LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9000, 13 March 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings. Monday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, Northern division, were opened this morning. Hie Honor took his seab on the bench at eleven o'clock. The following gentlemen were sworn of the Grand Jury :—Mr. James McCosh Clark (foreman), Messrs. Alfred Barnes, Benjamin Betts, Henry Brett, Robert Carter, Edward Champtaloup, Wm. Featherston Clifton, James Gittos, John Russell Gray, Wm. Ware, Thos. Henry White, Chas. Arnold, Alfred Ashton, Wm. Thomas, Jas. Bell, Herbert M. Brewer, Levi Coupland, Robert Edward leaacs, Robert Hall. The Judge's Charge.—His Honor then delivered the charge to the Grand Jury :— He said that on the present occasion there was not an unusually large number of offences, nor were they of the very highest nature, but they were all serious, and there were fewer than psual of a trivial character. There were 24 offences and 28 persons charged. Five of these were offences against the person, and the rest against property. Two of the offences agaipst the person required no comment, but three of them were very unpleasant, indecent oases, and one was for an unnatural offence, to which he neeed not refer, as the evidence was very plain. The other two were for indecent assault on children of tender years. Regarding 6ne of those he need maJce no remark; but in the other there might be a higher charge of rape alleged. He wished to draw • their special attention to this case when examining the child; for the charge was one which it was very difficult to disprove, and they should require that the evidence of the child should be corroborated. In the case which he referred to, which was from the Papakura gumfield, they should be oareful to examine into the antecedents of the child. In regard to the offences against property, there were two charges of arson, and it was curious that, in both cases, women were charged. In one case there was no apparent motive, but that need not trouble them. There was an unusual number of cattle-stealing cases. These, generally, were troublesome cases; but he need not go into thorn. There was, however, one peculiar charge against a butcher in Paeroa. It appears that he ran a beast into his slaughteryard and killed it. He made no attempt to conceal it, and when the owner came he was shown the hide and huad, and when the owner recognised them the accused paid him the full value of the animal. As they were aware, in all cases of laroeny it was the intent which constituted the offence. If he simply made a mistake, it would not be larceny, and they must satisfy themselves of his intent to deprive the rightful owner of his property, otherwise there could be no larceny. His Honor then referred briefly to the other charges of larceny, false pretences, etc., after which the Grand Jury retired. Horse-stkaling.— William Doyle, a youth about 16 or 17 years of age, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him that, on the 19th of December, 1887, he did feloniously steal, take, and lead away a chestnut mare, the property of John R. Anderson. He had been twice before convicted of larceny, and was now sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Arson.— Johanna O'Connell, an aged woman, was charged that on the 28th of December she did feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously set fire to a dwellinghouse, her property, in Franklin Road, with intent to defraud the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company. There was a second count charging her with setting fire to certain matters or things within the house, under such circumstances that, had the house taken fire, it would have constituted a felony. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Hudson Williamson prosecuted. The facts of this case are pretty familiar to our readers, the evidence having been fully detailed when the case was before the Police Court. Briefly put, the case for the prosecution was this:—The accused wae the owner of a house in Franklin Road, which she had mortgaged to a Mr. Monaghan for £200, and in addition to this she afterwards executed a second mortgage to Mr. Samuel Jackson for a small amount—some £12 or £15. Demand had been made on her for this amount a short time before the fire, but she repudiated ali liability, and declined to pay. Shortly before the fire, she went with Mr. Monaghan to the office of the insurance company in which the building was insured, and they inquired whether the insurance wa? properly kept up, and assigned to Mr. Monaghan. The circumstances which more closely connected the accused with the charge were as follows : —A Mr. Olson on returning home at night saw the accused coming out of her own doorway. He smelled something burning, and observed smoke. He spoke to the accused, but she told him that she