SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 330, 2 December 1864, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

OPENING OF TJI.E CKiMINAL SESSIONS. THUUSDir, IST DECEMBER. Tnr last ( riminal b'cssiou tor 130! was opened yesterday belore his JLonor, Chief »1 ustice Sir George Arney in the new temporary building erected for the Nupreme Court House in the space of ground overlooking the harbour at. the rear of tho provincial buildings. The ttructure, although very incomplete, on account of the hurried way in which it Ir.is had to be prepared, presented a most pleasing 1 contrast to the gloomy, iiit-ty, old burn in street where the sittings have hitherto been held. The Court itself I'ppears to be about tho same sue, but it presents infinitely more uccommod.ition both for the bench, the bar, ami the public; and its aspect, although of course rude and unfinished, is cheerful and clean with an abundance of light from numerous windows, and almost a superfluity of ventilation, as the absence ot screens was lelt yesterday in the fcbupe of draughts that oil a colder day might _}i are prored Unpleasant,

! but with the warm summer air that urns then blowing oil* the ocean -was no more than sufficient to be | agreeable. A Grand Jury of twenty-three was sworn in, consisting of the following gentlemen, Mr. ; Albin Martin being chosen foreman :—John Watson Bain, John Henry Bumside, James Burtt, Jairjes Dilwortli, William Goodfellow, David Gralom, Waiter Graliamc, Thomas 11 envy Ilall, Joseph hargreaves, William Ilobson, Gliomas Macfai f;ne t J homas J.indsay Mackay, Albin Martin, H ; igh Morrow, David Nathan, George Burgovne ( wvn, Allan Kerr Taylor, William lnnes Taylor, "i Bateman Thornton, Thomas Coldham Wi ■■iius. Gladwin '.Wynvard, Ponsonb? Peacock, 10-tias Paton. .His Honor took his scat at ten minutes alui* 11 o'clock, and delivered T7IK JXTDOF.'S CHANGE. He commenced by thanking them for the very full attendance in reply to the bheriiVs summons, and also for the satisfaction willi which he had witnessed their zeal at former sessions. To their vigilance in aslisting in administration of the law, was very greafclt to be attributed the marked diminution of crime in the w-ovince, evidenced by the contract which the calendar presented to that with which ihey had to deal three months Tgo. Ho had but few observa* lions to offer them on the list- of cases that would be brought before them. There were not more than four to which he should think ifc neccssary specially to advert. One of these was the first instance t-hut had occurred of a similar crime in the colony. It that of two men undergoing a sentence of penal servitude at Mount Eden Stockade, who had shown the greatest determination to force their way to liberty. They hud seized the warder * who whb guarding them, tied him up, taking awav his revolver, and had got away, but having ; been speedily recaptured were now to be placed upon their trial for this offence. There could | not he any doubts about the facts of the case, and there tlid not. appear anything which could prevent i the Grand Jury finding a true till rsjawt the

One of the cases of forgery was somewhat unusual. They would probably be surprised to iind that the accused was chargcd in the same name as that of the person whoso signature he was said to havo forged. At iirst sight, they would perhaps bo inclined to say that a man could not bo charged with forging his own name, but such canes were known to the law. (Tl is Honor thou read an exposition of the law on the subject.] This was an indictment against John .lames Henry Atkinson, for having signed the name ot the payee to a bill of exchange, knowing at the time that, he was not the payco. Tins would constitute forgery in law. Whether he did know at the time that ho was not the proper payee of the bill, was the question they would havo" to decide. It appeared that tho real payee, who bore the same name, had drawn a bill of exchange for £500, and had posted it in a letter from London, previous to sailing lor Auckland. On his arrival here, he had applied at the Post-otticc for the letter, and learning that it had been delivered to a previous applicant, had presented his first bill of exchange at the Bank ot New Zealand, when he was informed that the bill had boon already presented. It was not disputed that the prisoner had obtained the letter, and there was no evidence or imputation of a fraudulent intention in so obtaining- it. lint ho had then requested payment of the bill at the Bank. The Bank was already in p r session of the re»d signature, and had asked the first claimant to sign his name. He did so, and iinding there was some slight discrepancy between it and the real one, lie was requested to sign it a second time, which he complied with: and on the second occasion, produced a signature more nearly resembling tin; original one. Paynunt was refused ; but it would be lor the Grand Jury to determine whether, when the prisoner signed his own name, he did so with fraudulent intent. From the depositions he I the Ihiot Justice) believed that it wouulbe urged in the prisoner's t delence that he was expecting money irom his sister about this time, and believed this to be the sum he looked for. It would lie for the Grand Jury to discover whether this was a mere excuse to cover a fraud, or whether the facts of tincase would dispense with the bringing of him before that Court.

Ihe crime of forgery seemed to be somewhat on the increase in the colony. There was another case ot it, but it possessed no peculiar features calling for remark.

