LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7515, 19 December 1885, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— Judge's Chambers. Friday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] Probate. — Probate was granted to the executor in the will of John Shortland, on the application of Mr. Button. — Mr. d Mackeohnie applied for probate in the will of ir James Finnerty. He was instructed to :l furnish an affidavit explanatory of the delay . that had occurred in making the application, j Administration.On the motion of Mr. I, Cotter, letters of administration were grauted 6 in the estate of Charles Willis. —Mr. Dufaur 11 applied for a renewal of the order of letters of administration in the estate of Jeffrey Geary. The order was granted.—Mr. '• Browning moved for letters of administration with copy of will annexed in the estate of » John Hooks. He was instructed to furnish an affidavit explaining the reason why the will was written in different kinds of ink. Pilkington v. Holme and others.—Mr. Button's application for directions as to taking accounts was allowed to stand over, r Charging Order.Mr. Mackechniemoved for a summons to sot aside or vary a charging j order in the case Shaw v. Byrne. The , summons was dismissed with costs, £1 Is. Gwvnneth v. Rutknb and others.— > On the application of Mr. Cotter an order was made to pay money out of Court to the ' r Sheriff. i Mining Companies' Contribution Order. L —In the matter of the Bandigo Independent 1 Gold Mining Company, and in the matter of ! the Goodenough Gold Mining Company, on ) the application of Mr. Button a call of Is 6J | per share in the former case, and of Is per , share in the latter, were ordered. R.M. COURT.—Friday. , [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Em;., R.M.] Prince v. Vkrrall.—Claim, £5 12s, for wages. Mr. James Russell for plaintiff, Mr. Dignan for defendant. 9a Id was paid into Court in satisfaction of the claim, also 5s for costs. Judgment was given for £5 16s with costs. 1 C. Hooker v. C. Bailey.—Claim, £35 2s lid, for work done and material supplied for building. Mr. Theo. Cooper for plaintiff and Mr. Brassey for defendant. Plaintiff is a painter and defendant a boatbuilder. After hearing a portion of the evidence, the case was adjourned till next day, POLICE COURT.— Friday. [Before Messrs, C. D. Whitcombf) and J. W. Buller, J P.'a.l Drunkenness.—Three men were fined 5s and costs. James Matem was fined 10s and costs. Counterfeit Sovereigns.—Arthur John Fisher, on remand from December 11, was brought up on the charge of uttering a counterfeit coin intended to resemble a sovereign, on December B.—Sergeant Pratt conducted the prosecution.—Mr. E. Hesketh appeared for the accused, and applied to have the case withdrawn, as be was prepared to bring forward Mr. Hurrell, to whom the coin bad been uttered, to state that ho did not wish to press the charge.—Sergeant Pratt said he considered that the case should proceed in the interests of the public, who should be protected.The Bench said that as there were two other charges against the accused, the case must go on.sergeant Pratt explained the evidence he would adduce.—Herbert Hurrell, bootmaker, deposed that the accused called at the shop on the evening of December 8 and asked for the change of'a pound. Witness replied that he could, and gave him the money. Ihs accused tendered him a gilt shilling, and the accused took the change, saying "it would do nicely, thank you." The accused went away, and witness then looked at the coin and found it was a gilt shilling. When it was at first given to. him by the accused he thought it was a sovereign. He saw the accused again on Thursday, 10th inst., in Karangahape Road. Upon inviting him into the shop witness asked him what he meant by passing th« shilling off upon him as a pound. He partly denied it, then owned to it. He at first said he was Mr. Fisher's son, and would not do such a thing as that. He then said that he paid it out on a bill, and had received the " pound "in change. He then offered to make it right with witness by returning the money. Witness replied that the matter was in the hands of the police, aud he did not know that he could take it out of their hands. The conversation in the Victoria-street shop took p'.aots in the presence of a lady, Ho supposed it had reference to the coin, and he understood the answer to the question was that he was the boy who had tendered a shilling in his shop. The coin produced was that which the accused gave him. On one side was "One shilling " and on the reverse the Queen's head. The accused cross-examined the witness at considerable length. — Annie Lloyd, grocer, Victoria-street, knew tho last wituess's shop. She could not swear to having seen the accused before. She remembered a lad coming into her shop on a Tuesday night to get change, between seven and eight o'clock, He asked for change of a pound, and pro- i duced a sovereign. She did not do so, as it was not a good one, and she saw a shilling written on it. He said no more, and went ■ out of the shop. The coin was yellow, and resembled a sovereign. In bnuding it back, I she said, "I won't take this coin, it is , not a good one." Two days after she went : to Hurrell'B shop, at the request of Detective | Jones, and saw a boy there, whom she asked j if he had been to her for the change of a , pound. He replied "Yes."Detective Jones , arrested the accused in Queen-street on ] December 10. The accused was accompanied , by Hurrell at the time. Witness charged , the accused with the offence, which he ad- , mitted, but said he picked up the coin at the . corner of Union aud Nelson streets. The , conversation that ensued was to the effect that he had coloured the coin, and passed it to Hurrell, receiving 20s in exchange for it. ihey went to Hurrell's shop, where Miss Lloyd identified the accused as having been to her shop on Tuesday, December 8. 1

