LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9078, 12 June 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— Judge's Chambers.

Monday.

[Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.)

Probate.Probate was granted in the wills of the following deceased persons :—James Fletcher, William McCormick, and William George Hayle. Applications for probate in the wills of Walter Baskivill and Joseph Banks were adjourned in order that further affidavits may be filed. Administration.— of administration were granted in the estates of the following deceased persons :—John Donald McLeod, Mary McLean, Jessie Ross, William Frank Rossi William Robinson. Humphreys v. Humphreys (Divorce). — Mr. Button moved for direction as to time, mode, and place of trial. Ordered to be tried at the ensuing sittings of the Supreme Court at Auckland, by the Court without a jury. • Freestone v. Kenderdine.Mr. Buddie moved for a summons for a special jury of four to try this case. Dr. Laishley opposed the motion, but His Honor granted the order for the special jury. Trustee Act, 1883.— the matter of the Trustee Act, 1883, and of the trusts of £400, bequeathed by the will of Sarah Jane White, to the children of Owen Connor, Mr. Thorne moved for an order to dispense with notice. An order was made dispensing with service. Admission to the Bar.—On the motion of Mr. F. Macrae, Edwin Sandeman, law clerk, was admitted a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and on the motion of Mr. A. E. Whitaker, Edward Elliott was also admitted as a solicitor. Criminal Sittings. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court for the Northern district were opened this morning before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at eleven o'clock. The following gentlemen were sworn in as the Grand Jury :—John Dawson, Henry Olive, Robert Garrett, Alexander Aitken, Alfred Richard Harris, George Harper, Charles Cooper, Wm. Johnson, Graves Aickin, James Wingate, William Dixon Buddie, George Edward Ireland, John Edson, William Hammond, William Thomas Ball, John Gilfillan, Henry Wilding, Alfred Porter, Thomas Usher, Edward Champtaloup. Mr. Graves Aickin was elected foreman of the Grand Jury.

The Judge's Charge.—His Honor said that the calendar on the present occasion seemed somewhat large, there being 30 persons charged with 24 offences ; but when they came to deal with it, however, they would not find it so serious as it at first appeared. Eight of the charges arose out of one matter, the sale and purchase of native lands at Tauranga, in which seven natives and one European were charged. The nature of these transactions he would refer to presently. There were, unfortunately, three cases of indecent assault. In dealing with these cases they must understand that where the persons assauted were over the age of 12 years there must be some resistance to show that it was against the will of the person, to constitute the offence of assault; but in the case of children under 12 years that was not necessary, as the law did not consider that a child under the age of 12 years was capable of consent, —and the Grand Jury would have to consider that in the cases to be brought before them. There were three charges of horse - stealing 1 , four of forging and uttering, and one of having set fire to a haystack, and the usual cases of potty larceny, but the facts in each of these cases were very simple, and they no doubt knew sufficient law to enable them to deal with them. The eight charges to which he had already referred arose in this way: A European who had married into a native tribe was appointed by the Government; to purchase a certain block of land from that tribe, and he was to be paid £5 a head for obtaining the signatures of the owners. The land was put through the Native Lands Court, and he proceeded to obtain the signatures, and it vas alleged that some of the signatures were got by personation. A chief of the tribe was concerned with the land purchase agent, and he said the land purchase agent induced him to personate those whose signatures were required, and out of these circumstances arose the eight charges of false pretences. Two of the parties, namely the chief and the land purchase agent, would probably bo indicted for conspiracy and it was for the Grand Jury to say whether there was sufficient evidence to send the cases for trial to the Common Jury. These were all the cases he deemed it necessary to direct their attention to. They would now retire to their room, and the bills would be laid before them.

