LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6828, 5 October 1883, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal SITTINGS. Th obsday, October 4. [Before Mr. Justice Gillies.] ' His Ho>'ob took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock.

Sentence. —Alfred Wright and William Small, convicted yesterday of robbery with violence, were brought up to receive judgment.—His Honor, in passing sentence, said : Prisoners, — You bave 'been found guilty by a v. rdict of a jury, on very clear evidence, of tiie crime with which you stood chargcd. It is well that you should understand how Bt-rioua is the nature of that crime. The law says that whosoever shall, together 1 with one or more person, rob or attempt to rob auy other person, and who shall ! immediately before or after strike, wound, or assault such other person, shall be guilty of felony, and be liable to not less than three years' penal servitude. The sentence on you is that you be kept in penal servitude for three years. Larceny.—Thomas James North surrendered to his bail, and was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with stealing 1 tinned sheet iron case, 40 sheets of parchment, 2 leather bags, 1 stationer's rule, 1 eyelet machine, 1 mottled-kauri box with poat-office scales, 1 box of drawing instrume ts, 2 quires of tracing paper. There waa a second count in the indictment charging the prisoner, that he being a olerk to the prosecutor, did unlawfully remove, steal, and curry away 2 printed books. There was a third c mnt charging the prisoner, that be, on the 6th of March, 1883, did steal six printed books, the property of the prosecutor. Mr. Hudson Williamson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The accused was undefended. • —The prisoner, being called on to plead, asked leave to direct the attention of the Court to the fact that there were chargca now laid against him which were dismiss, d by . the Resident Magistrate. He therefore requested that tbe Court would direct , trial to proceed upon some one specific, charge. — His Honor : The indictment has been found by the Grand Jury, and you are now asked to plead to it. You must plead.—The prisoner pleaded not guilty.—The Crown Prosecutor in opening the case to the jury stated the principal facts that would be sworn to in support of the charge. The main features of the case were that the prisoner was a clerk to Mr. MaoCormick, by whom he was discharged Jor certain reasons not necessary to the inquiry:; that ufter the prisoner left the prosecutor's employment the things charged in the in dictment were missed; inquiries were made of the prisoner and other persons with the result that those things had been pawned at the shops of .go fewer than five different pawnbrokers. "Some of them were pawned by the prisoner, who sold the tickets to other persuns, who would be called as witnesses.— His Honor: It appears, from an examination of the record, that the charge as some books was dismissed by the Reaident Magistrate.—Mr. Williamson : Xes, your Honor, but not these books. The second indictment charges him in respect to three other books, and the information alleged "stealing."— His Honor: But you have not shown what these books were.—Mr. Williamson : I think there is sufficient description. —His Honor : It may be a sufficient description if the prisoner had an opportunity ot seeing the information, or received notice.—Mr. Williamson : The Grand Jury have found, a true bill on the information; and that there is a prima facie case to go before the petty jury.—His Honor: But if the accused could have no knowledge of the nature of the charge ?—Mr. Williamson : I do not know that it is the duty of the prosecution to give information to prisoners as to the' particulars of the indictment to beilaid against them.'— His Honor : Aie not these the books upon which he was committed?— Mr. Williamson : There is nothing in the indictment to show it.—His Honor : Then it appears to me most unfair to the prisoner who is here on his trial, and expects to be tried on the charges for which he has been committed. Ido not see what right you have to indict him on other charges. A private prosecutor may no doubt present a bill of indictment in any matter to the Grand Jury. But then the defendant would have a reasonable time and due notice, and particulars of the charge wonld be given to him if it were necessary for him to make application for that purpose. But here the accused is brought before the Court upon a charge made'against "him, which he has no opportunity of preparing to meet, having no knowledge of particulars-. Ido no think it is the duty of. the Crown Solicitor to include other chargcs in an indictment than those ■ upon which the magistrate has committed the defendant, unless due notice were given to the prisoner that he would have to answer these upon trial. lam of opinion that notice ought to be given of the. witnesses that are to be brought- up and examined, if they have not been already examined before the Magistrate's Court.—Mr. Williamson: No doubt the prisoner is entitled to copy of evidence against him, buc he is also bound to be answerable lor property taken away during the period when he is proved to have had access to it, and which is traced to his possession.—His Honor : Suppose you included in one indictment property in which he has been committed, would it be competent for the prosecutor to prefer another in regard to matters on which he has not been committed. —Air. Williamson : In some circumstances, your Honor, I think it would, if there was evidence to support the other charges before the jury.—His Honor: Ido not think it svould, Mr. Williamson.—Mr. Williamson : If your Honor wishes me to elect on which 30uut I should proceed, I shall do so.—His Honor : I have no power to ask yon to.eleot. Che bill has been found by the Grand Jury. [ can only express my opinion that it appears ;o mo improper to mix up allegations with ;hose upon which the magistrate committed, )i which allegations prisoner has not had lotice, or been informed. That appears to iie entirely unfair to tbe prisoner.—Mr. Williamson: Then in deference to your Honor's view, I shall only offer evidence n respect to those things upon which be prisoner was committed. — The prolocutor was the first witness called, ie gave evidence which was in its essential eatnnis a repetition of that given by him in he Magistrate's Court. It was in effect ihat the prisouer was iu his service as clerk; hat he was discharged. After the prisoner vas discharged the prosecutor missed several irticles which bad been removed from hiß iffice. Amongst them were the articles proluced. The prisoner had a key which gave, iccess to the office. Witness made inquiries, ■nd found that some of the goods were in he possession of certain pawnbrokers, others n possession of other pawnbrokers. Ascerained that the prisoner had sold the tickets o various parties* The prosecutor got a earch warrant, aud searched prisoner's louse. In soma cases the goods were releemed by the persons - who had held the ickets. [The witness identified the articles iroduced as belonging to him. They were mported by him or (in one case) made to his' rdor; they were goods of a quality and izes different from what was. usually imlorted. He swore positively to the identityf each aB beiug the same which he had rdered from manufacturers in England.] :ho witness was cross-examined at great sngth as t > the manner in which salaries pore paid by the prosecutor. The witness lenied that he had failed to pay the accused lis wages. He denied positively that he had ver asked the prisoner to pawn anything or hiin. When he Bent the prisoner on one ccasion to the Waikato, he gave him money o pay bis expenses. The prisoner had no ccasion to expend money for witness, fever paid the prisoner part Of his salary in looks or in the pawn, tickets of articles irhich prisoner had pledged. The answer of he wituess to a great number of questions f this kind was emphatically, "Certainly lot " The prisoner next cross-examined the witness to show malice.—His Honor: This 3 not a prosecution into which that question ntera. Whatever might be the disposiion of the prosecutor towards you, prioner, you could not have the right to teal his goods; or if . the prosecutor vote indebted to you, that would not ;ice you the right to steal his property.— ["he prisoner next asked whether the proseator was not in the habit of. paying his ilerks and servants with books and other .rticles, some of which might be in pawn ?— Che Crown Prosecutor objected to the quesion being put.—His Honor said that if the >rosecutor waa in the habit of doing so, ;hen the prisoner might use that fact with ;he jury to show that it was probable he was lealt with in the same way.—Messrs. Hasett and Ansenne, clerks to Mr. MacCormick, vere examined, and deposed that they never mew the proseoutor to take books or >oods out of his office for the, purpose >f selling or pawning them.—Messrs. Neunegan, Keesing, Hart, Asher, and Mendoza pawnbrokers) deposed to the dates on whioh ihe several. articles were pledged. ? Three o

