LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4335, 5 October 1875, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME . COURT.—Criminal Sittings. Monday, October 4. [Before Hia Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.l The Crown sittings of the Quarterly Circuit Court were commenced this morning. The following gentlemen of the Grand Jury were sworn : —Dr. J. L. Campbell (foreman), William Aitkin, James Baber, William Thomas Basset, Abraham Boardman, Albert Beetham, James Thomas Boylan, John Buchanan, Joseph McMullen Dargaville, John Peter Du Moulin, Josiah Clifton Eirth, John Gordon, George Samuel Graham, Joseph Howard, Edward Isaacs, Thomas Hunt Ivey, John Lawford, J. S. Macfarlane, Charles Cookman McMillan, George Mariner Mitford, George Burgoyne Owen, Joseph Elam Pounds, Frederick JRing, Malcom Mcintosh Taylor, William Innis Taylor, Archibald Wallace, John Wallace. His Honor addressed the Grand Jury as follows :—Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—l have again to congratulate you on the comparatively light character of the calendar upon the present occasion, for while it comprises no diminution of the number of persons charged with offences, these offences are not of an aggravated character. The calendar consists of nineteen persons charged with various offences, and who have been committed for trial by the magistrate upon the grounds set forjh in the depositions made in each case. Although, as I have already said, the offences charged are not of an aggravated character, there is a peculiarity about the calendar in one respect, namely, that out of the nineteen persons who arc included in it, no less than rive are females and four are natives. This large number of females and the increase in the number of natives brought up for trial are features which have not occurred before. It is also to be remarked that on the present occasion there is an entire absence of the criminal class —those known as regular offenders. With one exception, the persons charged are what are called new offenders. Another peculiarity in the calendar is, that a large majority of the persons charged are under 30 years of age,—that is to say, compartively young. You will perceive that you have not on this occasion to deal with confirmed criminals, but rather with those who would appear to be just entering upon a career of crime. The offences charged present considerable variety. There is one charge of arson against a woman; three charges of perjury, two of which are against women ; two charges of forgery, one of the persons charged being also a woman ; there are two charges of passing counterfeit coin, an offence which is in the nature of a forged uttering, being based upon a false and ■ fraudulent representation; three persons are charged with assault and robbery ; five persons are charged with thefts of various character, from house - breaking down to obtaining monay or goods by false pretences. In the majority of these cases the evidence is of a simple character, so much so that I will not trouble you with any remarks in respect of them. Your own common sense, apart from any technical knowledge, will enable you to deal with these cases. There are, however, a few cases in respect of which I feel bound to direct you more particularly. In the first place, as to the charge of arson against the woman, I would direct your attention especially to the i circumstances under which the case is brought before you. That the crime of wilfully setting fire to a dwelling had been committed I think there is no doubt. I think the evidence will shew a deliberate attempt and an actual setting fire to the dwellinghouse referred to. But it will be your duty to ascertain whether there is really a prima facie case against the person accused! As yon are aware, it is a very difficult matter to get evidence in cases of this nature. You must not on this account jump to the conclusion that the person accused, or the most likely person to have done such an act, was the guilty party. The quesI tion for you is whether there is really a prima facie case against the person charged. The person accused is wife of the owner of the house, and it will be for you to see whether ' the circumstances are such as to point, generally and unmistakably, to her as the person who committed the crime. There is one difficulty in the case to which I would direct your attention, namely, the apparent want of intention on the part of the person charged. The house, it appears, was insured for a couple of hundred pounds, but it was insured in the name of the mortgagee, so that this woman or her husband could not derive any benefit from burning it, as the insurance would not go to them. It is not clear in this case, as sometimes is in many of such cases, that the 1 person accused was almost necessarily the I person who committed the crime. It may, however, be that evidence will be brought before you sufficient to satisfy your I minds of the probability that notwithstanding the above circumstances, the in.oney would have gone to the mortgagee and not to the owner of the house. There iß'iilsb this peculiarity in the case, that, while no one speaks to any act. of the prisoner which would bring her into immediate connection with,th<j event .that forms the sub-

