LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7903, 23 March 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

Tuesday,

[Before His Honor Mr. Justice Ward.]

Horse-stealing.—Jesse Cockliead was arraigned on an indictment charging him that on the sth of November, 1886, he feloniously stole a gelding, Cfte property of Peroy Edward Stevens. He pleaded not guilty. Mr, Gover appeared, instructed by the Crown Prosecutor, to prosecute, and Mr. Palmer appeared for the prisoner. The facts of the oase for the prosecution were, Mr.. Gorer said, somewhat complicated, but they were as follows :—The proseoutor was a school-teacher in 'Hamilton. He had two horses, and on the sth of November he was riding the horse, the eubjeot of this action, and he afterwards turned it out on the ran. He missed the horse next morning, and he knew nothing further of it until he was sent for by the detective in January, and identified the horse In Hunter and Nolan's sale yard. The prisoner lived at Hamilton, and was there about the time the horse disappeared. Mr. Gover pointed out that there was a peculiarity of names regarding this transaction. The prisoner's name was Cockhead, the horse was entered at the Onehunga races in the name of Cockrane, and was brought to Hunter and Nolan's yard for sale by Cockhome, and counsel remarked that it was peculiar that three persons, the first syllable of whose name was alike, should be connected with this horse under suspicious circumstances. The next they heard of the prisoner was in Parnell, early in November, in possession of this horse, and. on the 12th he was entered as Warrior for the Onehunga races on the 20th Nov., where he was ridden by the prisoner, who stated that he was the owner. The prisoner hired stabling at the Vinegar Works, in Stanley-street, where he kept this horse. On the 10th of December the horse was placed for sale in Hunter and Nolan's sale yard, the name of the owner being given as Cockhorne, and ho was bought by Mr. Bascombe, who subsequently in January again placed the horse for sale in Hunter and Nolan's yards, where he was seen by Detective Tnohy, who sent for the prosecutor, and he identified the horse as his property. Percy Edward Stevens (theproseoutor), Walter Mellis (a young man who saw the horse in prisoner's possession in Parnell), Chas. Walloutt (secretary of the Plumpton Park Jockey Club, whose raco meeting was held in Onehunga on the 20th November), William Stewart (traveller for the Vinegar Company, from whom the prisoner obtained stabling for the horse), Constable McConnell (who saw prisoner ride the horse at the Onehunga races, and to whom prisoner stated that he bought the horte for £9 in Waikato), Winter John LeQuesne (clerk at T. and S. Morrin's), Wm. McCnllough (letter oarrier at Hamilton), Joseph Moody (horse-dealer), Chas. Ransome (clerk and cashier to Messrs. Hunter and Nolan), and Detective Tuohy were examined for the prosecution. For the defence Mr. Palmer called Annie Hemery, sister of the prisoner, and residing with her husband at Newmarket. She deposed that her brother came from Waikato in the end of October, and had not been there sinae. He was not in Hamilton on the sth of November. Her brother is a horse-trainer and jookey. Mr. Palmer then addressed the jury for tho defence, and Mr. Gover replied. His Honor snmmed up the evidence, and the Jury retired, and, after forty minutes'consultation, brought? in a verdict of ''Guilty." The prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.

