SUPREME COURT— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1911, 2 March 1870, Page 5

SUPREME COURT— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

5 TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1870. (Before His Honor Sir <3-. A. Arney, Chief Justice.) The Quarterly Circuit Court was opened yesterday. Tlie following gentlemen were sworn of the Grand Jury —Albyn Martin, Esq. (Foroman), James Baber, Earnest Louis Uucholz, William Crush Diilcly, Jarucs Dil worth, Josiah Clifton Firth, Walter Graham, John Anderson Gillillan, Michael Hanuaford, Edward Isaacs, John Sangster Maefarlane, George Mitford, i Jami's Tannock MaclCelvie, John Koberton, Allen Kerr 'l'ajlor, Robert Turnbul', Gladwyn "Wyn\ur<!, Robert Wynyard, and William Young, Ksqrs. His Honor, in addressing tho Grand Jurv, said that on tho last meeting of the Grand Jurv in the Supreme Court, he was able to congratulate tbein upon the Ugh* character of the calendar, as well in respect to the inconsiderable number of the prisoners for trial, as in regard to the absence of any serious features in the offences with which thev were charged, and which it was the business of the gentlemen of the Grand Juiy to inquire into. He regretted that he could not repeat his congratulations upon the present occasion, for he found that '..he business of the Circuit Court was returning to the old state of things, inasmuch as a rather serious calendar, both in respect to the number and character of offences charged, is again brought under the notice of the Grand Jury. And this was so, with the addition to the misfortune of such an aspect of atfairs. Tho Judge could not on the present occasion tell the | Grand Jurors that among the persons to be I put on their trial for the oll'enccs charged against thein, few or none came properly within the denomination of settlers. In tho present case, the whole list of crimu must be placed to (lie crtdit of tho ordinary inhabitants ot this colony. It often happened that there were cases suddenly brought before the Court, in which the depositions were submitted to the Judge a', a very short notice, and, therefore, he ntig ; t tell the gentlemen of the Grand J hit that i i some of liicsp cases, 1 the deposition coining into his hands only i the (lav before, he had but little time to consider them with the care which they would deserve. But in easting his eyes through j (hem, he noticed that although the number of , eases ill the calendar was eoii.-idorable, ] there wer.- none of them which sug- j gested any diiliculiy upou points of law upon which it would be neee-sary Millie Court to address the Grand Jury. They would tlnd that the eases were all of a description with those they had before them on former occasions, and which only required ; a patient inquiry into the lifts to be able to come to a right conclusion in respect of t.hem. U.iiey would have no >iil ly whatever in dealing with c;:ses of a kind tvhich must before have conic within their experience. There were only three eases upon which the Court : thought it neivssary to make any remark. : Adverting however once • ::ore to the gem nd 1 character of t he crimes lie found that of forgery slil! piv.-enled (he same formidable aspect as ' on former orc:isio;:s, when he deemed it his > duty to observe upou the frequency of this ; particular otlence. It will now bo found Unit : there are 110 less than seven cases of forgery out j of the t wet.tv-one eases entered for pro- < I sedition : some nf these which rather ; judged bv the facts of them, assumed the : aspect of obtaining money by false pretences,- 1 where, that is to say, a man pretends that lie ! lias an account at some bank in which he has j 110 account whatever. Tho Court again drew ! the attention of the Grand Jury to this class of crime, in order to >how the , j great facilities which were afforded to persons I peculiarly exposed to the temptation for the j commission of this oll'-nee. A person would appear to have nothing t> do but to take a ! I bank fin-m t<> a stranger, purchase goods to a J small amount, present the form of the cheque : and get. tt.e li:iinit-.. <.l' Urn mentioned ' in the hotly of the document. The;e facilities hold out a temptation t-at seems to be irresistible to the prueti.v of this of fraud. ! It was, theref-jre. that the Court ventured j oiilc :m>:v to suege.-t. that it would be luostj 'iesivaijie it' per.-uns engaged in business were • to M-t I! nil- aees sl.adily against cashing cheques for small amounts, unless at all events there were some particular circumstances connected with the application, which would suggest it to be their duly to cash these documents. There were eases in the present, calendar where men found no difficulty {whatever in turning these spurious cheqves into money by so presenting them iu payment for goods, asking the tradesman to deduct some small amount—in one ease so small an amount as two shillings—getting the balance, and so completing the act of fraud with which tliej rtood charged. Of course this facility is the result of either carelessness or mistaken kindness. When a man had only to write his name, or if he could not write his name, to get tho body of the cheque filled up, and put his mark upon it, to get money for it, it was no wonder that a large number of persons were tempted to I commit this offence. There was another reason also which induced the Court to remark at greater length upon this chiss of offence. From loug experience it had found that long termß of imprisonment had not been effectual as a corrective, and (hat increasing the weight of punishment did not sufllcs to check a resort to this class of crime. The Court had resorted lo the expedient of passing severer sentences in the hope to deter from the commission of such frauds, but though it inflicted severe punishment, whatever might be the effect of such an expedient as a corrective, it did not appear to operate satisfactorily as a preventive of crime. His Honor, therefore, believed that the only one way of correcting this crime would he by the whole canmunity setting their faces against cashing tluso cheques for ■ small amounts, knowing tho facilities which : they opened to tho eomnission of crime. | There were one or two casft of passing off I cheques in the name of persons who hud ! given no authority for their names to be so used, but they would find thee to be of the I ordinary description. Of the oil' nces against ' property, they would find a cl.arge of stealing ) from t .e premises G ;' Cl'ni ksltank I and Smart, a bonded store. There was no ! ditliculty arising out of points of law connected with the case ; but there wire one or two I matters of fact, to which it wss the duty of the Court to call the attention of the Grand Jury. The charge was speeificaly of stealing a quantity ol tobacco from tie before-meu fionctl premises. The tobucci appeared to be of two kinds, which somewhit affected the question of the identity of the foods ; nevertheless there were such circumstances iu the case as, in tho opinion ol' the Court, would warrant tlie Grand Jury in Mining to the conclusion that there was prima fade evidence as to the identity of the tcbicco, at least sufficient to justify tlie Grant! Jury in calling on the prisoner to answer the charge. The tobacco appears to have been ifolen sometime after the (shop or warehouse litd been closed on the Saturday. The shop wai tlosol on this particular Saturday at an eaily hour. Tho probability was that nobody woildhave entered the premises for the purpose (f committing a felony unv.il after dark. At allevents, at halfpast ten tho samo night the preoner brought | some of the tobacco stoleu to lie house of a tradesman, and presented it br sale. Thp j prisoner left the tobacco, went tway, and oent some other boxes of tobacco atll o'clock to | the same person's house. Then boxes were brought by a stranger whom ihe purchaser did not know, and never saw since that time. There was here the fact that the person accused was found disposing at a certain hour ; the same night of a large quantity of tobacco, which corresponded in eharacterund quality with the tobacco that had been stolen from the stores of Messrs. Crnickshankand Smart. • It appeared also that this tobacio was sold • much under its value. If those iiets should • be made out they would find tje prisoner disposing,'on thesame evening, ofttbacco of the

