LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6825, 2 October 1883, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings, Monday, October 1. [Before Mr. Justice Gillies.] The Crowh Sittings of the Quarterly Circuit Court for gaol delivery were commenced this morning. His Honor took his seat on the bench at eleven a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn of the Grand Jury :—John Lawford (foreman), Neil Bright Alexander, Henry Allright, John Batger, Andrew Bell, Josiah Fox, Thomas Francis Boylan, John Buchanan, John Buchanan (Avondale), John Fairburo, "William Flood, Edward Bayley Fraser, John Gordon, Alfred Howard, George Edward Ireland, Robert Edward Isaacs. His Honor delivered his charge to the Grand Jury as follows : —Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen, —I am happy to say that your duties on the present occasion will be comparatively light. The number of prisoners to be dealt with appears" large, but the offences of which they are a«cused are not very serious, neither are they of an aggravated nature. The evidence in most of these cases is simple, and by no means voluminous. There are 23 persons, charged with 17 offences. Of these, four are offences of the character known as offences against the person—one is for an assault, another is for assault and robbery, another is for indecent assault, and another for an unnatural offence. The other thirteen are what ara called offences against property—two are charges of forgery and uttering, four of housebreaking, one of horae-stealiog, four of larceny or ordinary theft, two of malicious injury to property. It is only to the two last mentioned offences that I feel it necessary to instruct you. You know already what larceny is,what iheft,what house-break-ing is. You often have dealt with the evidence necessary to establish such charges. With regard to the charges of malicioua injury to property, it meaus, I should tell you, " malicious," that is to say wanton destruction of the propeity. It does not require necessarily that there should be any malice against the owner; it means, in short, destroying property in a wanton manner without a just cause. A person who acta in the bond fide belief that the property is his own, if he is acting bona fide according to his rights, he is not guilty of such an offence. In the present calendar four men are charged with this crime. In one case the prosecutor was living in a hut near the cemetery. The evidence goes to show that this party in possession was warned to leave the premises. Three men accused were instructed apparently by the proper lawful custodians of the cemetery to eject the occupant from possession. In his absence they removed and destroyed certain household property. This, by itself, would not show malice, such as is contemplated by the law in these cases. It would show, merely, an assertion on the part of the defendants that they wtre acting according to what they thought was their right. If they were acting according to a bona fide belief that they had a right to the custody of this hut, then they could not be looked upon as guilty of the offence charged against them. But. if they were acting with spite or ill-will, or " wanlonness " in Buch acts of destruction, then, they must be regarded as committing such offence. The other case is somewhat different. A person who had been in possession of premises for some time, and had been adjudged improperly in possession (judgment having been given against him for mesne J profits), immediately that judgment had been | pronounced in a decision of this Court, commences to tear the house down. In such a case as this there would be evidence of malice, inasmuch as this destruction was wanton, and the person accused must have known, after judgment was obtained, that' he had no right to regard the property as ! Wb own. The question for you to consider is whether there is " malice," in the view of the law, in one or both of these cases. You, have also to consider whether the evidence j shows, a belief on the pait of the persons accused were acting on their rights. ~ I have ! no need to call yoar attention tj any of the other charges, the evidence being very simple. During the recent - session of the General Assembly there appears to have been a good deal of legislation affecting both , civil and criminal procedure, and the law has been considerably altered, but to what extent I am unable to inform you, because no copies of the Acts have been as ytt sent me. You will be goud enough to retire to your rooms, where the bills will be laid before you. I True Bills.—The Grand Jury, after a [ brief retirement, returned into Court with the following true bills :— Huku Hoera, horae stealing; Michael O'Brieu, bieaking and entering; James Watson, forgery and uttering; Annie Quinn, forgery and uttering ; James Murphy, J. Uolding, watch robbery ; R. Richardß, malicious injury to property. Horse Stealing.— BuLu Hocra (22) was arrainged upon an indictment charging him with stealing a bay gelding, on the 19th July la»t.—Mr. Hudson Williamson appeared for the Crown.— The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to twelve mouths' imprisonment, with bard labour. Breaking and Entering. — Michael O'Brien (54) wis arraigned upon an indict l ment charging him with stealing, oil the 29th of June last, from the whare of James Johnston, near Kaukapakapa, 4ewt. of gum. Mr. Hudson Williamson appeared for the Crown. The prosecutor deposed that on the day in question he loft his whare. He locked the door and placed the key in a place where no one else could know where to find it. While absent from home he broke his leg, which prevented him returning to his whare for some time. But he heard in the mean time that his whare had been opened. He sent a young man named O3baldiaton to the house, told him where the key was, and instructed him to closs the house up again. He was informed by Oabildiston that there was no gum in the whare. Information was given to the police. [Two sacks filled with gum were shown to the witness. J tie identified a large proportion of the gum as his "own scraping." He swore positively as to tbe ideutity of the gum. He was in a position to swear tUat there wasno gumintheKaiparadistrict scraped likeit.—Frank Dye deposed that he bought three different parcels of gum from the prisoner. The first parcel was between lowt. and 2cwt., the second between 2ctot. and 3cwt. The third parcel contained about three-quarters of a cwt. The witness identified portions of the gum produced, which the prosecutor deposed to as part of hia property. —Constable Naughton deposed to arresting the prisoner at Drinnan's publichouse.—Thomas Osbaldiston confirmed the: evidence of the prosecutor as to being sentV to the whare and locking it up. The prosecutor told him where the key- was. Witness found the key in the place described ■ and locked the house, but the gum was gone. —His Honor having summed up the evidence, the jury found the prisoner guilty. There were three previous convictions for vagrancy against the prisoner, who was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour. Forgery and Uttering.