them were, asked by? the piiaoner : whether Mr,. MacConnick had any transactions with them between the 11th December/1882,' and the present time? and.the reply in each case was in the negative. The identification of theeeveral articles, and the search i .r dates on Which they were pledged and redeemed, occupied a good deal of the time of the Court.— The Foreman of the jury drew the attention ' of His Honor to the frequent consultations between. Mr. HacCormick and the Crown Prosecutor.—His Honor: As the actual prosecutor iu the case, Mr. MacCormick is entitled to instruct the Solicitor for the. Crown.—Mr. Williamson informed the Court and jury that, as representing the Crown, it was no part of his duty to press a case unduly against a prisoner; but it was necessary, to obtain the evidence, and arrange it in the order in which it should be be adduced.— The prisoner, in his defence, called Mr. Samuel Jackson, solicitor, to prove that the tin case containing the parchment which Mr. MacCormick had accused him of stealing was after the accusation was made at the top of the bookcase in the prosecutor's ofSce. This witness, however, could not speak to the exact date.—Emily Hoskins, who said f she was step-daughter of the prisoner, I was called. She deposed that when her I father came from the YVaikafco he brought a quantity of parchment with him. Witness purchased theae sheets for the priso'uer. The J witness said it was not trne that Mr. MacCormick told her father that he would withdraw the search warrant if prisoner would say where the things were. But her father did call Mr. MacCormick a scoundrel. Her father had a stationery ruler and other rulers like those produced. She had often_to go to Mr. MacCormick for money, but she got only promises.—The prisoner, in addressing the jury, said that when he went icto the prosecutor's service Mr. MacCormick was in impecunious circumstances, and was unable to pay salary in money. Mr. MacCormick did ask him. to pawn the soveral things produced. It was not until the prisoner 'demanded"a settlement in money that Mr. MacCormick had instituted the proceedings for larcrny. —His Honor, in summing up .the evidence said the prisoner's mouth was Bhnt as to the main question upon which he relied for his defence — "whether the prosecutor, as he stated, being in an impecunious position, gave him these things to pawn for him." That allegation the prosecutor on oath positively denies. The jury must therefore look to all the surrounding circumstances and

