LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5583, 7 October 1879, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT,—Criminal Sittings. Monday, October G. fßefore Mr. Justice Gillies.] The Criminal Session of the Quarterly Circuit (Juurt was opened this morniug. (J ia Houor took his Beat ou the bench at 11 o'clock. The following gentlemen were sworn of the Graud Jury :—John Buchanan, Grafton Koad (foreman); Walter Ewen, Parnell; Malcolm Niccol, Devonpert; Charles E. Kuapp, Ponsonby; William Lodder, Remuera ; David Nolan, EUerslie ; William Rashley Mowbray, Parnell ; John McLcod, Pousonbyßoad; William Flood, St. George's Bay Road; John Charles Irving, Howick; Mathew Slattery, Devonport; ii. Mortimer Macdonald, Grafton Road; Nicholas Sims, Newton Road ; William Henry Cross, York street; Frederick Geurge Ewiogtm, New 'North R>ad; William Frank Buckland, Remuera; John Chambers. Carlton Gor& ! Road; Robert Hartley, NeUon street; William Anderson, Pon3onby Ucad. , His Honor addressed the Grand Jury as follows : — I Mr. Foreman and gentK men, —On this occasion thei e are twenty prisoners to be brought before you, charged with some nineteen offences. The tffeiice r , with one or

two exceptions, arc not of a very grave or aggravated character. The prisoners are of all ages, all countries, and u 1 religions, and the crimes ulleged against them are very various—almost as various as is usual on these occasions. But while the offences that will be brought before you aie not serious, I cannot shut my eyes, nor can jou, to the fact that eince the last sitting of this court there have occurred serious outrages, the perpetrators of whicli have ot been brought tn justice, and, in fact, altno.-tno stej.s have been taken for that pmp se. This, you must feel aa I do, is a ver> unsatisfactory state of affairs. So long as crime remains unpunished, so long as the strong arm of the law is paralysed by political c msid-ra-tions, we cannot hope for any feeling of security for the lives and property of set lers,

nor caii we expect anything else but a repetition of similar occaricnces. I am sure you, wi:h myself, cannot but regret thia state of affairs. Amongst the oSfemes that will be brought before you there are a few to which I would direct your sp'rial attention. There i< ouc case of forgery iu which probably it will appear to you that the nanib of the person put on the bill was not forged, that is to say that it was not written by the person whose signature it professed to be. Forgery is the making of a false instrument either l>y signiog the name of auotker person without his authority or altering the document itself, which may have been pioperly signed, or puttiug to it tliQ name of a He itious person. In the case before you is will h-s sisewn that the signature could not be that ot the person by whom it professed to be written. You must please to icmember Ui s : that the siguing of another perso ''a nam - is not forgery if it is don«* at t:ie ivqti h'.. of or oy authority of that person. I remind you of this because, in the evidence that will be brought before you, there appears some indication that there may n.ivt; bei n sunc authority. There is a case of p< rjury to which I would also dirict your special attention. You will please to remeni.n-r that the crime of perjury consists 11 t merely in swearing falsely in a court of justice; it must be a false, wilful, aud eoriupt s»\earing to some material fact as evidence iu the proceeding before the court. It is not perjury the swearing falsely to a fuut tmu has no bearing ou the matter wnicn forms th.; Mib ject of the inquiry. In the tnat will come before you it would appear that a persjn, having obtained a against a Maoti, applies for aud 01 tams a judgment summons, but is eoi.fr »nted out i;u i.cc». k i'iu with a docum* nt >aid t> have hee-j f gm d by him, aud which purporied to b<s au assigmneut—although the document could not have the effect of an as :g im.-ui— professing to make over the debt, to a third s 11. When the judgment, ere litor was thus confronted he denied that the signature was his. It wiil be f ryou 10 say whether tin re i- not btrong t v deuce that it wai lih figu.itunv I> it you must aatisfy yourselven that at the time He h \ore he knew it was not his signature. If by misapprehension * r forjeiiuiur-s* lie may have made a ni.siake t»<en he would not be guilty of perjury. I lien arises the question whether ihi* do um< nt was material to the i.