SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12573, 7 August 1901, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. TUESDAY, AUGUST 6. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) BREAKING AND ENTERING. David Miller, -who had been committed for trial from the Lyttelton Police Court, was charged with having, on July 4, broken ' into, the premises of the Royal Hotel and stolen therefrom two boxes of cigars, a box of playing cards, a bottle of whisky and three bottles, of Australian wine, of the total value of £4 13s 6d, the property of John Ernest Ashworth. The prisoner, who was undefended, said he would plead guilty to stealing the articles but not to breaking. The Crown Prosecutor said he would accept that plea. Sentence was deferred. ESCAPING CUSTODY. David Miller was then charged with escaping from lawful custody while being detained for, a. punishable offence, on July 4, at Lyttelton. He pleaded guilty to this charge also. William Patrick Loader was then charged with having, on the same date, assisted David Miller to escape from lawful custody. The accused fvas undefended, and pleaded not guilty. Mr Stringer said it was a punishable offence to assist a prisoner to escape from custody. The facts were simple. Miller had been arrested on the charge cf breaking and entering, and locked up in the police cell at Lyttelton. It was alleged that while he was in there, Loader had twisted the lock of the door. It had been a very inefficient fastening for a lock-up, and was probably opened without very great difficulty. A constable would give evidence to the effect that he had overheard some conversation between the two prisoners afterwards, and Loader had described how he had broken the lock. Constable Lamer gave evidence regarding the arrest of Miller. ) Sergeant, Rutledge gave evidence as tq finding that Miller had escaped,, and witness, together with Constable Moore, had arrested Miller again later in Lyttelton, and Constable ‘Connell had arrested Loader. About 2 a.m. next day witness was standing ctftside the cell, and heard 1 Loader say, “ 1 twisted it, and it came off easily.” Mary Ann O’Brien and Thomas Duffy gave evidence as to accused’s movements. Constable Moore said that he overheard a conversation between the prisoners, in •which Loader had said, “I twisted the lock off, and it came off easily.” The two men were under the influence of liquor. This closed the case for the Crown. The accused called David Miller, who stated that he did not know who let him out. ■ ; ‘ . The accused then, elected to be sworn, and stated he had not been near the lockup, and had non. seen Miller after he was arrested • until he met him down, the. street, when they were‘both arrested. He had always beme a good character. His Honor summed up, and / the jury, after a retirement of five minutes, returned with a verdict of “Guilty,” but with a recommendation to mercy, on the ground that the accused had been drinking heavily at the time. David Miller was called up for sentence, and pleaded! for probation.. His Honor said It was not a case for probation. The accused seemed to be a heavy drinker. The case would be treated simply as a first offence, and as a case of stealing. The prisoner would bo sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and on the charge of breaking gaol he would be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, the sentence to be concurrent with the other. / William Patrick Loader was then, called up for sentence. He asked for probation on the ground that he was a married man, with three children. I His Honor said' he would have been inclined to treat this case more leniently as a • drunken freak, if the accused had admitted the charge. Ho (his Honor) always liked to givei effect, wherever possible to the recommendation of the jury, and the prisoner would be .admitted to for nine months and ordered to pay £9 towards the costs of the prosecution at the rate of £1 per month. ALLEGED FORGERY AND UTTERING. ' / Charles M’Cutcbeon was charged with having, on Juno 29, forged a cheque for the amount of £ls on the Union Bank of Australia, Rangiora, purporting to be signed by one James Webster, and with having uttered the same to one E. C. Brown. He was further indicted for having, on June 29, at Oust, forged a cheque for £8 10s, purporting to be signed by James Webster, and with having uttered the same to E. Reece and Sons, and also with, on the same date, at Gust, forging a cheque for £25 in the name of James Webster, and with having uttered the same to Morrow, Bassett and Co..’ The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. E. C. Brown, manager of 'the D.1..C- at Christchurch, stated, that on July 4 lie had received the letter produced, ..dated Jupe 30, through the post. It was headed Moeraki Downs, and ordered a dark macintosh overcoat and sundry articles of mercerj', to the total value of £l3 8s 9d. A cheque was enclosed, signed “ James Webester,” aa was also the letter, and was for £ls. Witness had sent the goods to the Moeraki Downs railway station, and advised the sender of the letter that the balance of the cheque Would be held to his credit. Witness had passed the cheque into the bank and it had been returned dishonoured. ’ • Joseph Alexander Cunningham, ledgerkeeper at the Union Bank, Rangiora, gave evidence as to marking the cheque “ Signature unlike.” James Webster, farmer, Moeraki, stated that as far as he knew he was the only one of that name at Moeraki Downs. He had .an account at th© Union Bank. The signature on the cheque’was not his, and he had not authorised anyone to sign any cheques for him. He spelt; his name “ Webster.” • ■ Arthur Seared, miller and farmer, Cust, stated that accused had worked for him for some time. He had been living in a whare near the mill for some time. • The cheque-book produced 1 belonged to witness, and the cheque' produced was from his hook. He kept his cheqne-bock in a box in has office, and accused had seen it taken from there. Thomas Hubbard, railway, ganger at Moeraki, stated that he was caretaker of th© Moeraki ■ flag- station.' Ho locked the station at night when goods were placed inside. On July 4 a parcel had come from E. Reece ,and Sons,, and on Friday, July 5, two parcels from the D.1.C., one containing good?,and the other.cartridges, and a bicycle from Morrow, Bassett and Co., all consigned, to “James Webster, Moeraki. W On the evening of July 6 witness had seen the-accused on the Moeraki station platform. The goods were in the station at the tinie. Iri consequence of information received witness had returned the goods to the consignors on July 8. Detective Cassells stated that on July 9 he had gone to Cust and there saw the accused. Witness had shown the accused ’ the letter and cheque, but he had denied knowledge‘ of them. Witness then asked for a specimen of accused's handwriting, and had obtained the book and letter produced in the whare. He had compared the writing and found it to be the same. Witness had asked him to write “ James WebI ster, The Downs, Moeraki,” and he had

agreed. After writing “Web” he had .asked “How do you spell Webster?” Witness had said/‘Spell it how you like,” and the accused had written “ Webester.” The piece of blotting-paper had been, found in the whare, and when put in front of a mirror it had shown the signature “Jas. Webester.” Francis H. Harley, clerk in the Bank of New South Wales, Christchurch, said he had compared the writing on the letter and the cheque with other samples produced and generally they were identical. The accused elected to give evidence, and said he knew nothing about the letter or the cheque, and the writing was not his. Anyone who chose could have access to his writing materials, as his whare was never locked. Thomas Tolbett said he knew the accused’s whare, and had access there. He had used accused’s blotting-paper himself. James Dunlop and Thomas Brown gave evidence as to visiting the accused in his whare one evening, but had seen no writing materials. The accused, addressing the jury, submitted that there was no evidence against him, as other people had used his blottingpaper, and had access to his whare. His Honor having' summed up, the jury retired at 12.50, returning at 1.5 with a verdict of “Guilty.” Mr Stringer said he would take steps to enter a stay of proceedings in the other two charges. His Honor said the accused had broken his probation, having been admitted to probation on a charge of horse-stealing. . It was one of the clearest cases he (the Judge) had seen for a long time, and he would say it had been very creditably worked up indeed. The evidence was clear, and the jury had settled the question rightly he thought. The prisoner seemed a dangerous character and deserved a substantial term of imprisonment. He would be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION. Walter Brewer was charged with having, on or about June 14, 1901, at -Sydenham, Christchurch, unlawfully used certain instruments on , one Bertha Margaret Light, with intent to procure a miscarriage. The prisoner was defended by Mr Kippenberger, with him Mr. Cassidy, and pleaded! not guilty., , Mr Stringer, in opening the case, said the * facts were that a young girl ■ named Bertha Margaret Light, seventeen years , of age next October, residing in Nursery itoad, Linwocd, had been taken to r the accused's house in Sydenham.' There the;accused had given her some whisky, and it was there the offence was alleged to have taken place, the accused attempting to procure a. miscarriage. As a matter of fact, it had not been procured, but the girl had suffered such serious consequences by, blood poisoning that she had nearly lost her life. In law the girl was held, equally guilty as the one attempting to, procure abortion, and she would therefore be au