There was another crime that was becoming: more rife—that of obtaining money under false pretence-. Albert Klaprndi was charged with obtaining £Sl> from one Cameron, witli intent, to cheat him. In this eas<' there was no one su.n of CSO specially charged; hut the amount, was made up <»f a sum of i'4o in c i>\i on the Oth July ; another of CIO oil the '.Uh July : and a cheque for X3O on tlie 1 llh July. Whether it was the intention to indict the 4 man for obtaining ,LMO or .L'oO, he (the Judge) was not aware, 'liierc v.*a> a voluminous mass of evidence from which it would seem that the prosecution int 'nds to suggest thai Klapu.di had been trying by lah-e representations to enter into partnership with him. J{e had taken him to Mr. Lewis's, re] rer-onting that ho had plenty of go* - ds there, whereas he hud really nothing there. Jle had also taken him to Mr. Jenkins, stating that he dealt largely with him, and the same at Mr. Yaile's. To make it appear that he was carrying on a lucrative trade, he had represented thist lie had already been dealing laigely with those meu-hant-. lie had procured a considerable sum in gold, and then took Cameron to various merchants, and got from them, in Cameron's presence, cheques for the amount of the gold deposited. He (the Chief Justice) telt himself obliged to go into all this, to clear the way to explain the law that would apply under such circumstances. if Cameron and Klaprodi were really trading tcgeiher as partners, the law could not be invoked to'protect one of them' against the conscquem es of his own actions. It would be for them to ask what were the false representations used. The prisoner appeared to have given out that he was a Kussian nobleman. Kven if it should turn out that he was not so, he cou'd not be charged with this as a fraud. One false representation was that ho had goods at Lewis's. It turned cut ho had no goods there. The second was that lie had a large quantit of tobacco strred at tho Custom-] louse, whereas lie had no tobacco there. J J t? had thus obtained cheques lroin Cameron. ] t it could be pro> cd that ho luid l'al.-'ely lcprr scnted that lie had poods at Lewis's and at tho Custom.--, and had thus induced Cameron to enter into partnership with him, and thus to pait wiih his money, that would bring the crime within' the meaning ol tho statute. The jury would forgive him for entering more largely than lie- had at iirst intended into the details ol this ease, because it had seeii, '.! lo him ncccesaiy to explain the law of this i vim .--. Tile Fume law w,;s applicable to the nth.cases of false pretences. There were two easse of embezzlement which were cf givr.t importance to the community. On one hand they were to lake care that, tiie eases of ext. raie carelessness which were so common should he punished ns criminal; on the other, that a manfest criminal should not escape punishment. One James Williamson, a contractor for washing Commissariat stores, was charged with embezzling certain article--, the property oi Jlcr Majesty. Knibe/zlement.at common law. implies a fraudulent appropriation, as by a cleric or servant appropiiating his master's goods to his own use. There was no suggestion in this case of improperly obtaining possession. The prisoner was not charged as a bailee, but with embezzlement of ller Majesty's stores. Me therefore supposed that he was to be charged under a special act passed to apply to person:? employed in tho public service, by which any found in the possession of any stores of Her Majesty was downed to be in fraudulent possession of them. There might be something behind which did noi, appear 0:1 the depositions, — some peculiar regulitions affecting public Rermiits, otherwise oue did not exactly see how this man had become 11 public servant. In sift- i in£ this case, it would be their duty to see how this was' —how 1 his charge of embezzlement eoukl be ; maintained. They were to look at the case merely ' as r„ matter of evidence, and ask themselves if they ! were convinced it would come under the head of fraudulent embezzling. They would have the opportunity of knowing specifically what wero the articles add to be embezzled. Mr. Chislett, the proper commissariat ollieer, iiad caused the articles to be examined unci counted four separate times. Each time there was a deliciency discovered. A policeman was then sent for, who took tho man into custody— it did not appear 011 what authority, nor whether he had told the man what, he was charged with. The pjlieemau says he found all the tilings thrown down in 11 martjiii-e. This does not look like ail attempt at concealment. The articles did not appear lo be so placed as to show a desire to hide his possession of them. The individual would appear to have had perfectly lawful possession of the articles in his capacity as washing contractor ; but it seetns that certain blankets wero placed in a box, an.l others, as was the custom in all domestic establishments well managed, between the mattresses of tho bed. lie sunposjd this was the cirouuistauco to bo charged as fruudulunt. 'i'K-to wero the facta vlisy would have