jeet of the inquiry, no intention is shewn upon the depositions. Then there are two cases of perjury against two young women who will be brought before you. These cases of perjury arise out of a charge laid by the police against a publican for selling grog on a particular Sunday evening. These two girls, upon examination before the Magistrate, appear to have sworn that they were not supplied: -with alcoholic liquors by the publican on the day in question. You will be pleased to recollect, gentlemen, that in cases of perjury you must be satisfied not only that the testimony sworn to by the accused person was untrue, but that it was material to the cause in which that person gave evidence. I have to direct your attention to the fact that the charge against the publican was supplying the alcoholic liquor at an improper time to these girls. In giving their evidence they stated that they had not been supplied with "alcoholic liquor" by the .publican or by any person authorised by him. The evidence in favour of this view is corroborative of their statement, inasmuch as it appears that the liquor supplied was not served by the landlord, or by any person in his employment, but, as the girls say, that some person" then in the house asked them to have some beer, and brought it to them from what place they did not know. Evidence that they were supplied by other persons than the publican, or some person in his employment, or with his authority, is not evidence to support the charge of perjury in this case. There is another matter connected with it that you will have to consider. These girls swore that they were not supplied with "alcoholic" liquor. It will be for you to consider whether it might not fairly be assumed what the girls meant by swearing that they had not been supplied with '' alcoholic" liquor was that they had not obtained spirituous liquor; whether the impression plight not have been': in their mind tnat beer, with which, it is sworn, they were supplied, did not come within the term " alcoholic" liquor, according to their sense of it, and that therefore they have not committed the crime now laid to their charge. In the crime of perjury, as you are aware, there must be a corrupt intention, —a swearing to a falsehood, knowing it to be false, the falsehood being material to the matter then before the Court. The' question therefore for you will be, whether these girls were stating what was false, knowing it to be false, and with an intention to corrupt justice. With regard to one of these girls, it appears that she admitted afterwards that she stated what was false, because she was asked to do so, having been told what to say by the wife of this publican. If such be the case, it is a pity that the person who thus suborned a witness to commit what is alleged as a perjury was not placed beside that girl, and charged with the offence. There is a case of forgery, in which a woman is charged with forging a name to a deed. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar. It appeared that this woman had advanced a sum of money to a person who wished to buy 3 piece of property from a certain native. The person so desiring to purchase also borrowed another sum from a friend, to whom he conveyed the land purchased from the native. But in the meantime it appeared that he had neglected to pay the native duty, so that the conveyance to this friend became void. But the woman who had advanced the greater part of the purchase money desired to obtain a fresh conveyance to herself from the native, and the native consulted his solicitor, who advised him not to sign a fresh conveyance unless a re-con-veyance was obtained from the person in whose favour the conveyance was originally made. The woman undertook to procure this re-conveyanee, and obtained the deed alleged to be signed by the proper person for this purpose, but it ultimately turned out that the signature to that re-conveyance was not in the handwriting of the person who was said to have made it. The prisoner said that she knew nothing of the person to whom the conveyance was made out in the first instance, but that on applying to the person who purchased, he undertook to obtain the re-conveyance for her; that he gave up the deed for that purpose, and it waa returned to her with the signature as it then appeared. This statement was to some extent borne out by a witness who saw the deed handed to her by some person who cannot now be found. It is for you, gentlemen, to say whether she did commit the crime of forgery or whether she may have been imposed upon by some third person. The only other case to which I will direct your attention is a charge against a man for receiving stolen goods. To constitute this offence the goods, in this case a watch, must have been stolen, and the person thus charged must have known that it was stolen. So far as the depositions go there seems no evidence upon them to shew that the property in question was stolen, or that the person knew it was stolen. There is only one witness, the person who arrests the man ;uid finds the watch in his possession. Indeed there is no evidence whatever of the watch'having'been stolen, and if there be no other evidence than that upon the depositions, it will be your duty to throw out the bill. The above are the only cases upon which I think it necessary to direct you. The other cases are so simple and so clear that you will have no difficulty in dealing with them without requiring any further direction from me. I would desire that you retire to your room, and the several bills of indictment will be brought before you. Larceny.— Frances Dwyer (2G), a governess, was arraigned upon an indictment charging her with stealing property—wearing apparel, &c, —to the value of £19 from the dwelling-house of Joseph Bennett, a linen-draper in Auckland. The prisoner pleaded guilty.