J same kind and character under circumstances as to justify the Grand Jury inferring that the tobacco so sold was a portion of the tobacco belonging to the prosecutors, and the accit cd should therefore bo called to answer how he became possessed of it. It further appeared that when the prisoner called on the purchaser on tho Monday morning following he received no leas than sixteen pounds in payment. There was one other fact which would be deposed to, and it wa3, that enquiry had been made of all the other traders in Auckland, and those who made these inquiries were unable to find any other tobacco alike in quality and kind to that which had belonged to Messrs Cruickshank and Smart, and which, it was alleged, the accused had stolen. Although it mav be true that the purchaser behaved with due caution, yet if the Grand Jury find that the tobacco corresponded, as it was sworn that it. did, with the article which had been immediately before stolen from Messrs. Cruicksliauk and Smart, that would constitute such prima /trie evidence as would make it their duty to call on the prisoner to answer how he came by it. That was perhaps file only offence against property which the Court thought it was requisite to mention. There were however, unfortunately, two or three charges of acts of vi lenee, one or two being of rather a serious kind. In respect to one of those he would relieve their minds of any (Uilieul'y, in case of any of the Jury, as magistrates, being judicially acqnainted with the facts of this case. Tho accused was charged with shooting with intent. There was no ! evidence that the gun was loaded ; the evidence would appear to negative the assertion that it was loaded with other than merely powder. The question depended upon a series of trinulc circumstance*, ami the proseeufiou felt it be their duty not. to attempt to press the more serious charge. The prisoner would be brought before the grand jury under the less grievous accusation of assault, with violence j of having indicted grievous bodily harm, for it would be found that tho accused followed the person, whom it was said he meant to injure, and struck him violently on the head with the stock or some other part of the mm. Tho Gran 1 .fury would therefore find no difficulty in the case. T.iere was another case of shooting with intent ro commit murder, where tile facts wore a more serions aspect. The name of the aeeused is .lames Sheridan. Two parlies were living in tents in the bush, far away from Auckland, in the Waikato. They had been playing all night at cards. Sheridan lost, a considerable sum of money. At this he became irritated, and wished to get back some portion of the monej' from the persons who had won it. There was evidence that on the morning the offence was said to have been committed, the accused went, to the tent, of another man and succceded in borrowing a pistol ; end that, he went, forth with that pistol declaring that his intention was to shoot a dog which had been destroying his fowls. The person who ultimately lent the accused the pistol, it, appears, in the first, instance remonstrated with the accused and wished to go with him. The deposition stated that t.ho man charged tlcclmed the assistance of his fiieml, and resolved to go forth himself. The man no-.v accused went: out. go! the materials to load the pistol, using not pistol bullets hilt, as it. would appear, pieces of 1 '. It would be shown that !he friend of whom the accused borrowed the pistol assisted in loading the pislol " in all its chambers " If that were so, there was evidence of deliberately pro tiring the pistol, (le liberate loading, and deliberate going forth with tho pistol to use it for some purpose —-at the time beim; for the purpose of killing a dog. It would seem that Sheridan, the accused, soon came into the presence of the man to whom he lost, the money. Some short time elapsed, no high words were said to have oassod. At