had beenburning someshingles, but there was no fire in the place now, and she refused to let him go into the house, stating that she had not the key. Mr. Erickson, a neighbour, also smelled the fire, and coming out of his house saw Mr. Olson talking to the woman, and heard her refuse to lot him in, saying that the house was full of furniture. Mr. Erickson, however, burst in the door, and then found fire burning in two places. The fire bells rang, and Superintendent Hughes and Detective Herbert soon arrived, and found two distinct fires—one in a cupboard, another at the opposite side of the room, and also discerned that kerosene had been spilled in the room. On the same evening the detective followed the accused up, and found her at the house of a Mrs. Maloney, nnd found the key in her possession. There was very little furniture—only a table and a couple of worthless articles; but a few days previous she had removed a large trunk containing goods of considerable value to the house of a friend, where she left it for safe keeping. Detective Walker, C.E., produced a plan showing the premises, where the table stood, where the fires were, and also the positions in which the stains and smell of kerosene had been found. Walter Ellis, lately clerk in the employ of Samuel Jackson, solicitor, gave evidence as to the mortgages, and to the demand being made on the prisoner for payment. Arthur Baddeley, agent for the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company, deposed to prisoner's property being insured in his office for £150, in the name of Mr. Monaghan, the mortgagee. Andrew Nelson Ison deposed to the conversation he had with prisoner when he saw smoke issuing through the door and roof of her house. (The prisoner asked no questions, but said she had never seen this witness till she saw him in the Police Court.) John Alfred Erickson, who lived next door to the accused, deposed to bursting in the door of prisoner's house in consequence of observing smoke issuing from it. The accused told him she had not the key, having left it at Wairoa, and she said she would not allow anyone to sro in, asthehousewas full of boxes a«d furniture and things. He burst open the door, and saw a fire in the corner next the fireplace, and another on the opposite corner next the partition, and another in the middle of the floor, making three fires in all in this room. One consisted of a heap of shingles placed against the door, and he afterwards found there had been a fire in the cupboard. There was no means of one fire catching from the other. With the assistance of another man he put out the fires, and in the front room, at the corner corresponding with the recess in which was one of the fires, he found a heap of rags and papers saturated with kerosene, and there was a stream of kerosene on the floor, and on the wall paper. The only furniture in the house was a candle-box, a table, and 8 kettle. This witness very minutely described what he observed, and he seemed to have made a thorough investigation. John Hughes, superintendent of the Auckland Fire Brigade, described what he observed when he arrived at the house, when the alarm of fire was sounded. His evidence corroborated that of the last witness. Deteotivo Herbert, who took charge of the premises from the last witness, corroborated his testimony—as to the state of the house, and further testified as to his conversation with the prisoner when he found Mrs. O'Connell with the key in her possession at Mrs. Maloney's. She then said she had been to the house at four o'clock that afternoon, but did not go inside ; and when asked where she slept the previous night she said she slept in the cemetery on her husband's grave; and when further questioned, she said she had slept the night before that in her own house, and described the furniture, bed, bedding, and two large boxes containing laces and lace - making material

which were then in the house. She said she did not know if the house was insured, but it was mortgaged to Mr. Monaghan. Witness took her to the house and pointed out the spots where the fire had been, and asked if ene could smell anything. She replied, " Yes, kerosene," and that some one must have been trying to burn her out, and she expressed surprise at finding the house empty. Witness and Constable Bernard then arrested her. Witness subsequently took possession of the big box in the house of Mr. Mellor, Wellington - street, containing lace and material for lace and clothing, to the value of, he should judge, £5. In answer to prisoner, witness said that she told him she used the double blinds to keep out the light while she worked ; but he explained that these double blinds were only on the windows through which the fire could be seen. Maria Maloney (in whose house the accused had slept for three nights prior to the fire), Samuel Mellor (who received the large trunk from the