LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7975, 15 June 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings. Tcesday, Job 14. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice. Ward.] Larceny.—Henry George Shelly had, on the previous day, pleaded guilty to two charges of larceny, and larceny from a dwelling, and on the application of Mr. Hugh Campbell, who appeared for the prisoner, sentence was deferred, in order that he might have an opportunity of calling witnesses! as to character. He now called Thomas Beetham, carpenter, North Shore, who had known the prisoner for nine years, said he was always a hard-working, industrious young man, and bore a good character, and he never knew anything against his character previonßly. Thomais Bond and P. H. Wells also gave evidence as to the prisoner's previous good character. His Honor said he would have been able to pass a lighter sentence but for the evidence of O'Brien, one of the witnesses (failed as to character. The sentence would be six months for each offence, the sentences to be consecuteve. Larceny as a Bailee.—Arthur Haywood, a young man, was indioted on a oharge of having on the 14th of April, he being then the bailee of £3, the property of his employer, Andrew Fernandez, did feloniously steal the same. He pleaded not guilty. The case for the prosecution briefly is: the prisoner waß engaged by Mr. Fernandez as a handy man about the JBritomart Hotel, and on the 14th of April he sent him with three £1 notes to the bank to get some change, and he was to call for some groceries on the way '■ome. As be did not return, he became suspicious and informed the police, and on the night of that day he was arrested by Detective Tuohy. He was then semi-intoxicated, and told the detective he had spent the blessed money in drink and clothes, which he had left at the Waitemata Hotel. Mrs. Fernandez and Detective Tuohy gave evidence. This was the case for the prosecution, and prisoner addressed the jury, stating that he had met with a friend and had several drinks. Later in the evening he was told that a detective was looking for him in reference to the £3, and he said he had it in his inside pocket, but on putting his hand in his pocket he missed it. He said the clothes were purchased with his own money. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty, and prisoner was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Violent Assault.—James Lowndes surrendered to his bail, and was indicted on a charge of having, on the 11th of April, committed an assault on Charles Streem, causing him aotual bodily harm. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the prisoner, and at his request witnesses were ordered out of Court. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said it was laid uuder the Offences against the Persons Act, and the questions the jury would have to decide were whether the prisoner struck the blow of which the prosecutor would tell • them, and whether that blow caused him actual bodily harm. That actual bodily harm was caused was proved by the fact that Streem's jaw was broken in two places, the circumstancrs are these: On the 11th of April there were races at Ellerslie, and it was there the occurrence took place. Prosecutor and prisoner were there. It appeared that the pruoner had received a complaint that his brother had been ill-treated, and he came across the prosecutor, a small inoffensive man, and without taking the trouble to ascertain whether he was the aggressor or not, he struck him a violent blow from behind, and broke his jaw. -tre«m could not swear that it was Lowndes who struck the blow, but two constables saw the prisoner strike the blow which knocked Streem down, and when they came up to him he was unable to speak distinctly, and they supposed he was under the influence of drink, Charles Streem, a seaman, gave evidence in accordance with this statement. He was cross-examined with a view to showing that he was under the influence of drink, and with having insulted three men in one of the public bars by calling them loafers, but he denied the former, and had no recllection of the latter. The obj*ct of the examination was to show that it was one of thoge men, not the prisoner, who struck the blow. l)r. Hooper gave evidence as to the nature of the injuries sustained by the., prosecutor. The lower jaw was fractured un the right side in two places. It wouid require a tremendous blow to do this, but it might be done by a man's fist. He was under witness' care for five w«eka. Constable McConnell, Constable Carroll, and Constable Christie deposed to seeing the prisoner strike Streem on the sida of the head, and knock him down, and both were cross-examined at considerable length, Sergeant Clarke, whoarrested the aocused on the ISth of April, also gave evidence. Prisoner, when arrested, said his brother had been assaulted on the racecourse, and the prosecutor was pointed out to him as the man who had done so, and he struck him, but did not think the blow would break a man's jaw. Witness suggested that he might have something in his hand, but he said he had not. The witness was cross-examined as to an apparent discrepancy between the evidence he now gave and that which he gave at the lower Court. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. O'Meagher then addressed the jury on the evidence. He called Joseph Gunning, who deposed that he saw the prisoner, who was perfectly sober, attempt to strike a man, aud witnenß caught his arm, and told him he was accusing the wrong man. The effect of witness catching prisoner's arm was that he stopped the blow, and it did not reaoh the inau. The man was coming towards him and prisoner asked him if he was the man who struck his brother, and he hauled off to hit him. This was the only disturbance witness saw except th»t he saw a man knock Lowndes' brother down, and witness picked him up. He could not say whether prosecutor was the man prisoner attempted to Htrike, as he was a stranger to him. Witness th«n left prisoner's company. Thomas Fletcher gave corroborative evidence,'but Fletcher could not identify the prosecutor as the man at whom the prisoner *truck the blow. It was witness who pointed out to Lowndes the man who struck his nrother, and he did so because some one else told him so. William Watts, barman, who had charge of a bar at Ellerslie on the day of the races, deposed to seeing prosecutor first at about at a quarter past three o'clock at the bar, and whilst be was having a drink three other men came, and witness refused to serve them, as he was doubtful whether they would pay. Prosecutor did not speak to them. They went away and" prosecutor remained, and they returned in about ten minutes and tried to kick up a row, and prosecutor told them it was no use trying to ask the man for drinks, he could not give them, as they were not his. The men then left and prosecutor went out after them. Prisoner was not one of the three men. Prosecutor returned about half-an-hour afterwards and said, "Bill, give me a bucket of water, I've got my jaw smashed." Witness asked who did it, and he said he did not know, but he wanted to know who were the three chaps who were In the bar, He added that he was taking witness's part and got his jaw smashed. Subsequently Sergeant Clarke and Mr. Streem made enquiries of him about those three men, and it was after these inquiries that he was subpoenaed, but he was not examined at the Police Court. Mr O'Meagher then handed in the depositions, and this closed the evidence. Mr. O'Meagher then addressed the Court for the defence. Mr Williamson replied, and His Honor briefly placed the case before the jury, going carefully into the evidence for the prosecution and defence. The jury retired at twenty-five minutes to four o'clock, and returned in twenty minutes with a verdict of " Guilty." Sentence was daferred till two o'clook next day, in order to afford an opportunity to call witnesses as to character. Breaking and Entering.—John Duncan was charged with having ou the loth of April broken and entered the dwelling-house of Charles Spraiong, at Brigham'a creek, and stolen a quantity of gum and a silver ring, the property of the said Charl«s Spraiong. He pleaded not guilty. The case for the prosecution was this : The prosecutor was a gnmdigger, residing in the neighbourhood of Brigham's Creok, and the priioner lived with him for a week or ten days. On the morning of the 15th of April the prisoner left the house a little before the prosecutor, and the latter locked up the bouse with a padlock, after fastening the windows. On his return at about halfpast five o'olock prosecutor found that the door had been bursts open. He l«ft 1401bs of gum in a sack, besides a silver ring, some money, ciothing, etc., and he missed the gum (about 201b) and the ring. Within a day or so afterwards the prisoner sold some gum to a storekeeper named Jackson, who showed it to the prosecutor, and he identified soma of it, having scraped it

himself. Prisoner was arrested, and after hia arrest the silver ring was found in his possession, and this the prosecutor also identified. Prisoner could give no satisfactory account of how it came into his possession. The prosecutor (a foreigner), George Jackson, storekeeper at Brigham's Creek, and Detective Doolan, who arrested the prisoner, gave evidence supporting the above facts. The prisoner did not address the jury, or give any explanation of his possession of the stolen articles. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of "Guilty." When challenged, the prisoner said it was his first offence. His Honor said the crime was a serious one, for he was not only guilty of gross dishonesty, but of gross ingratitude. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. True Bills.—Before the rising of the Court the grand jury brought in true bills in the following cases:—Chas. Patterson (1) assault and (2) throwing vitriol with intent to do grievous bodily harm ; Te Rehutai, false pretences (3 charges); Tuari, false pretences; Charles C. Wight, rape; Hoereta Mimiha, unlawfully wounding ; . Augustus Vincent, Mary Vincent, and George Vincent, forcible entry; Augustus Vincent, forcible entry (separate charge); and Alexander Campbell, perjury. Thk Charge of Arson against Rehutai.