determine to the best of their ability which of these parties gave the more correct acconnt of the several transactions from which this case originated. His Honor an- ' alysed a considerable portion of the evidence very minutely. • .It was to be observed that this pawning commenced very soon after the prisoner went to the plaintiff—on the 29th of December.—Mr. MacCormick : On -the 30th.—His .Honor : It is very improper that the Court should be interrupted in ; this manner. The jury should look carefully into all the attendant circumstances which accompanied the relations which subsisted between these parties. —The jury retired at forty minutes past four to consider their verdict. At five minutes past seven they came into Court.— Mr. Williamson explained the position of the case before the verdict should be received. It was the intention o£ the Crown to enter a nolle prosequi on the second and third counts, and also a second indictment that had been found by tho Grand Jury.— The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged. The Court adjonrned at a quarter past seven o'clock to Friday at ten a.m.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Thursday. [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.] The weekly sitting of the R.M. Court was held yesterday for hearing and determining small debt eases, and the following business was disposed of: — i Judgments for Plaintiffs by De "atjlt. —Wm. Sloan v. Edward Hunter, claim £5 16s, coats £1 I7s; Australian Vine Growers' Co. v. J. H. Taylor, £9 13s 6d, costs £1 18s; M. Murchie v. H. W. Dowling, £4 8a 6d, costs £2 6s; R. Laishley v. B. C. Fryer, £7 7s 2d, costs 17s; R. French v. H. T. Rowe, £7 6s Id, costs £1 17s; Auckland Buildiog Society v. Fred. Campbell Thomai, £28 17s 6d, costs £4 12s, Judgment Debtor Cases.—John King v. Bridget Nolan,- £6 :17s. • The judgment debtor deposed that the defendant was an annuitant. Order made for payment of the debt,, in two instalments, on the Ist _of November . ond Ist of December, or in default tea days' imprisonment.— William Strong v. J. C. Hart. The debt in this case was £5 17s. The creditor gave evidence as to the debtor's means. The debtor was a gardener, and in work. An order was made for payment of 5s a week, or, in. default, seven days' imprisonmet.—J. Wiseman v. Thomas Kelly, Mr. Hall appeared for the- judgment creditor. The amount of the debt was £12 6s. The dehtor was a publican and farmer, and did not appear. Mr. Wiseman gave evidence, and an order was made for payment of the debt in two months, or, in default, fourteen days' imprisonment.

Giuoylk v. Union Sash and Doob Company : Bushmen's Orders.—This was a claim to recover the sum of £39, a balance of wages due to the plaintiff by the defendants. Mr. Theophilus Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr, Burton for the defendants. The case had.been heard on the last Court day, when His Worship reserved judgment. In delivering judgment, His Worship said in this-oase ha had held over judgment. The claim was; for £39 odd, a balance of wages due to the plaintiff, .a bushman,' in the employ.of the defendants. The defence was that the amount in question was assigned by the plaintiff to one Lay cook, to whom the defendants paidthe money. It was argued that this was an equitable assignment, which the plaintiff attempted to revoke. It seemed on the faee of it that this was an authority to Laycock to receive the money, and, taken in conjunction with other facts, that it was an assignment, and not revocable. £20 was paid by Laycock to the plaintiff. This the plaintiff says was a loan, but Laycock alleges that it was in purchase of the order. It' seemed that whatever the fact may be, there would be an equitable charge on the amount for that loan. In either case there was an assigument which could not be revoked without Laycock's authority. Whether Laycock was entitled to retain the whole of the amount, or only as trustee for the plaintiff, could not arise ia this case ; but the assignment was complete, and was a valid authority to defendants to pay the amount to Laycock, whose receipt would be to them'a full discharge. Mr. Cooper elected to take a nonsuit. Plaintiff waß nonsuited, with costs.