Arson. — Henry Smith and John Kelly, young men of about 20 or 22 years of age, were indicted on a charge of arson, viz., that they on the 25th of April feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously did set fire to a certain haystack, the property of Hugh Fulton. Both pleaded not guilty. Mr. Hudson Williamson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown and Mr. Cotter appeared for both prisoners, and at his request witnesses were ordered out of Court. The case for the Crown was this : The scene of the firs was in the neighbourhood of Kaukapakapa. On the evening preceding the fire the prisoners, with a man named Taylor, were at a dance or jollification, and late at night, when returning home under the influence of drink, they procured more liquor. One of them proposed that they should set fire to the haystack. Taylor 1 tried to dissuade them, but they went towards the haystack. Taylor could not see what they did, but almost immediately after he saw the stack in flames. They then went to Mr. Fulton's house and I called him, informing him that his haystack was on fire, and assisted in endeavouring to put out the fire ; and Taylor came to their assistance, but they were not successful, and the stack, which Mr. Fulton valued at £15, was totally destroyed. When prisoners were arrested they stated that they were returning home with Taylor, and seeing the stack on fire they endeavoured to extinguish it. Hugh Fulton, in his evidonce, said that after the stack was burnt, Smith said he had some suspicions as to who set fire to it, having heard some talk down at Bob's hotel. In cross-examination the witness said he had known the prisoners for years, and was always good friends with them, and knew of no reason why either of them should seek to injure him, or his property. He had not previously known Taylor. They did all in their power to help to put out the fire. Both prisoners were drunk when they aroused the witness. The three remained in his house for about an hour after the fire, and Taylor, who was to all appearances perfectly sober, did not accuse anyone or say anything to the witness which would lead him to believe that he knew who set fire to the stack. John William Taylor, who described himself as a gumdigger, deposed to having been at a dance at Mr. Phillips' house on the night of the 24th of April, and he left with the two prisoners at about half-past eleven o'clock. They procured a 1 bottle of whisky at the settlement, after which they went along the road, and Smith proposed that they should set fire to Fulton's haystack. The remainder of his evidence bore out the opening statement of the Crown Prosecutor, except that he did not remonstrate with the prisoners, but he 1 remained at Payne's bridge while the others went on. The witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination, and broke down in many points. His depositions in the lower Court were read, and he was crossexamined on them. ' Constable Foreman gave evidence as to the statements made by the prisoners when they were arrested, fylr. Cotter addressed the jury in opening the case for the defence, and commented strongly on the evidence of the principal witness, Taylor. He called Thomas McKinley, artist, who deposed that in March last he was in Kaukapakapa and on the 24th of that month he was in the same house with Taylor. He was at the dance at Phillips' place on the Saturday night, and when going there he met Taylor near the tram line. He said he was waiting for Smith, as they were going to have a bit of fun that night. During the evening Taylor seemed very fr?e with Smith, shouting for j him and giving him whisky. Smith's sister spoke to Taylor, and asked him not to give ; her brother whiskey, as he got in a state and did not know what he was doing. He also saw Taylor boxing and fooling about with Smith. They all left the dance and went out at the gate at the same time, and when they bade each other good night Smith went about six yards up with his sister and he was called back by Taylor. Smith came back, and after speaking to Taylor he called out to his sister, "a. ->

all right, Em., we are going to the settle- ] ment." Smith's sister came with witness and another to her own home, and Smith remained behind. ' Taylor returned home some time in the morning. ' He seemed very frightened and startled and did not sleep at all, and afterwards in the morning witness heard that Fulton's haystack hadb een burns, and Taylor, Kelly, and Smith had been into it (meaning they had been up to something). Witness subsequently asked Taylor who had burnt the stack, and he replied "One of us." During that Sunday Kelly and witness talked to Taylor. They chaffed him about the breaking of the fence and the fire, and he seemed frightened, and said that Kelly and Smith would be getting him into it, and get out of it themselves, as Smith was a great friend of Fulton's. Witness asked what the value of the stack was, and Taylor replied about £10, but he would sooner have given £20 than have anything to do with it. Taylor wanted to go away to Tea-tree Flat, and witness told him he was foolish to do so, as he had better Stay and face it out, and Kelly also told him that if he went away suspicion would be sure to fall on him. On the same day Taylor told witness that Kelly was a young fool, going about telling everyone about it, and ho would get him (Taylor) into trouble. The witness was cross-examined, but his evidence was not shaken. Mr. Cotter then addressed the jury for the defence on the whole case, and Mr. Williamson replied, concluding his address at 25 minutes past six o'clock, when His Honor summed up the case. The jury retired at 25 minutes to 7 o'clock; they returned to Conrt in half-ah-hour with a verdict of " Not guilty," and the prisoners were at once discharged. True Bills.— Grand Jury concluded their labours at about five o'clock. They returned true bills in all the remaining cases of the calendar. They were thanked by His Honor for their attendance, and discharged. No True Bill.ln the case of Henry Thornton Rowe,. charged with an attempt to carnally know a child under the age of twelve years, the Grand Jury returned a finding of no true bill, and the accused was discharged from custody.