—The foreman of the Grand Jury informed His Honor that in regard to the charge of arson against Rehutai they had not the witnesses before them, and had to bring in no true bill. He did not know whether they had done right or not. His Honor asked the Crown Prosecutor for an explanation as to why the witnesses were not in attendance. Mr. Williamson, after consulting Mr. Johnson, the prosecutor in the case, said that the witnesses were here, but had not been called. Three witnesses had been refused on the ground that their names were not on the bill. The foreman denied that they had refused any witnesses. Mr. Williamson said that it certainly was the impression left on Mr. Johnson's mind, and he was now ptepamd to put the witnesses before the Grand Jury. His Honor said that no true bill had now been returned. The foreman said they had only called the witnesses endorsed on the bill. They knew of no others, and Mr. Johnson himself had struck out the names of three whom he said were not present. His Honor said the Grand Jury had done their duty in taking the evidence put before them. They could not know of these other witnesses unless they were put before them. Mr. Williamson said he would ask His Honor not to discharge the Grand Jury until he had prepared another indictment to place before them. . The foreman read the nameß of six witnesses whom they had called, but who were absent. They examined eight witnesses. Mr. Williamson said these were witnesses who were examined before the coroner's inquest; but they were not considered necessary, and had not been subpoenaed. The committal was from the Coroner's Court—not in the usual manner from a Magistrate's Court—and these three witnesses, who were in attendance, and who had not been examined before the Coroner, were subpoenaed as their evidence was important, and they were in attendance, but had not been examined. His Honor told Mr. Williamson that he had better prefer a fresh indictment at the next criminal sittings. . The Grand Jury, having completed their labours, they were thauked by His Honor for their services, and discharged. • The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock this moraine.

DISTRICT COURT.—

[Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., District Judge, and a jury of four.l J. A. Macabtey v. Mayor, Councillors, AND BURGESSKS OFTHK BOROUGH OF NEWton. — Claim, £100. This was an action to recover £100, alleged to be due to Mr. Macarthy, engineer, for work done by him for the Newton Borough Council. Mr. j Theo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and I Mr. Cotter, instructed by Messrs. Connell and Cooper, for the defence. Mr. Cooper, in opening, read the particular!! of demand, which set forth that the plaintiff claimed that in tbe month of March, ISS6, he was instructed by the defendants as their engineer to prepare plans, estimates, and specifications for a water supply for Newton, He accordingly did so, and his plans, estimates, and specifications were accepted by the defendants. The estimated cost of the water supply was £4000, and the plaintiff claimed 2J per cent, on that amount, or £100, as remuneration for his work. In the months of July and August, ]SS6, plaintiff prepared sections of 18 streets in connection with the Great North Road, at an agreed remuneration of £2 10s per section, or £45 in all, which he now claimed. For sundry other work the plaintiff claimed £24 8« 6d. On these claims the defendants had paid £47 10s, and plaintiff further abandoned £21 ISs 6d, to bring the sum sued for within the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Macarthy had not been paid at any fixed salary, but by percentages, and 10s for attendance at the meetings of the Council. The only two items that the .jury would be called on to decide was the claim of 2£ per cent, on tha £4000, and preparation of sections for five streets at a cost of £12 10s. In the statement of defence filed by the defendants, they said that in March, 1886, the plaintiff was instructed by them to prepare drawings and estimates for the proposed' water and drainage scheme at a remuneration of three-eighths per cent, on £4000, or £15. In June this amount was paid to plaintiff in full satisfaction of his claim, and the plaintiff accepted it. The defendants denied instructing plaintiff to prepare sections of 18 streets as alleged by him. They had instructed him in Juue to prepare plans and sections of 13 streets near hichmond. Hill and Avenue at £2 10 per street, and £32 10 was paid and received by plain • tiff in full satisfaction of his claim. The claim of £24 Ss 6d was admitted by defendants and paid into Court with £4 costs. After some comment on these particulars, he called Mr. Arnold Macarthy, engineer,formerly in the employ of the Borough of Newton, who deposed that he had been engaged to attend the