Thomas Constable v. Webb.—Mr. Hesketh appeared ■ for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter for the defendant. The claim was a suit to olaim a balance due (£l2) on a contract to alter a house in Wellesley-striet for the defendant. The plaintiff, a builder and contractor, gave evidence as to the debt. It balance due on the amount of contract which He had made with Mr. Webb in December last. Mr. Webb sent for witness to his house, and witness went to him. He detailed the conversation that took place. The whole contract was £56. Mr. Webb said he was going to do the work for his tenant, Mrs. Powell, and if it was in accordance with her wishes, he was quite satisfied. He was to be paid £8 every four weeks by Mrs. Powell on defendant's account, that being the amount of rent she bad to pay to Mr. Webb, but if he was successful in selling pianos, defendant said he might be able to give a cheque for the whole, or part of the amonnt, on completion of contract. Witness declined to go on with the work on those terms. Three or four weeks after Mr. Webb's ton came for witness, and he saw Mr. Webb, who agreed to pay £20 on completion of the contraot, and to this witness agreed. On the completion of the contiact Mrs. Powell paid him £20, and the other amounts be also received from Mrs. Powell, to whom he gave receipts, two of which were produced and put in evidence. In crossexamination defendant said it was Mrs. Powell who spoke to him him first, and to whom he gave the pries. It transpired that he had made an offer in writing to do the work fcr £54. He only recognised Mr. Webb as the man who employed him, and to whom he looked for payment,' but be .had rendered him no account, as it was a special arrangement, and he knew he had to wait a certain time for his money. He did other work for Mr. Webb, forw;hich ho rendered an account and was paid. Mrs. Powell was examined. Her testimony went to show that the contract was between herself "and defendant. Mr. W. Gr. Connolly, a builder, alfio give evidence. Mr. Webb, the j defendant, was put in the witness-box. The defence was, that the defendant waa not liable ; that the contract was with Mrs. Powell. Hia Worship reaerved judgment,

. John Bbioham v. Grayling.—This was a claim for 42 weeks' rent at 5a a week. Mr. Armstrong for tha prosecution. Mr, B. Cooper appeared for the defence. The defence was that defendant did not know to whom to pay the rent • Mr. Deakoa collected the rent, and told him that he was collecting the rent for his father. Witness never heard of Mr. Brigham in tho matter. Mr. Cooper said that all defendant desired was to ascertain who the landlord was. There was no desire to evade payment of rent to the proper owner. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £9 10a. On the application of Mr. Cooper, an order was applied for to enable defendant to pay by instalments of 2a Cv! a week. Mr. Armstrong opposed, ' and His Worship stayed execution for a month. Costs £2 ss. . Alex. Classes v. John- A. Adams.—Mr. Buddie appeared for the plaintiff, aud Mr. (Jotter for the defence. The claim was for £25. Mr. Cotter objected to the particulars as not sufficient. The defendant was a publican, and was sued as a bailee to be taken care of. The date .ii'id not been stated, nor had the contents of the bag been stated, so Mr. Cotter argued he had nothing to answer. His Worship rul. d that particulars should be given. Mr. Buddie applied for an adjournment till next Court day to enable him to amend the particulars. Adjournment on payment of the costs, £1 63. Robert Field eh v. Geo. Hahcourt asd Co.—The claim in this case was for £9 ss. Mr. Hall appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant Harcourt, bat not for his partner. The claim was for balance clue on a contract. The ' particulars of the work and contract were proved by the plaintiff The claim was cost of erecting stables, etc., which he tendered for in accordance with advertisement, and signed the agreement. He had served a notice to produce the document at eight o'clock yesterday evening on some one who he supposed to be his daughter. It was pointed out that the defendant was Mr. Harcourfc's son, anil that service on his sister was not good. Sir. Harcourt, senior, was present, and said he had never-heard of this. Mr. Cooper said he would not raise the objection as to the notice to produce, if the defence was .not that Mr. Harcourt was not bound by any contract made by Mr. Kay, The plaintiff said he understood that the eentleman now in Court, father of the real defendant, was the partner. Mr. Hall applied for an adjournment. On the suggestion of the Bench, Mr. Hall accepted a nonsuit, with costs.

POLICE -COUKT.—Thursday. [Before Messrs. \V. J. Hurst and F. L. Prime, J.P.'s.] Dbunkesness. — Two men and three women were puui3hed for this offence. Lakcenv.—Mary Martia was charged with stealing a silver watch and gold chain, worth £20, the property of George Cook, on the 3rd inst. Mr. Cotter appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant White applied for a remand till next day. Mr. Cotter asked that defendant be admi-.ted to bail on her own recognizances. He understood that the police had now grave doubts as to prisoner's guilt. Remanded to next day, and defendant admitted to bail on her own recognizances.

Valueless Chzques.— Moses Wisner Holt was charged with unlawfully obtaining from David Dunningham, by means of valueless cheques, the sum of £'3, with intent to defraud, on the 26th ultimo. Holt was also charged with obtaining £5 and £2 from David DunDingham by the same means. There were three separate charges against this prisoner. Defendant pleaded guilty to all threecharges, but aaidhe was in an intoxicated state at the time. David Dauningbam, licensee of the Governor Browne Hotel, wished to statb that at the time defendant gave the first cheque he was not drunk, and he was not drunk when he gave a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for £20 to cover the amount of the already dishonoured cheques. C. H, Mitford, teller at the Bank of New Zealand, said that to the best of his belief defendant was not drunk when he Bigned the cheque for £20 on the branch at Patea, at which bank the defendant said he had an account of £300. Prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.