to ascertain. It was of tho very essence of tbe constitution of a Grand Jury that no man should be put upon his trial before the jury was fully convinced there was a good case to bo brought against hum * There was a ease against an officer of tho colonial forces — Captain jjennett — who waa charged with embezzlement of certain moneys,' which, there was* no doubt, lio did receive by virtue ot* liia employment as a public oilicer. Before this important ease eamo into their hands, ho wished to ' call the attention to their real nature of tho law of" embezzlement, wag unable to ascertain what' were the criminal acts he was charged with. Th. prisoner had sent in the usual estimates from month, to month, and had received certain monies on these estimates, lie had also sent in certain receipts for the previous payments. On the face of the paysheets there certainly appeared large discrepantiss, and there was somo'evidence to show the misapplication of ccitain amounts. Captain Moore, who took the company over from Captain Bennett, spoke of eightoen men as unpaid by hiin, and inferred that bo had put the money into his own pocketlf there was any evidence at all, it was only to the effect that Captain Bennett did not pay somebody. Captain Moore had been informed (perhaps untruly) that p:trticul?,r men had not been paid. This did not. amount lo anything. Bennett might say he had paid them : he had not been confronted with them ot one man had been called to say whether tie had been paid or not. The case might assume tho shape--1 thai ho had not paid These soldiers, or might proveonly one of defective balance. They were to consider what were the ordinary prools. They were all familiar with the ordinary cases of embezzlement. \Vh*. i n a clerk was sent round to collect accounts from A, ii, and C, if he paid in certain customers' accounts ;:nd kept back others, that was embezzlement. Or where he was acting as a servant-, and gave a false* account. 2Cow, however, it was said that a person in l the employment of Her Slajesty was guilty of fraudulently disposing of monies intrusted to* him, if lie did not render a proper account He* was not aware how far Captain Bennett had rendered himself liable by receipts given to show how ha had disposed of these monies. The lust point for con?ideraticMi was a question of law, whether a man could be convicted of embezzling for a balance of accounts Tho judges had laid it down most strongly that he* could not. If it were not so, every clerk who through: carelessness omitted to make any entry would be" Jiable *•.» conviction for embezzlement. Whether Cap--tain J.ienett denied the receipt of the money or gave fuUe accounts of it, would bcprima Jiacia evidence of fraudulent intention- There was something to be said on both tides of the question, as concerned the largo amounts that oiiicers had passing through their huiuls. How often did they tind that that got wrom; m their own accounts, ami how diflicult was it then to right again, even when they were inosfc c-iixions to discover something abjut tue disposal of their own money (his Honor quoted the cmd ot a. blinker's ei t!; who had been convicted ou a boU'.nce of aceoiml, us biSng very strongly against the exprea-ei opinions ot* the pidges in previous cases, but he, when culled upon to" account ibr si deficient balance, had thrown himself on the tnercv of liis employers, and! admitted a deficiency ot* £:JOO. Ofthe fifteen .judges to whom it whs referred, eight •were for ami seven ;u"*:iinst the conclusion. This case had been much

JiuL J-iaron .Alclerson hud since remarked that it turned nit re on the peculiar facts than on the law.. Still there i: remained as a precedenttc show that » jury can convict where a specific sum is proved. It wasoft he utmost, importance that officers in Her Majesty ascrviee ,-h 'uld nor escape it' criminal, audou th-:r other hand that they should not he dragged betore a Grand Jury and their names blasted for life, unless there were really good gtouwls for it. ■ 3 There were no other cases calling for particular observation. The larcenies -were quite of the ordinary type. But ihey would see that the other eases were not easy, but p!e.-eiiteii considerable difficulties. His object bad been not to embarrass but to assist the jury ay. far as his abilities enabled him. The jurv then retired in charge of their bailiff. The pelty iurv was then called upon, when twodefaulters, * Hubert McDonald and "William Mawfl,Were lined £5 each for non-attendance. J.JJtCENY. George lu-iestinc and John Carroll were placed at the bar, charuep with stealing from Henry Allen, storekeeper, Alexandra, \\ aikato, ou the 3rd September last, one cask of bottled beer. J.ioth pi-i.-oiieis pleaded not guilty. The following were then sworn petty jurymen : Joseph JUcMunv. Charles Henry Brooke, William Mrj\ illliotl, *1 C'hll Mc>:niiura, Josiah Haker, Andrew Meine, John I'orter, Bernard Longbottom, irederick; Ii:t'}i»l111 Kurhunan, John fcutclilSe, audi- It Leightou (foreman). Aii'. MiTriniau, Crown prosecutor, briefly opened the case to the jury, and after n deal of evidence had been taken, his Jlonor summed up, and *ke jury* after il short deliberation, brought in a .veidict of " guilty" against both prisoners. sentenced to sis calendar months hard laborI.AKCKNY. 'Edward Fulljames, a youth of about lourtcen years of age. plended guilty to two charges ol* ielouy, one for stealing a watch and chain, and another a woollen comforter, from Charles fctucky, master of the schooner 'General Cameron/ on the 6th of September last. liis .Honor after severely admonishing the lad, and advising him in a-kind manner as to his future conduct, lie sentenced him to hard lnbour for four calendar months for taeh offence, to run concurrent iy. LABCKNY. James Pegan was placed at the bar and charged with having, on the 17th September last, stolen onecoat from Uemard Levy, Queen-street. lie pleaded not guilty. After the evidence of the prosecutor and Police Sergeant »Scott hud been taken, the jury at once found the prisoner " guilty,' 1 and he was sentenced to six months* hard labour. LAKCE>"Y. George Moore was brought up and charged with having stolen a coat from Kalpli Keesing. on the 14th. September lust. ile pleaded not guilty. In consequence of the absence of a material witness, tlie case was not proceeded with, and tbe Couri adjourned until this morning at 10 o'clock. tuue BILtS. The Grand Jury found true bills against the following : —Trcistine and Carroll, larceny; George Moore, larceny ; Edward Fulljames, larceny (2 indictments) ; James Kegan, larccny.