LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4567, 4 July 1876, Page 2 (Supplement)

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— Criminal Sittings. Monday, July 3. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.] Tite quarterly session of the Circuit Court was opened yesterday. His Honor took his seat on the bench at 11 o'clock. The following gentlemen were sworn of the Grand Jury:—Josiah Clifton Firth (foreman), Thomas Whitaon, William Frank Buckland, Thoma3 Hunt Ivey, Abraham Boardman, Albert Beetham, John Fairburn, Patrick Comisky, George Samuel Graham, John Rogers Harrison, Allan Kerr Taylor, George William Jones, George Schwartz Kissling, Richard James Taylor, James McCosh Clark, William 1 'Earl; William Innis Taylor, John McEffor Shera. His Honor charged, the Grand Jury as follows : —Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen, — The calendar with which you have to deal on this occasion is rather a long one—there being no less than twenty-one cases set down for trial. But it will be for you to deal with only nineteen for the present, inasmuch as there are two charges mentioned in respect, of which no depositions appear, so that it will be necessary to ask you to return at a future day for the purpose of finding on these two cases, if necessary. In regard to these two cases, not having seen the depositions I cannot give you. any direction. In four instances there are two charges againt the i same person. None of the cases, I am happy to say, are of a very serious nature or of a very aggravated character. Three cases that will be brought before you relate to charges of stealing from stores or houses, and there is another singular feature connected with them, they are against Maoris. It is at least satisfactory to observe that if the Maoris are becoming habituated to the European forms of crime, they are at the same time becoming amenable to European form of law. There appears to be only one case in which the person charged belongs to the habitually criminal class. I observe that a considerable proportion of the accused persons are recent arrivals, at the same time I am bound to say they are not persons of the class known as introduced immigrants, but apparently "stray" arrivals—sailors and such like. The offences charged are for the most part, ordinary theft, either from the person, ; dwelling-house, store, or vessel. This offence under these several forms you are so familial - with, that I need to give you no direction in respect to them.' There are two cases of embezzlement by railway officials, one of robbery with violence, one of stabbing, and I am glad to say, only one of chequeforging or uttering, an offence so common on previous occasions. In regard to these cases, therefore, it will be unnecessary for me to address you specially, inasmuch as from the depositions the evidence appears to be tolerably clear, and they are generally offences with the nature o! which you are also familiar. There is one case of larceny in which the priso-. ner alleges — probably with some truth —that he "found the purse." Now, if he found tho purse, and had no means of knowing to whom it belonged, and bo retained it

merely, then he would not be guilty; but if, on the other hand, he had the means of knowing to whom it belonged, or it he knew or could ascertain, and refrained from making enquiry with the intention of applying the contents to ins own use, then he would be guilty of larceny. It is for you to judge of the animus of the accnaed, for it _ is the animus that is the essence of the crime, and this you will have to judge from the surrounding circumstances. There is a case of setting fire to an open ti-tree shed covering some bags of gum. You will have to satisfy yourselves that the setting fire was wilful and malicious, and not the result of carelessness. There is a case of selling a gun to a native, being an offence against the Arms Act. The defence is that the gun was left with the native for the purpose of the native supplying the person, thus leaving it, with pigeons; that the native gave security to the extent of the value of the gun that it should be returned uninjured. The evidence on the depositions somewhat favours this defence. It will be for you to say whether it was a bona fide loan of the gun to the native, or merely a cover for the sale of it. If you are satisfied it was a bona fide loan, then you will ignore the bill; but if, on the other hand, you are satisfied that it was a mere cover for the sale of the gun, then you will find a true bill. At the last sittings of this Court there was a case of bribery, and on the present occasion, another case will be brought before you. On the previous occasion, the charge was against the agent of the successful candidate. On this occasion, the charge is brought against one of the unsuccessful candidates. The charge you will find supported only by the uncorroborated testimony of one witness, a fact which would probably make you hesitate before returning a true bill, when you find uncorroborated testimony as to the words used by the defendant, to the effect that he said, " I will give any one a pound for his vote," or, " I am open to give a pound for a vote," without any evidence whatever being produced, of money tendered and accepted, or offered and accepted. Looking to the absence of any such facts, 1 think you will not be far wrong if you find "no true bilL" Upon reading the depositions I was somewhat surprised at finding that the Magistrate had committed upon evidence so meagre. There is a charge brought against a woman of giving a false name to the Registrar upon registering the birth of her illegitimate child. The charge is, that she gave the name (Wilson) of the man who waa the father of her child, instead of her own name, being a widow. It'. Is true that she stated that she was married to Wilson, but that being a question which the Registrar had no right to ask or she to answer, and which did not require to be entered on the register, she could not be indicted for that false statement. She appeared to have answered_ all other particulars. She gave her maiden name, her widow name, but she added the name of the man Wilson, who was the father of the child, and with whom she was living. I think it is open to doubt how far this is an offence against the statute, but if it be one, it is one of such a venial character that I think it a pity the country should be put to the ■ expense of a prosecution for misdemeanour for having given a wrong name when, if she had not applied to the Registrar, at all, instead of being indicted for a misdemeanour, ehe would be only liable to a penalty of £10. It is for you to say whether the offence has been committed, and whether the accused should be put upon her trial. These are all the cases to which I thinks it necessary to ask your attention. I will probably have to ask your return on a future day during the sittings, as I have already informed you, for the purpose of considering those cases in relation to which the 'depositions are not yet before the Court. In the meantime I will ask you, gentlemen, to retire to your chamber, and deal with the bills" of ■indictment that will be laid before you.

