LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5509, 14 July 1879, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Circuit Sittings. '■ ' Saturday, 12th July, 1879. ' [Before Mr. Justice Gillies and Common' Junes.] His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock. Stealing from a Yisskl. — Te Kani (a native), was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with stealing from a vessel at Tanranga, on the 4th of April last, a case of sundries : (sardines, jams, &c.), a two-gallon keg of whiskey, and a two-gallon keg of rum. .—Mr. Brookfield prosecuted for the.Crown. —George Waterson said he was a trader between Tauranga and Katikati. He loaded his vessel (a yacht, painted white) on that evening with stores of various kinds. It was a moonlight night. He left the vessel about 10 o'clock, returning at 11 o'clock. He observed the figure of a man in the stemsheets. He asked the man, who turned oat to be the prisoner, what he was doing there. The prisoner pretended to be drunk. Witness turned him off. After a search he found another native in the vessel, who also went away. A short time afterwards he missed the case of sundries (produced), also two kegii of spirits. He had to replace these goods at his own cost. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. Hesketh as to the identity of the prisoner. Ho Baid the man he saw in the stern-sheets was a smoeth-faced (without tatoo) young man. Ho believed the prisoner was the same person. He would not like to Bwear positively. A man named Rawhiri had been brought to him for identification. He had said that Rawhiri was something like the young man. He could not see the features distinctly, but he judged from his side face. Witness had good sight, but his sight was not so good as when ho _ was a younger man. Although he had said that Rawhiri was something like the man he saw in the stern-sheets, he still believed that the prisoner was the man. He heard of prisoner's connection with the robbery from a person called "One Thumb Jack." —Rawhiri, a native, was next examined. He said that he knew the prisoner. Saw him on the night of the robbery. The prisoner said he was "going to steal," and wanted witness to go with him. Witness refused. The prisoner then said ho would go by himself. He saw the prisoner subsequently drinking with other natives. He believed the drink was taken from the vessel. The witness was examined at groat length. Ho admitted that he had himself been charged with larceny and imprisoned. Ho had stolen things, but that had nothing to do with this case.—Constable Whelan, of the Armed Constabulary, stationed at Tanranga, said ho received information of the robbery from the prosecutor. Witness went in search of the prisoner, and found him in a boat-house amongst a lot of other natives, who used the place to sleep in, Upon interrogating the prisoner, whose home was zwt the other side of the water, he said that his boat had left him behind. The prisoner had a shawl round him, and he at first pretended to be asleep. There had been a good deal of drinking going on among the natives during the whole of the day after the robbery. He took the prisoner into custody. Mr. Hesketh, in his address to the jury, Baid that the evidence was insufficient to convict the prisoner. It was far more probable that the second man had stolen the goods. The jury would not accept the evidence of. Rawhiri, who confessed that he had himself been convicted of larceny.—His Honor said it was probable that two men were concerned in the robbery, and the prisoner might not have taken the goods himself. But if he was on board this cutter to aid and assist the other—if he took a part by covering or concealing the other, or drawing off the attention of the master of the vessel so as to enable the other man to commit the robbery, the prisoner would be equally guilty.— The jury retired at 1 o'clock to consider their verdict. After a deliberation, which lasted three hours and a-half, they returned into Court with the following verdict: —" Guilty as an accomplice."— His Honor said this was a verdict of guilty. —Tho Foreman of the jury said the case presented a difficulty to the jurymen, who were desirous of "getting in the other man" if possible.—The prisoner being called on to say why judgment should net be passed upon him, said he did not commit the robbery. It was Rawhiri who took the things. He had nothing to do with it. —Mr. Hesketh in mitigation of punishment, said the prisoner hrd been in prison three months. —His Honor said the jury had found that the prisoner was a participator in this robbery. The Gourt was disposed to believe that the prisoner -had been led into his present position by some other person. Nothing was recorded against the prisoner. As this was apparently his first offence, as he had been in confinement three months, and as he was still very young, and in the hope that he would not be guilty of a like offence again, a comparatively light sentence would be passed on him. Sentenced to one month's imprisoment, with hard labour. Cattle-stealing. —Hohapata was arraigned upon an indictment charging him' with this offence. He pleaded " not guilty." —The Crown Prosecutor said that this was one of those cases which were only too frequent, and which were more numerous this session than former sessions, where the depositions failed to disclose sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the prisoners given in charge. He believed that in the transaction which led to the prisoner's committal, the prisoner was asserting a right to property. The evidence certainly did not establish a felonious intent. He would not offer any evidence in support of the indictment.—His Honor was of opinion that the question involved was one of disputed right. The remedy, if any wrong was committed, was by civil process, and not by a criminal prosecution.—The jury returned a verdict of " Not guilty," and the prisoner was discharged.