meetings at 10s per meeting. There was no written agreement, but it was understood that 2£ per cant, for preparing plans and specifications and J per cent, for supervision waa the remuneration. He had been asked to prepare plans and specifications for the water and drainage scheme. No specific agreement had been come to, but the ordinary rates had been understood, He had prepared the plans, estimates, and specifications, and delivered them to the Town Clerk. Subsequently he had received the sum of £15, or §ths per cent, as progress payment, but not as a settlement of the claim. The Town Clerk told him that they had very little money in the bank at the time. (The receipt was put in.) The ordinary charge was per cent. He had been instructed to fix the levels of a number of streets at £2 10s for each section. Ho prepared sections of eighteen streets, for which he sent in a claim for £45, and for whioh he had received £25 on acoount. On the receipt there were the words " less five streets not named, in value £12 10s," but witness denied that this was in his handwriting. For the five streets he prepared the same plans and did the same work. The Council had retained the plans of the five streets, and had not paid him, although he had repeatedly written asking them to do so. In one of his letters he drew the attention of tho Council to the fact that, in taking the levels of King and Queen- streets, he had found that some other streets would also have to be done. He had asked the Mayor about it, and was by him referred to the Chairman of the Streets Committee, Mr. Morrison, who gave him verbal instructions to do the extra five streets. Afterwards, however, Mr. Morrison denied having given such instructions. To Mr. Cotter: He had been present when the resolution was passed instructing him to prepare the water supply and flrainage plans. He did not receive the instructions in writing. He was not supposed to pay attention to such resolution until he had verbal instructions. He had not been consulted at that meeting in regard to the work. The Town Clerk and Mr. Morrison had given him instructions. At the meeting when the resolution was passed he would swear that he entered into no discussion with regard to the rates he would charge. He had never said, " You know that I won't overcharge you." At no other meeting had a discussion arisen, except; that he had told them that 2£ per cent, was the usual charge for preparing plans, etc., and 2£ per cent, for supervision. He had sent a letter with the plans and specifications. (The letter produced only mentioned drawings and estimates,) He could not explain how "specifications" had not been mentioned in the letter, but he would swear undoubtedly that he had sent the specifications, Ho was not aware thai; it was only to bo an approximate

estimate to be submitted to the ratepayers. He had heard that the result of the poll of the ratepayers was not favourable, but ha had not interested himself in the poll, although a sum of £100 depended on it. Three months after preparing the plans and estimates he had sent in an account in whloh he charged g per cent,, but that was solely a progress payment, (The account made no men« turn of progress payment). Three other itema in the same account witness admitted were not progress payments. He had not sent in an account for the balance; he had not sent them anything accept a summons for the amount. When he received the cheque for ■ the account he had made no menof the balance of the account. He received instructions for preparing sections of 13 streets from Mr. Morrison. Subsequently Mr. Morrison had verbally authorised him to do the five extra streets. After the work was done he had sent in the account. After considerable cross-examination witness could not swear that the words about " lesa five streets," etc., were not his handwriting. He . was doubtful whether the words were in the account when he signed the receipt. He did not remember when he was paid in the Albert Hotel seeing Mr. Currie, the Town Clerk, begin writing the words when he interrupted him, and put the words "in value £12 10s." A resolution was passed by the Council on the Sth of November, agreeing to pay the engineer £210s per section for thirteen streets, but witness did not remember being present then. He did not remember discussing the five streets with Mr. Currie. Mr. Cotter then produced a list of the five streets in witness's handwriting. Witness denied that he had given Mr. Currie the list the day after he was paid in the Albert Hotel wkon Mr. Currie told him that he could take the plans of the five streets away. He had never been asked to remove the plans. He had been dismissed in the latter end of January, and he had not subsequently sent in any acoounts to the Council. He had seen Mr. Currie in the street, and-had been asked by him to send in his account. He had replied, "It will bo sent in in due time." He had not sent in an account, but instead a District Court summons. He had not said that if the burgesses did not carry the vote for the water supply, he .would not expect a penny piece of payment of any kind. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Cotter submitted that there was no case for the defence to answer. The only questions were whether the engineer was employed to prepare specifications and what his remuneration was. No written mention was made of specifications in any of the documents produced. His Honor considered the oase should go before the jury. Mr. Cotter addressed the jury for the defence, and maintained th?. ''a bigger try on" was never before attempted in a court of justice. He called Mr. John Currie (Town Clerk of the Newton Borough Council), who deposed that Mr. Macarthy was present at the 18S6 meetings of the Council. On the Sth March they had passed a resolution instructing the engineer r to prepare an estimate of the cost of a water supply, Mr, Macarthy was present when the resolution was passed, and witness had not given him any further instructions than were contained in the resolution. He never saw any specifications banded in at the same time ati the plans and estimates, nor since. Witness had paid Macarthy £15 for the work he did, but no mention was made of progress payment, and he said nothing which would have led witness to infer that the account was not paid in full. * Since then he had made no application for the alleged balance prior to the issue of the summons. Witness had never asked him to send in an account for less than the whole amount as the borough was hard up. On referring to the minute book witness read the resolution instructing the engineer to take the levels of thirteen streets in Rich, mond Hill and Avenue. The engineer was present at that meeting. Witness did not give him any special instructions in reference to these streets. An account had been sent in for the work, and witness had paid the £9 14a, which the Council had agreed should be paid to Macarthy. Witness deposed that he had gone into the Albert Hotel with plaintiff, and had written the words "less 5 streets not named" on the account, at the request of Macarthy, who dictated them to him. Plaintiff had then written the words, "in value £12 10s," on the understanding that he was - not to be paid for the five sections. Afterwards witness asked for the names of the five streets, so that defendant could get the plans ready for plaintiff to take them away any night he oalled The Council had not made any use of them. No mention was made about a progress payment. To Mr. Cooper: He did not know whether the plans of these five streets were on the same paper as other streets retained by the Council. He had not told him distinctly to take away the plans, but he was to have them whenever he chose to call for them. The office had been burnt down, Mr. Macarthy's instruments were destroyed, but witness had not missed any correspondence or specifications. Only four wall plans were burnt. The Council had never been in want of funds, and -never had an overdraft. R. T. Warnock, the Mayor of Newton, gave evidence corroborating that of Mr. Currie. There had been no mention made o£ any charge for preparing the estimate for the water supply. He had never seen any specifications, and he had not authorised Mr. Macarthy to prepare the levels of more than thirteen streets. To Mr. Cooper Witness had referred him to the Chairman of the Streets Committee when he asked about five additional streets. John Morrison, councillor of Newton Borough Council, also gave corroborative evidence. He had never as Chairman of the Streets Committee,' instructed Mr. Macarthy to take the levels of more than 13 streets. He had never given verbal instructions for any streets to be done. Andrew Coopsr Riggs, Councillor of Newton Borough Council, deposed to conversing with Macarthy as to the charge for the plans and estimates. Plaintiff had said, " I'll do that without charging at all." Witness said he supposed that was because he would have a prospect of a percentage if the work was carried out; and Macarthy replied, " Quite so." This was the case for the defence. After the addresses by the counsel, His Honor summed up in favour of the defendant. The jury, after about half an hour's consideration, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £12 10s for the plans of the five streets. They thought, however, that plaintiff was amply compensated by f per cent, on the water and drainage scheme. Plaintiff thus obtained a verdict for £12 10s in addition to £24 8s 6d paid into Court, and judgment was given accordingly for £36 18s 6d, and costs £8 13a. The net amount of judgments (after deducting the amount paid Court) now to be paid by the Council is POLICE COURT.—Tuesday. [Before Mr. E. Isaacs, J.P.] Drunkenness.—James Gorman, Mary Williams, and Annie Moody were charged with this offence, and fined 5s and costs each. Habitual Drunkenness.Kate Hinch was charged with being drunk, and also with being a habitual drunkard, having been convicted three times within the past six months. The Bench sentenced the prisoner to three'months' hard labour.