| Witness found two sixpences, coloured like half-sovereigns, in a cashbox in a drawer in the accused's bedroom. Ho also charged the accused with uttering a counterfeit half-sovereign to Mr. Walsh.—Alexander odder, fancy goods storekeeper, remembered the accused calling on Tuesday December 8, when he asked for the cbauge of a sovereign. He gave him the change. Un Friday he gave the " sovereign " and half-sovereign to Mr, Frater as a payment. Mr. Frater returned the " sovereign "to him, saying it was only a shilling. Cross-examined: if he had b. en left to follow his own course in the matter, he would not have prosecuted, considering the surrounding circumstances, — James Frater, land agent, deposed to receiving the shilling purporting to be a sovereign from the last witness, —This closed the case for the prosecution.—Mr. Hesketh then applied that in the event of a committal, the same evi dence be re-written and signed by the witnesses to save time, so that the accused might be indicted at the Supreme Court upon all three charges. Mr. Hesketh then addressed the Court, and contended that a prima facie case had not been made out, inasmuch as the evidence failed to show that there waß any guilty knowledge in the offence—The Bench held that there was sufficient shown to warrant them iD committing the accused on the first charge.—The evidence was then read over, and Mr. Hesketh intimated that be would call witnesses for the defence.—Mr, Hudson Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, was then consulted by the prosecution and the defence ; and Mr. Hesketh intimated that it had been arranged that Mr. Walsh's evidence should be taken, and the Supreme Court could indict upon the three charges upon the one set of depositions.John Joseph Walsh, tobacoonist, deposed that the accused called about ten a.m. on December 9, and inquired for a peculiar kind of oigaretteholder. As there was none in stock he offered to procure one from the wholesale house if he would call again. Ho did so, and then deposited 5s on the price of the cigaretteholder, as he had not. sufficient money. He

called in the evening and paid the balance, also took a second holder, and two packets of cigarettes. Soon after he left the shop, witness discovered that the half-sovereign was a gilt sixpence. He went to the house and saw the accused, who said he was glad that he had discovered it, as he could easily rectify the mistake, as it had been given to him in change of a pound. Cross-examined : His daughter, who was iD the shop at the time, recognised the accused, as she had gone to school with him. He (the witnesH) considered it was purely a mistake in giving him the half - sovereign when it was really a sixpence. He knew the accused, as he had been in the shop on previous day, for the change of a pound-note.—Detective Jones, who was recalled, said when he arrested the accused he also charged him with uttering a false halfsovereign upon the last witness. He found the coin produced, a- m.i c a by the accused

fin a drawer {in the accused's bedroom. Thomaß B. Kenderdino, medical practitioner, I deposed that he knew the accused, and attended him about two years ago for injury through a fall on the head. It produced tits of an epileptic kind, and he had to stay away from school for about twelve months. He was not safe to go about by himself,as he would sit on the road, or fall off a horse. He considered that the fall would tend to impair the accused's intellect. He had examined the accused recently, and he said he did not know he was doing any harm in passing the coin. To the Bench : He could not say that the accused was destitute of all moral responsibility. He could not say so, except from his actions.—Frederick W. E. Dawson, medical practitioner, knew the accused, and made an examination of him on Wednesday. He believed that the accused was of weak intellect, and suffering from what was called moral insanity. He was led to think so through his general answers to questions and general appearance. The fall mentioned by the last witness would accelerate such a state of accused's mind. To the Bench : He considered that it was only on a certain point that he was of a weak intellect, such as in the present instance.— William Tebbs, incumbent of St. Matthew's Church, kuew the accused well, and had come in contact with him during the last five or six years. Prior to the accident he always looked upon him as a bright, cheerful boy, but since be had changed, and seemed to go about in a dull, stupid way, acting apparently upon temporary impulse.—James P. King, chemist, knew the accused from infancy. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness The Bench intimated that they had no power but to commit the accused to stand bis trial at the Supreme Court, on January s.—On the application of Mr. Hesketh, the accused was admitted to bail in his own recognisances of £100, and two sureties of £50 each.