True Bills.—The Grand Jury retired, and returned with true bills in the case of George Milton, forgery and uttering; Samuel Pembroke and Edward Bribolais, robbery with violence; Joe Lewie, stealing from a warehouse ; A lexandtr Andrew, malicious injury toproperty.

Forgery and Uitering.— George Milton, a mere youth, pleaded guilty to this offence, and, after an admonition from the Bench, was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Stealing from a Warehouse.— Joe Lewi* pleaded guilty to two offences of this kind, and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, with hard labour for each— the sentences to run concurrently.

Eobbkry with Violence.— Samuel Pembroke, seaman, and Edward Brybolais, a Swede, also a seaman, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them win robbing an old man named Charles Wentworth, a sailmaker, of a sum of £7 15s, with violence. The prisoners pleaded not guilty, and were put upon their trial. The particulars of the case were published some time ago, and the facts are tolerably familiar. All the parties were employed on board the ship Merwamjee Frainjee; the former as sailors, and the latter as aailmaker. On the 18th of April Wentworth, who intended to remain in JNew Zealand, was paid off, receiving from the captain a sum of £8, due to him for wages. The two other men had come ashore, and met Wentworth, who was looking for lodgings, and asked them to drink. They went to the Park Hotel, Wellesley-street East, where they had drinks, Wentwortb, "who is an old man, paying for them, becaxise he knew their circumstances. They then brought the old man down to a gully, and nothing-more was seen of him until he was met by a man on Constitution Hill, to whom he told what had happened to him, viz., that he had been robbed and maltreated. He asked to be directed to the Police Station, where he gave information. The prisoner Pembroke, was arrested the same night in the Prince of Wales Theatre, having between £3 and £4 in his possession, whereas he was known to be destitute of any money during, the morning. It was proved by an assistant to Mr. Williamson, the tobacconist, of Queen street, that both prisoners purchased between fifteen and sixteen shillings' worth of tobacco the same day. The prisoner, Brybolais, was arrested the same night, also having money in his possession, having been known to be without any money in the morning. A lodging-house keeper, named Haurahan, of Coburg-street, where Wentworth lodged for some time, deposed to seeing all three men together, and the old man sending for beer for the other two. As to the Tiolence, the prosecutor, when seen after the robbery, was bleeding, his clothes were covered with mud and he appeared to be in "a deplorable state." The prisoners handed in written statements to the Court, .which they wished to be laid before the jury. His Honor having summed up the evidence, the jury retired to consider their Yerdict, and after a' short absence returned into Court, with a verdict of "guilty , " against both prisoners.—His Honor, in passing sentence, said the offence was somewhat heinous, from the fact of the prosecutor being an old man, who was exhibiting a kind feeling towards them—and dastardly and cowardly considering his age, they being men in the prime vigor of life. He sentenced the prisoners each to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.

Stealing prom a Dwelling. — Jolm Wilson, alias Laheman, pleaded guilty to an. indictment charging him with stealing from the dwelling-house of Joseph Sculler, of Papakura, £16" 16s 6d ; also, of stealing from William Candy wearing apparel, &c. The prisoner said he would change his mode of life, and promised never auain to appear before any Court of Justice in...such a position.—His Honor hoped the prisoner would keep his promise, but the Court, looking at the nature of his offence, must pass upon him a severe sentence, as a warning to others. Sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. ;

Breaking and Entering.— Tuhura, ':& native, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with breaking and entering a warehouse belonging toC. 8e11,.0f Churchill, WaikatOj and stealing therefrom £33 10a lid.—His Honor sentenced the prisoner to one year's imprisonment, with hard labour,

Ranohi, a native, -was arraigned, butthe trial was postponed to Tuesday morning. This ease is not in the Calendar.

I Recognizances Estreated.—Messrs. Vercoe and Poyntor, witnesies in the case of Donohoe, charged with. " stealing from premises," were called, and did not answer. A witness named Hodgson was called in the same manner, bat did not answer. The three several witnesses were allied three several times by the Registrar "on their recognizances," and the names were severally called by constables throughout the precincts of the Court. —Hi 3 Honor ordered their recognisances to be estreated. This makes each of the witnesses liable to forfeiture of £100 to the Queen. It appears to be a feeling among some witnesses that they may not heed their summonses until apprised by the police of the necessity of being in attendance. It is well that ifc should be generally known that it is no part of the duty of the police to apprise witnesses that they are required to be in attendance upon a certain day. The responsibility rests entirely upon the witnesses to be in attendance upon the day and at the hour mentioned in their summonses. They are liable to forfeit £100 in case of default. It should also be observed that the forfeiture is prescribed by the statute, between which and defaulting witnesses the Judges are very an willing to interpose any discretion they may have. It ie the more necessary to lay stress upon this, as the Grand Jury have not finished their labours, and will meet again on Wednesday. The Grand Jury yesterday complained to Hi 3 Honor that they were delayed in their business in consequence of the nonattendance of important witnesses.

No Bill.—The bill against Eliza Birdwood, for giving a false name to the Registrar of Births, was ignored, and the defendant was discharged.

The cases- set down for hearing on Tuesday, 4th (this day), are those of George Pollard, Jeremiah Pynne, Banoki, and Alexander Andrew.

■ The Court adjourned to 10 a. m. on Tuesday.