SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11593, 31 May 1898, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. ■ -Monday, May ..30. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Demiiston.) The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. Mr Stringer appeared to represent the Crown. GRAND JOEY. The following gentlemen constituted the Grand Jury:—Messrs G-. G. Stead (foreman), L. Cockayne, J. Stanley Monck, J. Lowfchian Wilson, .1. Dilloway, IV. M. Donald, F. A. Cook, E. D. Foot, A. Hogg, T. York, J. Mather, M. O’Brien, I l ’. S. Funston, W. H. Harvey, J. .1. Kinsey, D. B. Lowe, F. C. Murray, E. W. Koper, IV. B. Scott, J. 11. Whittaker and W. J. Williams. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honor, in his charge to tho Grand Jury, said that the calendar was exceptionally long for Christchurch, but the cases—as regarded the greater part of them—were not of a very serious character, and very few of them would give the Grand Jury any trouble. He regretted to see an increase in crimes of ijUolence against the person. There appeared to be several instances of assault, probably some of them on drunken men, of which there had been _a gratifying absence for some time" previously. As a whole, however, although the calendar was formidable in length, the cases were not of a very important character. His Honor then referred to some particulars of the cases on the list. He said that one serious case was that against Charles James Russell, charged with having used an instrument with intent to- procure miscarriage on a woman who had since died. The sole evidence against him was the deposition of tho girl herself. In law, subject to the comment which the Judge always made, that in this class of cases the girl is technically a criminal herself, a man could be convicted on the statement of a single person. The girl had made a clear and definite connecting tho accused with the crime, and it was for the Grand Jury to decide whether or under the circumstances, they should send the case to the petty jury. BREACH OF FIRST OFFENDERS* ACT. James Candlish, a young man who had been placed on- probation for twolve months at the November sittings of the Court on a charge of breaking and entering, was brought up under section twelve of the First Offenders Probation Act, he having been since convicted of another offence. Mr Stringer explained that the Act provided that, when a person on probation was epnvicted of another offence, he was liable to be -brought before the Court on the original charge. Sergeant-Major Ramsay, the probation officer, deposed that -the accused baa got drunk on May 1, gone into an enclosed yard, taken out a horse, ridden it about town and returned it. He had been sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment for having been illegally on the premises. He had been convicted of drunkenness on one or two other occasions. He had, however, since taken the pledge, and was in employment. All his instalments had been paid up, and his conduct otherwise had been good. ! His Honor cautioned the accused against giving way to drunkenness and ordered him to, bo released on the same probation as before. He seemed, his Honor said, to have been smartly dealt with for his trespass, and would be given another opportunity of reform. STEALING CHEQUES. George W. Stiles pleaded guilty to charges of having stolen two cheques, one for £145 6s lid and one for .£IOO, the property of tho New Zealand Farmers Cooperative Association, on Jan. 31, 1898. Mr Weston appeared for the accused, and said that the accused, who had been in the employ of the Association for several years, had received the cheques from a customer, and had apulied the whole amount to his own uses. His salary was .£l4O a year, he had a wife and family, and found great difficulty in existing on his pay. He was practically next in rank to Mr Hardy, tho chief accountant. He had to deal with large sums, and, that, coupled with the fact of his small salary, might perhaps be taken into account. Ihe accused had bad a long experience in the China and Japan trade, and. had at cne time been in a good position, and had suffered great misfortunes. Mr Weston appealed to his Honor to place the accused on probation, or, if not, to inflict as light a sentence as possible. Mr Stringer said that the money taken had been spent. The accused’s total defalcations amounted to some .£6OO. His age was fifty-four. His Honor passed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. THEFT. William Warner pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with having, on May 26, 1898, stolen an opossum rug, value £6, from the dwelling-house of William Henry Wynn-Williams. His Honor remarked that the accused bad been frequently convicted during many years past. He would be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. ASSAULT. John Stewart pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, on Jan. 27, 1898, at Methven, assaulted James O’Keefe. Mr Kussell appeared for the accused. Mr Stringer said that, while some men were skylarking —sparring and wrestling —in front of the Methven Hotel, O’Keefe was thrown, and as lie rose the accused came out of the hotel and struck him a severe blow, which broke his jaw and rendered him unconscious. Several witnesses would testify that the assault was entirely unprovoked. James O’Keefe detailed the circumstances of the assault, and stated that afterwards the accused had come to him, offered to pay “all damage,” and given him £4. k Several witnesses gave evidence for-the prosecution. Mr Russell opened for the defence, and stated that the accused had struck O’Keefe merely to protect an old man named Haskett, whom O’Keefe had previously struck. The prosecutor was on his feet, and had his hands up