-fcUe hiring tn»»d. I have ver> g'«at ditliculty in dinuung _\otiou this point. It is certa nly r.ot an asM^nment; »c is quite valueless ; it is made without any tion being 011 the lace of it; it is a document revocable at any turn, aud would not iuterfere with the judgment creditor getting his order uuder the judgment summons. Ic may be argued that it was material iu this sense, that if the money had been recovered by it, then the debtor would be bound to a third party. But I am not prepared to direct you at present whether it is material or not without having the aid of counsels' argument on the subject. If you are satisfied that this person swore falsely that the name on the document was not his signature then you had better leave the matter to the petty jury, with the evidence before them as to the facts, and the materiality to be determined after the argument. There is a case of indecent assault, iri which a man gets iuto bed with two young girls, one between eleven and twelve years of age and the other between five and six years. There is no evidence of any act of impropriety other than the iudeccnt act of getting into bed with thieo girls, which was unquestionably an indecent act—of that there can be no doubt. You must be satisfied there was some indecent act, some act of persoual assault, some touching of the body in addition totho indecent act I have mentioned, to constitute the offence of iudecent assault. There is a charge of assault of which we have heard a good deal through the ordiuary channels of information. It is a charge against the master and mate of a ship of an as- 1 sault upon a seaman, one of the crew, by | coniiuiug aud puttiug him in irons and other* wise ill-usiug him. You will remember gentleineu that the master of a vessel has very large powers on board his ship. He has a right to do things on board hia ship which would be an assault if committed upon land, r' oerisarily so ou account of the valuable pi v pcrty, ship and cargo, and the many lives which the master has often in his charge. The law has been laid down as to the authority of the master of a vessel that ho is bound to maintain order and discipline under the guidance of justice, moderation, and good sense. Tho master may order a delinquent seaman to be confined or even inflict corporal punishment. This applies not only to the masters of ships at sea but to those in a foreigu port, at the same time such punishment must be commensurate, and be applied with moderation. A master of a ship is not obliged to wait for an overt act of mutiny, and ho may use violent means for the puri pose of preventing au act of mutiny. !3ut when the captain of a ship exceeds the bounds of moderation lie becomes a trespasser, aud he may be sued for the trespass in a court of common law. You will therefore see that the mister has absolute power to punish an insubordinate seaman, but he must do so with moderation, and it will be for you to say whether the master in this case exceeded the bounds of moderation. If there had. been acts of insubordination on board his vessel he was clearly right in preventing such insubordination amongst his crew. There are two cases in

which offences are alleged to have been committed upon natives. Ono is a case of alleged rape on a native woman ; a-otlier case is a charge of assault by striking a native with a riding whip. I need not detail the facts to you; but I should remind you that in these cases you wili do the same justice to natives as you would to Europeans in the same circumstauces. You will make no difference in regard to race on account of l any matter which may be charged. There ; are several cases of larceny. There is a peculiarity running through th^m—if that can be called a peculiarity which is becoming 80 common. I allude to the number of offences committed against drunken men while sleeping in front of public - house bars. There are several cases of this kind on the calendar. I have mentioned these cases that your consideration should be directed to the fact, which I think is also a matter worthy of the attention of the Legislature, so that they might make provision by statute that, if publicans will permit drunken per-ons to sleep in their bars the publicans should be held responsible for the safety of such peraous in same manner as they were responsible for the money and valuables of lodgers while dwelling in their house?. If the law allows persons to get drunk and then fall asleep in their bars, tuey should put such persons out of the reach of being robbed by any person out of the street. Their duty iu respect to persons drunk and asleep in their bars should be the same as towards other persons sleeping—say, as lodgers—in their houses. You will please, gentlemen, retire to your chamber, and proceed with tha business that will be laid before you. No Bills. — The iud ctraents preferred against Andrew Bolero, a Spaniard, charged with indecetit assault, and Alfred Durham, charged with forgery, were ignored by the Grand Jury. Breaking and Entering.—Jjfee i (4S) and JVillicnn Hfiddleton (34), charged | with breakiug and entering a dwelling, 1 pleaded guilty to the indictment. A previous conviction was proved against the elder prisoner. The younger prisoner said it was his lirst offence, aud that it was all through dr.nk. Mee was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, Middleton to one year, also with hard labour.