I'll events, there were very few, if nny. li.ir.-ih woi-Js ; ami il vra-i sworn that Bh"rid:in llircir.i'invl to shoo! 1 lie prosecutor. l'roseeulor then, as it. lniuht he called, " chall'ed " lllC snppo.;,.g Umt. the prisoner was gouts; to ami! Jiiin. The pistol was, however, rlisi-!i;>i\;e 1 by 1 lit; accused ; and whatever it may l::ive been losidetl wi!!i, the charae peuelrated the walls of the ahdonifn of the pr-isecutor, and as far as it had been discovered, tiie charge passed round towards (lie Jxii;!:, became emb.-dued in ! a'muscles there. Tho G-r.-.nd Jury would hiive the benefit of the testimony of the medical man who attended the prosecutor. They would hear that the pistol was fully loaded, and was calculated to take aivay life. Mention was made of the circumstance that the accused showed deliberation in obtaining the loaded pistol. The jury would, perhaps, think that at that time the accused ha I not. the purpose present to his mind of attacking the 'person whom he is afterwards charged with having shot. They would, perhaps, be of opinion that the accused did not appear to have contemplated tho act until this kind of altercation took place. Such were the facts of the ease, and the Grand .Tury would have to consider whether there was not sufficient proof to justify them in calling on the prisoner to answer the charge of " shooting with intent to kill and murder." The indictment might contain other counts, but there would probably be no specific evidence as to any other intent. The jury would first recollect that the instrument was calculated to take awny life—it was discharged under the circumstances referred to. An .1 the Grand Jury would have to consider whether it was not their duty to return a true bill, and put the prisoner upon his trial for this serious charge. But in determining this, it was the duty of the Court to direct the Grand Jury to enquire what would have been the case had the life of the prosecutor been actually taken away. The Court would be right in telling the Grand Jury that there was no such provocation in the words used to tho accused as would reduce the crimc from I being one of murder to manslaughter supposing death to have ensued. The only other case upon which the Court- fotind it necessary to make any observations to the Grand Jury was one of a painful description. It was a charge against one Albert Dornwell, for perjury—a charge against a man who appeared to have held, and to hold, a rcspeetablo position as a tradesman in the City of Auckland, yet against whom, nevertheless, this serious charge was preferred. He would not go into the facts, they would be found to be of a very simple character. It was alleged that, in the course of an inquiry before the resident magistrate, respecting some rent due from the defendant (Dornwell) to tlio plaintiff, had not been paid. Dornwell insisted that the rent had been paid. The question of perjury or no perjury, hinged upon the issue whether Dornwell " falsely," " willfully," aud " corruptly," swore that the rent had been so paid. There would be some difference as to the day from which the rent was to be calculated —whether from the 16th of August, or from the Ist of September. But on the face of the depositions, the prosecutor undertook to supply evidence to support the charge, and that rent was only paid up to a particular period of time. The defendant swore that the rent had been paid. To support a charge of perjury, it was necessary either that the charge should be proved by two witnesses, or one witness .ind other admissible evidence, that wo»M supply the place of a second witness- Xhe Grand Jury would not find any difficulty in the present ease. It we'dd be proved that the oath was taken— | jt -was taken in the course of a judicial proceeding. It was necessary that the oatl<| should be false—that would be the quo-- 1 '" for the jurv. But it was also tu at the Grand Jurv should be satisfied th» c the statement made>y Mr. Don,^ L«.ojjr false but that it was " wilful corrupt. It wire not enough that a man taken, and state under £ | what was not true. -while on oath, made the false represe jj. miu t be shown " wilfully and corrup y- gpea ] Sj a certain that he had sworn, tl £ twouli lead to the amount of perverser- re p reaenta ,tbn -was not conclusion tliat ifc wa3 wiifal and that ft corrupt. It * be the