accused for safe keeping in November, as she said she was going to Waikato to attend her daughter? accouchement, and was afraid to leave it in the house, gave evidence. He, with the assistance of another man whom she brought, took the trunk away from her house on the sth of November. Detective Herbert subsequently took possession of it. This closed the case for the prosecution. The accused said she would have called a witness, but having been in gaol she had been unable to subpoena him. His Honor said that had she applied to the gaol authorities the attendance of this witness could have been procured. It appeared, however, from the statement of Mr. Reston, that ehe had made no application. The accused then addressed the jury. She said she knew no more about the fire than the child unborn. She pointed out to the jury that she could not in any way be benefited by the fire, but that on the contrary it was a serious loss to her over and above the mortgage money. She wanted to keep the plaice in which to earn a living, and she was working hard to pay off the interest. His Honor then summed up the evidence, and after commenting on the strong points of the testimony against the prisoner, he pointed out that she could fain no pecuniary advantage in burning own the house for the insurance Would not cover the mortgage. The jury retired at a quarter-past three o'clock, and returned to Court at 4 o'clock with a verdict of " Guilty" on the second count. The prisoner when called on as to whether she had anything to say why sentence should not be passed on her, said she hoped His Honor would consider that she had been already nearly three months in Mount Eden. His Honor concurred in the verdict, and commented on the serious character of the crime, being only second to murder itself, and he would not be justified in imposing a less sentence than four years' penal servitude. Larceny as a Bailee.— Arthur Robert Welham was indicted for that on the 2nd of February,hebeingthen thebaileeof a certain rifle, double-barrelled gun, and shot-belt, the property of Montague Weatherley Marriott,' did feloniously steal the same. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. Williamson prosecuted and Mr. Humphreys appeared for the accused. The case for the prosecution was this:—The prosecutor, Captain Montague Weatherly Marriott, who stated that he was a retired officer of the Imperial Civil service, and the accused, who represented himself as a trebly-qualified medical man, and a man named Michael Kavanagh, left Auckland for an expedition to Wairoa, Captain Marriott paying expenses. At Tokatoka they ran short of money, and on the representation of the others that they could raise money on the two guns and shot-belt at Dargaville, he entrusted the prisoner with these articles to take to Dargaville for the purpose of raising money on them. Instead of doing so, however, by pledging them, prisoner sold them to a man named Brown for £9, representing that the rifle had been presented to him. Instead of returning with the money to the prosecutor they spend it. Kavanagh had since disappeared. The prosecutor in his testimony said he had distinctly cautioned the accused and Kavanagh on no account to part with the guns, only to pawn them. The guns were valuable ones, the double-barrelled gun being a choke bore and the rifle a Colt-Winchester. His instructions were most stringent that they should not part with them, for he had brought them from home with him. He did not see prisoner afterwards until he saw him and the guns in the custody of the police. In cross-examination the witness said that they had agreed to go to the gumfields and live together, but each was to act independently of the other. He acted as banker, but they were to refund him. His object was to prospect round, knowing that he could make more by writing for the English newspapers than by digging gum. If they dug gum he was not to share in the proceeds. Walton Chadwick, of Te Kopuru, who transacted the sale and gave the cheques for the amount to the prisoner, Peter Brown, who was the purchaser, and Constable Neil McLeod, stationed at Dargaville, and who arrested the accused, gave evidence. No witnesses were called for the defence, and Mr. Humphreys addressed the jury. His Honor summed up the evidencej and explained the law on the subject. . The jury, after seven minutes' deliberation, brought in a verdict of "Guilty." Mr. Humphreys addressed the Court, and asked that the case might be dealt with under the First Offenders Probation Act.- His Honor remanded the prisoner for sentence until the Probation Officer had time to report to the Court. True Bills.—The Grand Jury brought in true bills in the following cases: — Thomas Baker, cattle-stealing; Ann Morrisey, arson; Arthur James Bentley, cattle-stealing; James Maloney, Edward Wilson, and Thomas McDowell, larceny from yachts (four charges).