Assault and Robbery.Frcdk. Ellis &nd Win. Small were indicted on a charge of having, on the 7th of January, assaulted one Henry Cuthbert, and then robbing him of 18s. Mr. Gover prosecuted, and Mr. Napier appeared for the prisoner Ellis. The other prisoner was not represented by counsel. The case for the prosecution was this : On the 7th of January the prosecutor was drinking from place to place, but was not drunk, and wandering about at night. After closing-up time he went into Aber-crombie-street, where he was joined by the prisoners. It was bright moonlight, and the | prosecutor was, therefore, able to recognise j the accused, and he was in their company for some minutes before'the robbery took : place, and he bad previously known Small by sight. As they walked down Aberorom-bie-street, one of the prisoners at each side of him, they reached a right-of-way, and one of the prisoners, Ellis, caught prosecutor by the throat, and the other put his band in his pocket. The proseoutor fell, and while on the ground he missed the 18s from his pocket, which was turned inside out, and saw the two prisoners and another man whom he did not recognise running away down the right«of-way. The prosecutor gave evidonoe to this effect. In crossexamination he denied that he was intoxicated when the assault took place, or any time during the day. John Doyle, who described himself as a carpenter, deposed to meeting the prisoners and Cuthbert in Abercrombie street. Witness was with Small's brother at the time, and he saw one of the prisoners at each side of the prosecutor, and saw Ellis catch Cuthbert by the throat and Small had his hand in Cuthbert's pocket at the same time, and when Small took his hand away Ellis took his hand away from his throat, and Cuthbert fell and roared out. He got up as quick as he could, and commenced dusting his coat, and the prisoners ran down the passage, and Cuthbert sung out, " Scoundrels, you are robbing me I" Cuthbert then walked down towards Queen-street, witness going in front of him. vVhen he saw Small he heard something in his hand rattle like money. In crossexamination the witness said he saw the assault, and knew that there was a robbery, but he did not interfere. He denied that he said in the lower Court that he had Been other robberies committed and did not interfere. (The depositions were put in and the witness's evidence in the lower Court was read and it showed that he had seen robberies committed and had said nothing about them. It would be a lark to rob a man if he was not found out). Witness was cross-examined at considerable length. John Kerr was also examined, but his evidence was unimportant. Constable Kelso, who was present when the prisoners were arrested, deposed that Cutbbcrt addressing Ellis, said, You ruffian, you assaulted me and robbed me of 18s." Ellis replied, " I never saw you before in my life." When Ellis was searched only 3s 4d was found on him. Cuthbert was not drank but was excited. This closed the case for the prosecution. The depositions of Mack and Small (brother of one of the prisoners), taken in the lower Court for the defence, were put in by Mr. Napier, and read, but no witnesses were called for the defence, and Mr. Napier commenced to address the jury for the defence. His Honor ruled that he could not permit the depositions of Mack and Small to go before the jury as evidence. Mr. Napier then called Charles Mack, who had been subpoenaed, but he did not appear, and Mr. Gover said the other witness was in gaol. Oft Mr. Napier's application, Mack was called on his recognisances, . but he failed to answer, and Mr. Napier asked for a warrant for his arrest. His Honor consented, and Mr. Napier then applied that the further hearing of the case be postponed until the witness wa« brought up. His Honor aske(f Mr. Napier whether he also desired to call Small, but he said although he had at first intended to make an application to that effect, he should not now do so. The Court was then adjourned for an hour to procure Mack's attendance. After the lapse of about an hour and a half, however, the police failed in finding Charles Mack, and then he strolled into the Court-yard in the most unconcerned manner, and was run into Court by Detective Herbert. He was evidently under the influence of drink. His Honor asked him why he had not been in attendance, and his reply was that he had not been paid for attendance at the Police Court, and he had a wife and family to support. His Honor told him that he was not likely to be paid now, and ordered him into the witness box. He then, in answer to Mr. Napier, detailed a conversation he had with the prosecutor after the robbery. The morning after the robbery Cuthbert complained to him about having been robbed by two or throe men, and he said he felt very bad, and witness took him to the Albert Hotel and shouted for him. Prosecutor mentioned, Ellis and Small as the men who robbed him, and witness remarked that he was surprised to hear that Ellis would be mixed up in such a business, and after some quibbling, Cuthbert said he was not sure that Ellis was the man. Subsequently, witness saw Cuthbert in the corridor of the Police Court, but they had no conversation about the robbery, only about things in genera). In answer to Mr.. Gover, the witness said he thought the man who robbed him was a taller and a fairer man than Ellis. Detective Herbert had a conversation with witnesi i about the case, but he told Herbert he could ' give no evidence only hearsay, He denied

that he told Herbert that when Mr. Napier and Robert Ellis wanted him to give evidence he told • them that his evidence would do them more harm than good, or that he told Herbert that Cuthbert was positive about the identity of Ellis and Small, but that he was not sure about the other man. Witness had been 25 years in Auckland, and the ~ only time he was punished was being fined 40s and costs for gambling on the racecouse. Margaret Kerr, wife of John Kerr, Aberorombie-street, was then called, and deposed that a day or two after the arrest of the prisoners she had a conversation with Cuthbert, and he. told her he did not know the men who assaulted him from Adam, and would not recognise them at all, but he had a witness who did know them. In answer to Mr. Gover, witness said she was a Mrs. Sherry, and not the wife of Kerr. Detective Herbert was called by Mr. Gover to give rebutting evidence, and deposed to the witness Maek having told him that when Ellis's brother Bob and Mr. Napier asked him to give evidence, he told them he would do them more harm - than good, as anything he could say would be against Ellis. All he knew was what Cuthbert told him, and he said he was positive about the identity of Ellis and Small,, but was not positive about the other man Smith, who was arrested with them. Mr. Napier then addressed the Court for the defence, and Mr. Gover replied to the points raised by Mr. Napier, and then dealt with the evidence. His Honor then placed the facts before the jury, pointing out that the evidence for the Crown wa9 of the clearest possible description, and not in any way shaken. The only question for the jury was whether the evidence of the prosecutor was shaken by the evidence of Mack and Mrs. Kerr. The jury retired at five minutes to six o'clock, and returned to Court at half-past eight o'clock with a verdict of "Guilty." Prisoners were each sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock next morning. POLICE COURT,— Tuesday. [Before Messrs. S. Y. Collins and J. Newman, J.P.'s.] Dangerous Drunkard,—Joseph Welling denied a charge of being drunk in the British Hotel. Constable Kilkenny proved thecharge, and stated that a complaint had been made to him in tho accused's presence that he had threatened to strike Mrs. Humphreys and others in tho bar with a knife. Fined 5s and costs, or 24 hours. Allkgkd Larceny as a Bailee.—Alfred Drain appeared on remand upon the charge of being the bailee of a dray, valued at £12, tho property of Patrick Gleeson, and converting the same to his own use, on or about January '20. Mr. C. K. Madden appeared for the defence, and stated that the prosecutor being not present had no doubt thought the Court would not sit so punctually as it had done. Sergeant Pratt applied for a remand till Wednesday, in order that the complainant might be in attendance. Remanded to Wednesday, and bail enlarged. At this stage Mr. Gleeson appeared in Court, and the case was proceeded with. Sergeant Pratt stated that the accused had been arrested in Wellington, upon tho warrant produced. Patriok Gleeson deposed that he was licensee of the Albion Hotel. Circumstances had arisen since tho issue of the warrant whioh led him to believe that there was no felonious intent. He intended to offer no evidence in the case, and therefore asked for a withdrawal. The Bench granted the withdrawal accordingly.