SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17862, 7 August 1918, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tho criminal session of the Supremo Court was resumed yesterday before his Honor Mr Justice Hevdman. Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., was tho Crown Prosecutor.

NOT GUILTY.

The proceedings against William Clausen, alias William Thompson, alias 'William Harris who was charged with enteriiiiy the dwelling-house of Henry Stephenson, at Ailenton, Ashburton, on the night of June £O, with having stolen certain money and keys, and with having subsequently entered tho counting-house of Henry Stephenson, in Ashburton, and having stolen £39 7s 2d in cash, and cheque for £B, drawn by Stephenson in favour of ono vialker, were continued. Accused, who pleaded nob guilty was unrepresented by counsel. Mr W- P. Spencer was foreman of the jury. .James Lucas, restaurant-keeper, Timaru. stated that on June 14 he was rung up on tile telephone from Ashburton by accused, who asked witness to send him £l. Accused had said he had done no good at the races, and was returning to Timaru.

Evidence was also given by Constable Lesour and David Russell. The Crown Prosecutor said he did not intend to address the jury. Accused, in his defence, said he had been very badly treated in not being allowed bail. He had not, in consequence, been able to sccuro witnesses, one of whom could say that ho (accused) had won a Jot of money at the Ashburton races. Ho could also have secured witnesses to make his case entirely clear, lie had not been able to procure counsel because the detective had taken £ll from his wife, which accused, had sent to her. Accused criticised the evidence, and said that lie went to Ashburton with £I(J in his pocket. As he was in a house with strangers he asked his bedroom mate to lend liim 2s, to create the impression that he had no money. In reference to ringing up Lucas, _ that witness was an old friend of his. Lucas had advised him not to go to the Ashburton races, as the fields were too large. Accused had rung up Lucas from < Dunedin and other places when attending races, and the reference to borrowing £1 was said jokingly. Referring to the robbery, accused claimed that whoever entered the house and secured tho keys of Stephenson''s office must have been familiar with tho muse. ‘‘l won over £2O at .the Ashburton races,” said the accused, “ and had I been granted bail 1 could have secured evidence to prove it.” His Honor summed up and the jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts. FORGERY. William Uren (Mr Cassidy) pleaded guilty to four counts in connection with forgery of a cheque for £2 12s Sd, and endorsing and acting on the cheque as if genuine. Mr Cassidy, in appealing for consideration for prisoner, stated that,lie was twenty-five years of age, was married and had two children. It had to bo admitted that prisoner had made previous lapses and had undergone reformative treatment at Invercargill, and was released on probation in 1917 by reason of good conduct, although his term did not empire until 1919. Prisoner had been drawn in tho ballot and was due to leave for camp, shortly. Counsel appealed to tho Court to allow prisoner an opportunity to redeem himself by war service.

His _ Honor said that prisonor bad in the past received very liberal treatment, but had failed t'o take advantage of the Court’s lenieucy. Ho would b?. sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with hard labour, on the second of four counts, and to one year’s imprisonment on each of the other three, the sentences to run concurrently. His Honor said ho would exercise leniency in this instance in not declaring prisoner a habitual criminal:

POSTAL BOX CASE. Charles Johnson (Mr Alpors) was charged on four counts with having marie a faiso document on April (jj 19i8, in tho form of an application for a private letter box, and with having uttered tho samo with tho intention that it should bo acted upon as genuine by A. S. Ward, a clerk in the Christchurch Post Office; also with having, on April 6, by means of false pretences (1) led the said A. S. Ward to believe that he (accused) was entitled to sign tho application ‘‘James Costello,” and (2) loci A. S. Ward to deliver to accused two postal packets addressed to “ James Costello, The Peaks, Medbury.” Mr E. Haley was chosen foreman of tho jury. Air Alpers stated that accused would plead guilty to the third and fourth counts, charging him with false pretences. These constituted a statutory offence under section 100 of tho Post and Telegraph Act, and were punishable by a line not exceeding £SO. Accused. pleaded not guilty ori tho first and second counts, which charged him with forging and uttering. Mr Raymond said that the first and second counts could ndb be dropped. Mr Alpers replied that accused’s plea involved that there would be- no contest in respect of the facts, which would be accepted. Mr Raymond briefly outlined tOie case on the lines of the evidence given iu tho lower Court. Accused, he said, had made an application for a private box at tho Post Office in the name of James Costello, The Peaks, Medbury, and had been allotted Box No. 74. Accused secured possession of several letters addressed to James Costello. Subsequently, acting on a letter purporting to bo signed by James Costello, the postal authorities annulled the application for tho private box, and thereafter forwarded Costello’s letters to The Peaks, Medbury.