— James Watson, alias McGafney, 39, was arraigned upon an indiotmentcharginghim with forgingacheque for £6 9s 6d, and uttering the same to John Gilmour, draper, Symonds-street, knowing it to be forged.—The prisoner, when called on to plead, Baid he could not even write his own name, consequently he could not have forged the cheque.—The prosecutor deposed that the prisoner came into the shop, and purchased a quantity of goods, wearin*apparel. The prisoner presented the cheque [produced] in payment. Witness sent to tlw bank immediately alter receiving the cheque to make inquiries. Hia messenger was informed that there was no account there in the name of the person who signed it. The cheque purported to bu signed by Scott Bell, a farmer.—Detective Hughes produced the ch.que, and "said he arresced the prisoner in the Greyhound Hotel. Prisoner sold some of the clothing to a pawnbroker £or 30s.—James Bell deposed that the prisoner was once in bis employment. Could not say whether prisoner'could write.—The prisoner, in addressing the jury, said he could not write, and therefore could not forge a cheque. He admitted passing the cheque, which he received from a third party.—His Honor summed up the evidence, and said that the forgery was an extremely clumsy one. It waß extraordinary that any person would take such a cheque in exchange for goods, and give cash as well as the goods in return for it. The way in which these cheques were taken by shopketpers was a grent encouragement to crime, and could not be too severely reprehended.—The jury retired, and after a short deliberation found the prisoner guilty of uttering-adding to their verdict tho following rider:—"The custom of taking cheques in the manner described from unknown persons without sufficient precaution cannot be too strongly discountenanced." The Foreman of the jury said that the cheque form in the present case was obtained from a large book of forms, not a small one. He believed that many persons — and these

persons even doing very considerable business,'very loosely and carelessly* allowed some of the forms to slip out, or left their chequebooks in the control of othtr persons. In this case, the cheque form being tak- n from a large book, instead of a small ooe, its destination conld not be so effectually traced. —His Honor: I quite agree with the jury that every possible effort should be made to put down this practice of taking cheques almost indiscriminately from unknown persons.—The prisoner being asked to eay why judgment should .not be passed upon him, said it was his first offence.—His. Honor, in passing sentence, said: Unfortunately for you, prisoner, I have ajecnrd before me, which gives a true account of your previous career. From that record I find that you have been three times convicted oF vagrancy; three times for larceny ; once of assault, and once of assault and malicious injury to property, I cannot, therefore, pass upon you a sentence so light as if this had been your first offence. The sentence of the Court, therefore, upon you will be two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Blask Cheques.—Mr. Hudson William- ; son ~drew the attention of the Court to the facility given for the commission of this offence by the manner in which these cheque forms were circulated.—His Honor: 1 think instructions should be given to the police to trace out, if possible, where these blank cheques came from, so that those persons who deal so loosely with these things, allowing them to be scattered about in all directions, should be made in some way responsible for their negligence. The necessary Information might be obtained from the banks.—Mr. Williamson : I am informed that books of these blank forms are supplied to the stationers, and the stationers supply any person who ask them.—His Honor: That is ' certainly a very objectionable way of dealing with these blank cheques, should be some restriction to prevent them getting into improper hands, and so being used for the purpose of committing crime. t The Catholic Czmetbr* (Malicious Injury to Property).—The Grand Juiy came into Court with "No bill" in the case of Donoghue, Hennessy, and Casey, charged with this offence. Moke True Bills. — True bills were found iu the. following cases :—Thomas George North, charged with larceny; Anne Dobbyn, larceny ; H. G. and J. H. Subritzky, larceny; R. Gibson, burglary ; Tamere, unlawfully wounding; William Burns, indecent assault; Roki, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm ; Small, Wright, Ryan, Home, robbery, Tue Court adjourned to tea o'clock on Tuesday morning.

POLICE COURT.—Monday. [Before Mr. F. Maguirc, J.P.] Drunkenness. —Two men were punished for this offence. Vagrancy.—Richard Sarsfield was charged under the Vagrancy Act with beiug the occupier of a house frequented by persons who had no lawful visible means of euppurt. He pleaded not guilty. Detective Hughes deposed that he heard ~ disturbance in a brothel kept by the prisoner in Abercrombiestreet at three o'clock in the morning. He found there a number of well known prostitutes and convicted vagrants, and others he had seen frequenting the house, besides a number of convicted thievts. Tne house had become a nuisance and pest to the neighbourhood. Michael Burke, general dealer and fish hawker, Abercrombiestreet, gave evidence as to" the character of the persons who frequented prisoner's house. Sergeant Clarke also gave evidence. The Bench were satisfied that the case was proved, and sentenced prisoner to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Pebjcry.—John Charles MacCormick was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the evidence giveo by him on oath before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M., upon the hearing of the case of MacCormick v. North, larceny, on the 13th of July. Mr. Earl appeared for the defence. He said there was no offence disclosed, and no prosecutor appeared, and he asked to have the case dismissed. He said that Mr. Cunningham had some letters in his hand, bat he objected to their being read. Sergeant White said the prosecutor was in the hands of the Supreme Court, having been committed for trial. The police were not placed in possession of the lacts. Mr/ Earl said it could not be expected that they could wait here to suit Mr. North's convenience, who, having cho3en to lay his information at this time, he must take the consequences. Ho asked f> have the case dismissed on these two grounds, first that the information disclosed no offence, as it did not set forth the alleged perjury. He commented on the grave impropriety of the conduct of the Justices who issued the warrant on such an information. His Worship said he could not undertake to dismiss such a serious case. Mr. North could not be in two places at once, and the Supreme Court must take precedence. He would graut an adjournment. Mr. - Earl then asked that it might be adjourned till I next day. His Worship said the Supreme Court would still be sitting. He adjoarred the' case until Friday. Mr. MacCoiuiick's I bail was enlarged.