ease that a statement should be false and not w. 1 . ful. The case is, no doubt, one of great importance, and one in which a jury would not perhaps like to return a bill to bring such a person before a criminal Court upon sucli a charge unless there was very clear evidence to -upport it. But if there was 2)rima farir evidence of the offence having been committed, it would be the duty of the Grand -Tury, without respect of persons or consequences, to leave the whole case to a jury winch should inquire minutely into all the part'.culars. I'm; G-iand Jury would be pleased to retire to their chamber a d consider the eases that, should bo brought before them. It was not impossible that the Court would have to ask the Grand Jury to give their attendance another day, as there was yet more criminal business in progress, and it slioukl not bo necessary that parties accused be kept in prison for three months and the colony put to 'lie expense of maintaining them for three months fa''lore they were called upon to take their trial. The Grand Jury retired, and, shortly afterwards, returned a true bill againsc Michael Cullen, Henry Dillon, George Rowley, John George Jackson, who were arraigned and tried. Mr. Brookfield conducted the prosecutions on behalf of the Crown. FALSE I'HKTR I'Ci:S. Michael Cullen was indicted upon a charge of obtaining from David Weir, tho Mini of i-'o 3s. Gd. The prisoner, it. appeared, represented that he was entitled to a sum of £2,5v0, that he was possessed of certain properly. When called on to plead, the prisoner said he was guilty. A sceond conviction of misdemeanor was proved against the prisoner while he lived at Ilokitika, to which lie also t pleaded guilty. I His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years imprisonment with hard labor. FALSE I'KETE.VCES. Ileitry Dillon was indict cd upon a charge of obtaining, by false pretences, a quantity of shirts, and other wearing apparel, from Richard Bareham .Shalders, draper, in Queensi reel. Mr. Shalders was eallcd, and said : That 011 the day in question the prisoner came to him and said he was come to patronise him. That, he had been working for Mr. Rbenezer 'Übbons, of Onehunga, who owed him £72. The prisoner could not write, and he asked the witness to write out an order upon Mr. Gibbons, and he, prisoner, would put his " mark "to it. This was done, and the prisoner was supplied with blankets, clothing, and other articles. Witness's wife suspected there might be some imposition, and he telegraphed to Mr. Uibbms to enquire as to tho truth of the prisoner's statement. Mr. Gibbons' answer was, "Give him in charge for fraud." In cross-examination the witness said that the prisoner was formerly in his employment while in the timber trade. It ivas r.ninron to give such orders upon employers in the timber trade. It appeared that he met Mrs. Siialders, to whom lie was known through being formerly employed by the prosecutor, am! he cn leavoumi to mafco out that she had invited him to the shop, and held out some encouragement to him to go there and get the things he wanted. Tho jury found the prisoner guilty, with a reeounneiidalion to mercy, as there was some reason to believe that the prisoner was under the influence of liquor. Mr. Shalders hoped that the Court would bo lenient, to the prisoner on account of his age. There were no less than three previous convictions of felony against the prisoner : one r.t the Supreme Oouri of Auckland, March, 1861 ; another at the December Criminal Sessions, ISfifi ; and a conviction at tho Resident Magistrate's Court, Shortland, on the 22nd August, 186 S. The Judge, in sentencing the prisoner, sai l the impudence of the defence set up suggested to the Court,, before knowing the previous convictions, that the prisoner must have been an old oh'-nder. There was hardly any escape from passing :i sentence of penal servitude; bui as there might be something in the f:"'t that the lady told the prisoner he would be well received, she knowing him to have been in her husband's service, and so some temptation might, be held out, the Court would give e'l'cct to the recommendation of the prosecutor.

Tile prisoner was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, with hard labor.

FALSE PRETENCES. George John Jackson was indicteil upon a charge of obtaining £1 lOs from Mr. Curtis, of the Pacific Hotel, Grahamstown, by uttering a spurious cheque 011 the Union Bank, where the prisoner had no funds. Mr. Curtis said the prisoner came to him, and asked him to cash a small chcque. Ihe witness asked the prisoner whether he had funds in tho Union Bank. Witness presented the cheque al> the Bank next day, and found the prisoner had 110 funds there. This was the only fact proved. Tiie prisoner said he had letters of credit passing through the bank. Mr. Edward. Moore, a clerk in the Union Bank, proved that no letter was received in prisoner's favour since January 7,1868. Mr. Grant, a clerk in the Grahamstown branch of the Union Bank, said the prisoner had no account there. There appeared, however, to be some doubt about the effect of the answer made by the prisoner to the question as to whether he had any funds at the bank. The prisoner was acquitted. NO TBUE BILL. The Grand Jury entered the Court, and returned, in the case of Albsrt Dornwell, " no bill." The Court rose at twenty-five minutes past 5 o'clock.