Evidence for the Crown was given on similar lines to that in tho Magi,s_ trato’s C-onrt.

Mr Alpers, for tho defence, said that _ the affair was an extraordinarily silly one, but accused had pleaded guilty to certain technical points which constituted a. statutory offence. A man had no right to trifle with the postal regulations, and accused would no doubt be lined for that part of tho affair. In regard to the other two counts, the ex. planation was that accused wished to do some business with a second-hand dealer, and he was also carrying on correspondence with a certain woman. No doubt accused had committed a mistake in what he had done. But lie had conceived the idea of engaging a postal box, not in his > own name, to carry out his intentions. Accused knew Costello, and had secured the box in Costello’s name. There was never any criminal intention in accused’s mind, and ho had not realised the full effect of Costello’s letters falling into his hands. When the first two letters addressed to Costello, came into his hands accused went with them to Twiss (Costello’s brother-in-law), and told him of tho circumstances. After explanation, Twiss took tho letters and communicated with Costello. The whole 'tiling' was very foolish, hut accused had not intended to intercept Costello’s correspondence. Accused gave evidence on the lines of Mr Alpers’s outlino of defence.

Correspondence was being sent to him from Australia, and he was anxious to receive sonio in regard to a certain cyanido process, wliicn was being sent by a woman from Australia, before giving up tho box. Accused stated that ho had no intention of securing Costello’s letters, and ho bad never opened any correspondence addressed to Costello.

To Mr Raymond: Witness at one time had a private box at the post ofßco in his own name. Ho Received correspondence through Box 74 from tho woman mentioned. A letter (produced) was from a woman residing in Wellington, and another was from a person at Rakaia. Witness admitted tho letters were couched in affectionate terms, but repudiated any suggestion of impropriety. He was a married man with two children. After counsel had addressed the jury his Honor summed up. The jury retired at 3.20 p.m. and returned at 4.28 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on tho first count and not guilty on the second count. His Honor postponed sentence until 10 a.m. on the following day. . ALLEGED BREAKING AND ENTERING.

Peter Joseph Hanley (Mr Hunter) was charged on three counts with having broken into the premises of Browning and Co., Ltd., High Street. Christchurch, on the night of July 9, and having stolen eleven pairs of lwots valued at £ls 165., the property of the said firm.

Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Baymond, for the Crown, stated that at about 10.30 o’clock on the night of July 9 accused was seen to drop some boots. A constable followed and saw some more boots dropped. On noticing the constable accused mado off. When caught subsequently accused said that the constable had mado a mistake. He was not the man.. Tho accused was seen near Browning’s shop. Evidence for the Crown was given on lines similar in tho main to that in the lower Court.

For the defence Mr Hunter said accused was a returned soldier who had fought honourably in Franco and was highly, respected bv his fellow-work-men. Counsel detailed accused’s career and said ho had been discharged, aftei five months’ service in a shell-strewn area, as unfit for further service. 'The man’s mind was a blank as to happenings on the night of the occurrence. Ho had no knowledge of what had taken place. Mr Hunter appealed for careful and sympathetic consideration of the evidence for the defence.

The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on the following day.

[Pm Press Association.] WELLINGTON. August 6.

At the Supreme Court Anders Berg Anderson was found guilty of assaulting Thomas Hickey so as to cause him actual bodily harm. The Chief Justice remanded accused to Saturday for sentence, saying he thought he would send him to Pakatoa to see if he could not. be cured of his drinking bouts. In the case of William Donald Stirling, charged with ail offence against a girl aged fourteen years and nine months, the jury failed to agree, and a new trial was ordered. William John Love, charged with an offence against the same girl was acquitted. DUNEDIN, August 6.

At the Supremo Court Francis Joseph Conn pleaded guilty to a charge of assault and was fined. £2O. Alfred Charles Cornwallis Stevens, captain in the Now Zealand staff corps, and croup comniahder at Milton, was acquitted on a charge of theft of £1 7s 7d. £1 8s 7d and £1 18s Id on April 18. .Accused was further charged with the theft r f £27 13s 7d on Anrii 29, 'Die case is unfinished.