accomplice. It 'was regarded in law that an accomplice’s evidence should not be accepted as conclusive unless corroborated. The jury was not entitled to convict on the girl’s evidence alone, but evidence as to confirmatory circumstances would be adduced. The medical evidence would, of course, show that an attempt had bsen. made. The father of the child would be called, and he might or might not claim the protection of the law as to giving evidence. A search hud been made in accused’s room, and in a' drawer instruments such as would have caused the injury and such as described by the girl were found. . . Bertha Margaret Light then detailed the circumstances of the alleged attempt, and identified ,the instruments, stating' that the offence had taken place in the house where accused was staying on a Saturday night. In;answer to Mr Kippenberger, she said she had not attempted to use instruments on herself. ■ . •. William Henry Bellamy gave evidence to the effect that he was the , father of the child. He had taken the girl to the house. He had spoken to the accused in reference to procuring abortion, and the accused had told-'him' to. take- the girl' (o- the house. ‘ Witness knew 'what .the- girl was taken to the front room by the accused for. Dr Symes deposed to examining Bertha Light, and finding that symu'toms of blood-poisoning were present. He had ordered her removal to the hospital, where she, lay /for seme days in a critical condition. The injuries could have been caused by the', instruments produced. ' Mr Kjppenbergpr, for the 'defence, said there whs not a case against ihe accused. The evidence of, the girl required to bo corroborated to convict, but it had net been corroborated, and the only evidence adduced was the unsatisfactory evidence of Bellamy, which was the evidence cf one accomplice against another. His Honor, dimming up, said there' was just sufficient corroborative evidence in law to .justify the sending of the. case for The jury retired at 5.50, retumino- ; ,t 5.45 with a verdict of “Guilty.” The'Foreman said, he had been instructed to say that the jury would have preferred that Mrs Brewer had been called as a witness. His Honor said she could net possibly

have been called. At least, if she had been called she could have refused to say a word. No person could be asked to incriminate himself or herself.. His Honor said there was no doubt that the finding of the jury had been right, but he had some little doubt as to the corroborative evidence. The evidence of the girl was that of an accomplice, as also was that of Bellamy. Outside the evidence of the two accomplices there Was but little to connect the accused with the offence. Mr Stringer said there was the circumstance' of the girl having been taken to the house, and the finding of the instruments in the room, along with a Post Office Savings Bank bock belonging.to the accused. His Honor said he had not desired to mention the point to the jury, because ho wished the jury to simply find on the evidence adduced. Mr Kippenberger submitted there was no corroborative evidence in the case at all. His Honor said he had a doubt as to whether thero was sufficient corroborative evidence iiv.law. Mr Kippenberger ‘ mentioned, that, accused was only eighteen years of age. In answer to his Honor, Mr Stringer said there was nothing known of any previous occurrence cf the sort in connection with the accused. His Honor said it was a habitual practice. and the offender was rarely caught. Mr Stringer said there was no suggestion that there were other cases. His Honor said the instruments were there. '■ ■ Mr Kippenberger asked for probation. His Honor said there was no chance for probation. It was an extremely serious offence, and the law punished it- with a life sentence. He hoped he had said nothing that would induce anyone to think there was a chance of probation. The crime was most serious, and the sentences ware very, heavy. He was only anxious to find a mitigating circumstance in the case. He was sorry for the accused. The crime was so serious that imprisonment for life was fixed for it by law. It was a common thing, unfortunately, far -too common, and had become so looked upon by a certain section as a much less serious crime than it was looked upon by the law. It was one in which a conviction was very hard to obtain, and for which it was usual to inflict heavy sentences because more often than not the offender had been practising it for some time. Addressing the prisoner, his Honor said: “ Your case is a peculiar one. lam willing to believe you did not realise the enormity of your offence and were led into it. On account of your youth, and only cn that account, you will he let off comparatively lightly. Solely on account of your youth, remember. The sentence of the Court is twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour in Lyttelton Gaol.” The Court then rose till 10 a.m. to-day.