—His Honor, after a suitable admonition, sentenced the prisoner to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour.— Admiral Barton, alias Sulcllffe (16), pleaded guilty to a similar offence, and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. Forgery.— James Axam, late a constable in the Auckland Constabulary, was arraigned upon four separate indictments, charging him with forgery. The details of this case have been published at great length, and the conduct of the prisoner invested him with considerable notoriety. To two of these indictments the prisoner pleaded guilty. To the indictment charging him with forging the name of Neil Campbell, a tailor, of Albert-street, upon which he obtained £20 from Mr. Lockhart, of the North Shore, he pleaded not guilty.—Mr. Lockhart was examined, and gave evidence to the same effect as he gave in the Police Court.—Neil Campbell said he never gave the prisoner any authority to use his name.—The prisoner was found guilty. — He also pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having forced the name Emma Burgoyne Wells, a storekeeper in Wyndham-street. —Mrs. Wetb deposed to the forged signature not being in her handwriting.—The jury, upon this indictment, returned a verdict of "not guilty."—His Honor, having addressed the prisoner at some length as to the consequences of his acts, and warning him against the repetition of them, sentenced the prisoner to two yeara' imprisonment, with hard labour, for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. Passisg Base Coin.— E. Thompson (19) and David William Wilson (19) pleaded guilty to an indictment charging them with this offence, and were sentenced each to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. .Assault.— F. Reeves (29), and John Smith (19), both seamen, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them with having assaulted Constable Moar, of the Armed Contabulary. Both pleaded guilty. —His Honor sentenced each prisoner to nine months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Assault and Bobbery.— Hohepa Jvgarangi (35), Horomona (30), and Eruera, aboriginal natives, were arraigned upon an imUctment; char£ng fitted an Thomis Mathews, a bushmanT and robbed him upon the highway near X town of Ormond, of £4 10r» money. Eruera pleaded guilty to the indictment. The other.two natives pleaded not guilty.—The.prosecutor deposed that on the 12th of July last he was proceeding along

the high road near Ormond when he was attacked by the three natives Hohei. a Btmck him with a rail on the head, and Eruera took his money from him. He swore positively to Hohepa havong struck him" although Eruera declared, when pleading gu%. «"«* he * w £s the man who boat the P aken »- T ? e . witness also spoke to Horomona being present at the time. Constable Mills, stationed at Ormond, deposed to receiving information of the assault from a person named Brigham. The defence was in effect that the prosecutor had in some way interfered with a native woman. He admitted himself that he went to the Maoris' settlement; that he had been drinking before he went there; that" he brought a bottle of whiskey with him; and it turned out that this woman, who could give the most important evidence, had not been brought to Auckland.—His Honor thought it most unfortunate that this woman's evidence had not been procured.— " Hohepa made the following statement: That a woman named Rahi, sister to Eruera, was ill-used by the prosecutor, and that Eruera, havin" heard of it, resolved to pursue Mathews, who had left the settlement. He asked the other two prisoners to go with him,' which they did. He described the altercation which took place between Eruera and Mathews. He surther stated that the sum taken from Mathews by Eruera was £2 (utu), and not £4 10s.—Horomona admitted being present upon the occasion. His Honor said the evidence was most unsatisfactory; he thought the jury must accept the evidence of the prosecutor with some caution. He admitted he had been drinking before going to the settlement, he brought drink with him to the settlement, so it was a serious question how far the prosecutor was capable at the time of firing a strictly correct account of all that appened.— Eruera made a statement to the effect that he heard his sister crying in the middle of the night in her own whare. He first thought her husband had been beating her, but she told him that Mathews had illused her because she would not yield to his wishes. Mathews knocked her about and otherwise ill-used Rahi. He then called up his two companions to accompany him in pursuit of the European. The prisoner gave a similar account of the encounter with the prosecutor on the public: road.—The jury found Hohepa not guilty, and Horomona guilty.—Hohepa was discharged.—The sentence on the two convicted prisoners was deferred. Discharged.— Annie Absolom and Ellen Podesta —the indictment charging them with perjury having been ignored by the Grand Jury—were discharged. The Court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock, till ten o'clock on Tuesday morning.

offers of compromise had not been enter, tained, and he did not even know whether it was in his power to compromise the matter or not. He had no thought of getting money from the defendant by these proceedings. To the Bench: On Friday I gave my wife a pound. I had nothing td drink on that day. " Tho Court adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Tuesday. The defendant s bail was enlarged.