POLICE COURT.—Monday. [Before H. C. Baddeley, Esq., E.M.J Drunkenness. Coir was fined 5s and costs, or twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Frank Smith and Constance Johnson were fined 20s and costs, or fortyeight hours' imprisonment, and Kate Hinch was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for this offence. Smith and Hinch had long lists of convictions against them. No Visible Means of Support.—Charles Henry William North was charged with a breach of tho Police Offences Act, 1884, section 26, sub-section 1, by having no visible means of support in Auckland, June' 9, 1888. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Sergeant-Major Pratt conducted the case on behalf of the police. Detective E. Hughes deposed ne was on duty at Ellerslie racecourse on Saturday afternoon, when he saw the accused acting as a ready-money bookmaker. A man named Hunter complained to witness of the accused not paying his bets. Witness had known prisoner to be convicted of larceny in 1866. Detective Tuohy stated he had known accused over two years. He had been convicted of larceny from a dwelling. He was a bad character, and witness had never known him to do any work. Sergeant Kiely also gave evidence. James Hunter, salesman, New North Road, stated he was on Ellerslie Racecourse on Saturday last, and saw accused betting against the horses. Witness backed Shillelagh on No. 2 race, at 3 to 1 against him. Witness paid 2s 6d, and was to receive 10s back if the horse won. The horse did win, and when witness went to get his money, the " accused was welshed away." Accused stated that he was working on Mr. Gould's license, bookmaking, Mr. Gould was nothere, and his license was good till July. He paid up on the first race, but on the second race witness lost £4. He paid up all his tickets but two, Mr. Barrett and the last witness. These he promised to get the money for in a few minutes, as soon as he could see a friend. He left to find him, and at last witness went and fetched Detective Hughes, who arrested him. Accused called Charles Home to prove he had lawful visible means of support. Witness said he had known accused for twelve months, and had known him running a schooner named Atlanta with a man named Donovan. Accused said he was under contract to leave on Saturday if he had a chance with Mr. LaMolte or LaMonte, who was buying a vessel. Ho would guarantee to go if he had a chance. The Resident Magistrate said he would adjourn the case until Wednesday next, to give him a chance to get away. Three Card Monte.William Noble was charged with a breach of the Police Offences Act 1884, section 28, sub-section 5, by playing at the three-card trick at Ellerslie Racecourse on Saturday, June 9th, contrary to the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1881, section 8. Mr. Cotter appeared for the prisoner, and pleaded "Not guilty." Sergeant Pratt appeared to prosecute. On the application of Mr. Cotter the case was adjourned till Wednesday. Larceny. Daniel Tidey was charged with stealing £1 10s 8d in money, and tea and sugar to the value of 13s, from the store of James Patterson Sinclair, at Swanson, on September 2, 1887. Sir Wm. Wasteneys appeared for the prisoner, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant-Major Pratt appeared to prosecute on behalf of the police, and called the prosecutor. James Patterson Sinclair, storekeeper, residing at Swanson, deposed that in September last the prisoner was employed by witness as carter and assistant in the store. On the 2nd of September last year, accused was employed to take a cartload of goods to gum diggers. Amongst the goods were groceries, for a party named Hardy, to the value of 12s. Witness also gave him some £12 to pay balances to the diggers, after deducting the stores from the "gum?they gave in exchange for goods. When the accused returned he - brought back the gun he had got from the diggers. Witness here read a list of entries of gum received in a book kept by prisoner. Hardy had 34 and 861b of gum entered to his credit. Witness weighed the gum, and found that he was money short to the value of 1201b of gum. He said he had received this weight of gum from Hardy. Witness told accused he did not think there was any such man on the field. Accused stated the gum must have rolled off the cart, and if witness would lend him a horse he would go and look for it. Witness had his suspicions of prisoner, and did not lend it, because he had done that once before and lost his horse. Witness came on to town, and when he returned to Swanson the prisoner was gone, and witness had never seen him again till be met him in Court. The Resident Magistrate said he did not think there was sufficient evidence to brand the accused as a thief. The case was suspicious, but he would give the accused the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case. The Alleged Man and Wife Imposition.—Geo. Williams arid Emily Bertha Miller were charged with imposing on E. C. M. Thompson, of Shaftesbury, near Te Aroha, on January 1, by representing themselves to be man and wife, and so obtaining employment from the said E. C. M. Thompson, contrary to section 28, sub-section 4, of the Police Offences Act, 1884. Sir Wm. Wasteneys appeared to prosecute, and Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the defence. The male defendant appeared, but' the female did not. Mr. Napier took a preliminary objection, that the information had been laid by an unqualified person, a Mr. Hugh Shortland, and there was no authority produced as to his" right to lay it, and till that was produced he submitted the case could not go on. Mr. Shortland was "a man of straw he had no means. He would want to examine Mr. Shortland, who was not the prosecutor, not a police officer, and neither a barrister nor solicitor... Sir William Wasteneya said he had no authority. Mr. Thompson was E resent in Court, and rose and stated that he had not laid the information nor authorised it to be laid, and was only here because he had been subpoenaed as a witness. He declined to lay an information, as he had no complaint against the accused. Mr. Napier said it was a most extraordinary proceeding. A most improper, use bad been made of the machinery of the Court. Mr. Thompson had no complaint against the defendant, and on the contrary was perfectly satisfied with the accused. He asked that the case be dismissed. This was really an attempt to use the Court to extract _ evidence to be used in a case pending in the Supreme Court— divorce case. The case was a most disgraceful attempt to use the machi- 1

nery of the Court for other purposes. The Resident Magistrate said the case was a most extraordinary one. He had never heard of one like it. Here was Mr. Thompson, who was the only person who had a right to lay the information, dragged here as a witness under a subpoena against his will. The Resident Magistrate also stated he was extremely sorry for the defendants, for the position they were placed in. Mr. Napier stated that the case was a most unjust thing. Mrs. Miller had been prostrated by these proceedings, and was now so ill that she had been unable to attend, and Mr. Thompson had been dragged here by the most extraordinary conduct of Mr. Hugh Shortland. Mr. Napier asked that the case be dismissed. Sir Wm. Wasteneys desired to withdraw the cue, adding he was sorry to have been mixed up with it. The Resident Magistrate then ordered costs against the informant, Hugh Shortland, to the amount of £10 10s.