* Stealing from tiie Pjsrsos.—Catherine * Taylor (30) pleaded guilty to a charge of stealiug £22 from the person of Thomas CjnuoJly. Sentenced to a year'* impriaonmeiit with hard labour. 1 Stealing from tiie Person.—Jeremiah ; (46) and John McCarthy (3S) were. arraigned upon an indictment charging them with steding £20 in notes from the person of William Garside. The prosecutor deposed 1 that he went into the Britomart Hotel on the evening in question, where he saw the prisoners. He treated them, and after having several drinks he sat down and fell 1 asleep. He remembered being roused by .Regan, who said he and his mate wanted more drinks. The landlady advised him not to have auy more drink, as he had had sufficient. He sat down again and fell asleep. About 7 o'clock in the evening Regan told him he had better go home, rs his wife and children would be uneasy about him. Both men led him out of the hotol. Regan pulled the purse outof his pocket. He was next pitched into a mudhole, and there l-.-ft.—Andrew Fernandez, landlord of the hotel, proved that the prosecutor and the two prisoners were in the house on the evening in question. The prosecutor treated them, and after ha ving some drinks fell asleep. Regan wanted to take the prostcutor home because his wife would be uneasy. The witness advised him to let the man ri'st for a while. After the three left the house he heard there was a man in the mud-hole outside. He went out, and found the prosecutor there. The man was almost smothered with mud and slime.—Henry O'Brien, a fiiti-dealer, described the state of the prosecutor when tiken out of the hole as tleplorable. • — Regan was found guilty, and as an old offeuder sentenced to four years penal servitude. He had previously been sentenced to four years penal servitude for a similar offence, but it was shewn that for a considerable time he had obtained his living by working for it. McCarthy was acquitted and discharged. Stealing from tub Persjn.—Minn in Burke (20) a prostitute, was arraigned upon an indictment charging her with stealing £10 in notes and one sovereign from the person of Denis Gleeson, while sleeping in a room in the Greyhound Hotel. The prosecutor and the prisoner was drinking together in the hotel. The prosecutor fell asleep. The prisoner shoitly after changed a £5-note with the barmaid aud she gave the barmaid another £5-note to take care of for her. She had some driuks. The prosecutor, when he awoke, discovered his loss and found that a portion of his money was in charge of the barmaid. The prisoner was arrested, and most of the money was accounted for. The prisoner said she took the money, but did not intend to steal it. If Bhe had intended to steal it she would not have giveu it to the care of other people. Uho jury found the prisoner guilty, and she was seutenced to a year's imprisonment with hard labour. j Stealing from a Dwelltng. — John Fitzyerahl (21) waß arraigned upon an indictment charging him with stealing a pawnticket, value £410s, a gold chain, a solitaire, aud other articles from the bedroom of J. W. hcndall, in the Governor Browne Hotel. The prosecutor said he missed the things from his bedroom. The prisoner was setn in the bedroom of the prosecutor on the night the goods were stolen. He was turned out of the houßo by Mr. Dunningham in consequence of his having gone into the bedroom, wnere he had no right to go. He was suspected, and arrested by the police. Upon being scorched, the gold obain and solitaire wero found in his waistcoat pocket. The prisoner said he found the articles in the yard. The jury found liim guilty, and, as there was a second charge of larceny against the prisoner, sentence was deferred. This concluded the business. Tuesday's Business.—The cases of J. E. Murphy, R. Robertson, John Fitzgerald (second ease) will be called for trial on Tuesday morning. The court adjournod at 5 o'clock.