SUPREME COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 306, 9 January 1875, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CBIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, Janix-aey 4th:, 1875. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Chapman.) . Among the cases tried were the following :• —

LARCENY A 8 A BAILEE

I Samuel Gibson (32) was indicted for I .making away with, while acting as bailee, a gold watch, value £l4, a gold Albert chain, a locket, and 10s. in money, the property The circumstances of the case are briefly as follow In the monih of October, 1873, the prisoner had just finished a contract at fencing on the station of Mr. Humphries• fetrath-taieri. _He said he was comino- to IJunedin, and the prosecutor then asked mm it he would leave his watch with either Mr. Hislop or Mr. Young, for the purpose of haying it repaired. Prisoner agreed to take the watch, and asked that the chain might be allowed to remain upon it,'as it would be more convenient to handle. Prosecutor agreed to this, and also gave him 10s., to pay for the mending ot the watch. When he went away prisoner said he should be back in three days, but ho never returned, and prosecutor did not again see him till the latter end'oflß74, when he f»li in with him at .Naseby. Several witnesses,were called to prove the above facts. The prisoner's defence was that he had ' lost the watch and chain. " I

After a short absence, the jury returned into the Court with a verdict of Guilty. OBTAINING MONET BY FALSE PHETENCES:

The same prisoner was then indicted for having, on the 14th October, 1873, ohta.ined.by false pretences the sura of £5, the property of William Grey. From the evidence given, it appeared that a day or two before the prisoner left the Taieri for3unedin, as stated in Hie last case, he went to : the prisoner, and, telling him ...that' -lie was working-Tor Mr Humphries, asked him to lend him £2, as Mr. Humphries owed him a sum of money, and that he would repav him as soon as he got it. Prosecutor had not £2 in money in his possession, but gave him a cheque For £5, which prisoner promised to repay directly Mr. Humphries mid him. He (hen left, and prosecutor had seen nothing of him until the end of last year. ,

Several witnesses were examined, and proved facts. It was conclusively shown that at the time prisoner got the; cheque Mr. Humphries owed him nothing;, m vJ that he had just paid moi the sum of £l2.

The prisoner called . a witness named Mrs. bteadman, but she proved nolh-

The jury found] him guilty without leaving the box.

When asked what he had to say why sentence should, not be passed upon him prisoner saidjhe lioped the Court would remember, that he had already been in prison for three months' awaiting his trial. °

,r In passing sentence his Honor said he found that there w'as a previous couvic- : tion ag»„)9t hi m f or assault, and it must; have been a pretty serious one, Yor the Magistrate had sentenced him to six months, imprisonment. : There was 'no' doubt that a man might commit an assault and yet not be disposed to commit a larceny or a false pretence. The two offences which the. prisoner.had committed could not he overlooked. The fact of' both having been committed just as he was leaving Mr. Humphries showed that he was determined to get as much as possible before taking : his departure. For the first offence, he would be sentenced to eighteen months', and for the. second ; to twelve months'imprisonment, the one tf D th 6 t0 ° ommence at the expiration of