbe Grown, were that Lindsay and the two accused came from Wellington as steerage passengers on the AVairarapa to Lyttelton. Just on reaching the wharf Lindsay went on deck, leaving the two accused, who seemed to he mates, alone in. the steerage, where he also-left a coat

with '£6 10s in - a pocket-book in the pocket. On going back again he missed the money, a £5-note, a £l- - and a half-sovereign, and reported the loss to the police on landing. He was so agitated then that he was unable to give any information whereby the notes could be identified. The two accused were seen changing a note and dividing money in Lyttelton, and left by the train for Christchurch, Hinge gob out at Wilson’s road. Doyle was arrested at the Christchurch railway station, and on him was found a £l-noto, which Lindsay identified by a mark of blood or a blot of red ink as one which he had missed from his coat. Two constables went towards Wilson’s road to look for Hinge, who, when he saw them, ran away. However, ho was pursued and arrested. In the lower Court Lindsay described the notes which ho had lost as being on the National Bank. They were in fact on the Colonial Bank, and on seeing the report in the newspaper next day, ho remembered that ha had made a mistake, and called at the Court to correct it. William Lindsay gave evidence supporting the above statement. In cross-exami-nation he said that there were about twenty-five steerage passengers on the Wairarapa. He was quite sure that he left no one but the accused in the steerage when he came on deck on reaching the wharf. Ho was on deck about five minutes.

Joseph Tetley, Chief Detective O’Connor and Constable Eamsay gave evidence for the prosecution. Mr Stringer did not call evidence, hut addressed the jury. His Honor summed up. The jury, after a retirement of five minuteo, found both prisoners guilty; Mr Stringer said that Hinge was very respectably connected, but had got into bad company. Mr Martin said that Doyle had been eight times convicted at the E.M. Court, Auckland, of larceny, vagrancy and disorderly conduct, once at the E.M. Court, Wellington, of vagrancy, and once at the E.M. Court, Christchurch, of disturbing a congregation.

Hi 9 Honor sentenced Doyle to eighteen months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and Hinge to sis months’ imprisonment, with hard labour.

At 5.50 p,m. the Court adjourned to 10 a.m. to-morrow (Tuesday).