when he received the blow, which was not a-sovera one, and did not break his jaw. He fell from a vehicle among a lot of broken machinery after the row, and very probably received that injury then. Several witnesses gave evidence for the defence, aa-did tbe-accused, who deposed that he had “shouted” for the prosecutor after the row. Was quite certain that he had not brokeh O’Keefe’s jaw,, but-had paid.him.B4 on the advice-of a solicitor, as he had been told that O’Keefe intended to suehim Jor damages. Another witness deposed that he-saw O’Keefe, who was under the influence of liquor, fall out of a trap on the night of the alleged assault. James Cathcart Wason deposed that accused, who was a blacksmith, bore a good character in the district. Mr Russell addressed the jury, submitting that Stewart had been justified under Section 149 of the Criminal Code Act, in interfering with O’Keefe in order to prevent a renewal of a breach of the peace. Air Stringer replied, and his Honor summed up, and submitted to the jury the two questions (1) Did the accused assault O’Keefe? and (2) Did he break O’Keefe’s jaw? The jury retired at 4.65 p.m. and returned at 5.30 p.m. with their verdict. Ine Foromansaid the jury had come to the conclusion on the first question put to them by his Honor, that the prisoner had been guilty of the assault. The jury wished to add that they did not believe the accused to have been actuated by any malice. As to the point with regard to breaking of the jaw of the prosecutor, the jury, being unable to agree, did not wish to express any opinion, but left the point to his Honor to decide. The Rev B. J. Westbrook, Presbyterian clergyman of the district, was called by Mr Russell, and testified to the very high character borne by the accused, and spoke also of his generosity. His Honin' said that looking to the verdict of tho jury la fine of £5 would meet the case. He trusted that if the accused ever took the duties of a peace officer upon him

ho should act a little more on the side of peace and less as an officer. BIGAMY. Frederick Cmbb was indicted for having on March 19 married one Ethel Money at Christchurch, ho at the time being a married man. -. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” There- were kovcii.il convictions against him. His Honor said that looking to the circumstances of tho case, he could not but rep’ard it as one of the most serious crimes a man could commit. The prisoner would be sentenced..to throe years’ imprisonment. BREAKING AND ENTERING. , Daniel Snenoe pleaded guilty to having on April 24*broken .and entered a stable and stolen a saddle and bridle, the- property of H. S. Harris. Mr Stringer pointed out that the record of previous’ convictions of tho prisoner showed that ho had been convicted in nearly every town in the colony. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to three years’ imprisonment as an habitual criminal. FORGERY AND UTTERING. George Gladstone pleaded guilty to having forged a cheque for £5 4s 6cl in the name of W. Lane and uttering tho same. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment. THEFT. Charles F. Johansen pleaded guilty to a charge of having on March 7, 1898, stolen a silver watch, a gold chain and other articles, tho property of Robert Cooper, of a total value of £lO, from the schooner Clansman at Lyttelton. It appeared that the accused had stolen the articles and pawned them soon after coming out of gaol after serving a month for a similar offence. His Honor passed a sentence of six-months’ -imprisonment-. WORK OF THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury returned no bills in tho cases of Chivies James Bussell, charged with an attempt to- procure miscarriage; and Andrew Scott, charged with a breach of the Bankruptcy Act. True bills were returned in all the other cases on the calendar. The Court adjourned to 10 a.m. next day. [Ter Press Association.! AUCKLAND, May. 30. At tho criminal session of the Supremo Court Judge Conolly commented on tho fact that there was a great deal more criminal business in Auckland than anywhere else in the colony, From thirty to forty cases were set down for hearing including six of horse-stealing, three of attempted suicide and the Maori disturbance at Kawene. The Judge commented on the latter at considerable length, and commended the prudence of the Government in taking prompt action to avert bloodshed. DUNEDIN, May 30. The criminal sittings opened to-day, and true bills were returned in all cases. The Grand Jury welcomed Mr Justice Pennefather to the Bench, and expressed the hope that he would have no more heavy calendar than on this occasion. David Walter Morris was acquitted on the charge of breaking and entering. Sentences were passed on the following prisoners who pleaded guilty:—Catherine Stephenson, house-breaking; threeyears ; Walter. Waugh, .forging orders for the insertion of advertisements in the “ Spectator,” three years; Thomas M’Lauglin, forgery, placed on probation for twelve months, conditionally on his paying £6, or 2s 6d per week, towards l the expenses of the prosecution. The case of John Reid, who pleaded guilty of robbery from the person, and on whose behalf an application for probation was made, was ordered to stand over till the end of thesittings, in order that prisoner might have an opportunity of getting promise of employment. William Simmonds, charged with throwing boiling water upon Mary Ann Scott, was acquitted, the jury stating that they had a doubt in the matter, and gave the accused the benefit of it. Edward Powell, a young boy, was found guilty of stealing a bicycle. As he is already out on probation, Mr Justice Pennefather, after severely lecturing him, allowed accused to go, on his own recognisance to come up for sentence when called upon.