POLICE COURT—Monday. [Before Messrs. J. P. King and Wilding, J. P.'s.] Drunkenness. — Arch. Campbell and Robert Matheson fined 5s and costs ; James Brock 20s or seven days' hard labour. Larceny.—Harry Smith, a lad, was charged with having, on the 12th inst., stolen four newspapers, value Bd, the property of John R. Shepperd. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Magistrates decided to leave the case for Resident Magistrate, with view to committal of the lad to the Industrial School. Robbery from a Brothel.—Harriet Dewson and Henry Lenihan were charged with assaulting John Burke and robbme him of about £6 10s in money, in a brothel in Rokeby-street, on the night of the 3rd instant. Mr. Charles Madden appeared for the female prisoner, and Mr. O'Meagher for Lenihan. Mr. O'Meagher asked that Lenihan might stand beside him instead of in the dock, and permission was granted. John Burke deposed that he was a subcontractor, late of Dargaville, but now of Auckland. He arrived in Auckland on the 3rd instant. Had known the prisoner Lenihan in Dargaville previously. On arriving in town put up at the City Hotel, where, about eight o clock p.m., he met Lenihan. Hβ had, when he went to the hotel, about £10 in money, and left it about ten o'clock in company with Lenihan, who had a show of seeing some notes he had, but could not say whether he saw them. He was standing near while witness was counting them. They had several drinks together. After they left the hotel Lenihan and witness went to a brothel in Cook-street, and one opposite the Salvation Army Barracks, but only stopped five minutes in each, and spent no money in either. On leaving the .hotel he had five single £1 notes in his lefthand trousers pocket, and about £2 in silver. After leaving the last brothel, went to an hotel in Queen-street, and had some more drinks; then went to a pie and coffee stall at the upper end of Queen-street. Previous to going there Lenihan asked him to lend 6ome money. Gave him half-a-crown, thinking he might have spent all his money during the evening. After that Burke wanted to go home, and told Lenihan so. Lenihan replied, " There was plenty of time, and he would stop where I stopped." They went to another brothel, but witness refused to go in. Lenihan said he would only stop a few minutes. Accordingly they went in. Lenihan told him there were two old parties living there. Hβ entered the house and saw the female prisoner, Mrs. Dewson, there. Lenihan asked her to " shout." She said she could not then go for drink, but pulled a bottle of beer out from under the bed. Witness had a drink, and Lenihan and the woman were talking, but he could not hear what they said. Witness went to the door, but the woman called him back. After some time the woman left the bedroom, and he

heard her and Lenihan talking in the next room for a few minutes. She came in and wanted 30s from witness, but he refused, and she then eaid he must go out of the house, and then left the room. On returning she sat on the bed, and talked for a few minutes, when she shoved her hand into his pocket, and said, " Let me see how much money you have ?" He said, " Never mind putting your hand into my pocket," but she did so, and took all the silver and coppers clean out of it. She counted it, and told him he had only 6s. He jumped out of bed and said, " That was a yarn; he had more than that." Shoved the woman to the ground to take the money from her, but with no intention of hurting her. The first thing he knew was getting a blow on the right ear from Lenihan, whom he never saw come into the room. He was knocked down by the first blow, but Lenihan kept on striking him. Hβ was bundled out of the house. At the door the woman gave him back the 6s ehe had taken out of his pocket. On getting outside the house, he found he had no notes, only five shillings and ninepence in silver, and threepence in coppers. When he left the City Hotel he had £5 in notes, and about £2 in silver. Had only spent a few shillings between the City Hotel and the time he got to Mrs. Dewson's house. On entering Mrs. Dewson's house he would have about 30s in the right hand trousers' pocket and five single one-pound notes in the left. Did not owe either of prisoners money, and they had no claim to justify taking money from him. He informed the police twenty minutes afterwards, and three constables and himself entered the house. On entering they found only the woman Dewson down stairs; and when the constables asked about the money she said she had no money from witness. Being asked where Lenihan was, she replied tnere was no other man in the house but witness during the night. A search was made, but no money was found. To the best of his belief Lenihan wore a soft hat, but he would nob recognise it again. He was marked on the face and forehead, and was bleeding. Whilsb in the house heard Lenihan singing out to another woman to come downstairs, but she did not come down. He did not know that the other woman replied. Had not got back his money. Witness was cross-examined at great length by counsel for both prisoners. James Owens, who was a tenant with Mrs. Dewson, and occupied the upstairs portion of the house, deposed to what he saw and heard on the night in question, and to Lenihan being in the house. Constables Hansen and Graham, as to searching the house for the money and arresting the female prisoner. Mrs. McCaghey, a neighbour of Mrs. Dewson, and Detective Tuohy also gave evidence. The Bench decided, in reply to counsel, that there was a prima facie case to answer. The prisoners were committed to stand their trial at the present sittings of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed. Sergeant Pratt withdrew the charge of vagrancy against both prisoners.