LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8582, 2 June 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.-Criminal Sitting.; • : ~ Monday. . [Bsfore His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly ] • The criminal sittings of the Supreme Cour northern district, were commenced for th purpose of gaol delivery afc > eleven : o'cloc Ceno%T bef ° Hi 3 Honor Mr Justic The Geand Jury.-The following gentle men were sworn on the Grand Jury —\.x CwL B o UC , h^ an ' James H. 'B. °Coat« Alfred ßC ° lv . llle Fleming, Henry Goulston S, Richard Harris, • Charles Vine Sfe John/Mowbray, William Bat ss£« Vll fe Henr y Skinner, John 'H. E win % 1 Shera > Robert Hehr Frank ™ Winter, John Francis Boylaii : Wii' Wl i liam Robert Walker, Charle p'" mmsoa > Samuel Luke, Gerald Loftu Sj e ' { *kV" H - B - Coatea was electee toreman of the Grand Jury. dreW.^ C S ABOE - - His Honor ad safdThtf «.£ Grand Jury M follows : -< ?h«m-f the »ndwtmeats to be laid before luem,: to-day were ! nob very numerous, bul ac the. same time in some of them the evi 1"m a 8 o£; considerable length, anc Z ?u qm ? their careful consideration (JQlorethey found true bills or the contrary. «r.nff^ ted tbab ' they had ' before their another of those cases of persons in public onices, and entrusted with moneys, abusing t&eir position and : embezzling - the moneys nl %*£ * to them - ; They "would have Placed before them ; five or six indictments g a i ns t,.; a man who occupied the position of postmaster'and receiver of property ' tax, and he was charged with emoezKling money received by him in payment or the property tax, and also with money received by him;: as postmaster and appropriating it to his own use. In some of the ,;X;abeß the ~ money' was not, it appeared, actually, received by the accused, but by his subordinate, and there might be some doubt in some of the cases in consequence, but in regard to others he did that which amounted to a confession by asking that certain books should not be -presented till be had made things right. There were sundry ; other cases of the ordinary class of felonies, larceny from the person, larceny, burglary, and in regard: to; these ■ he did not think they would find.; much difficulty. The offence of burglary consisted of breaking into- a dwellinghouse between the hours of me at nigh t and ■ six ' in the morn ing. S In ■his case there .was no violent) breaking - in, but it appeared tho accused got in through an unfastened window; but that was sufficient to constitute the crime of burglary.' In the case of assault-on the police, he did not think they would find any difficulty. , ei ? e was a case of cattle-stealing, which was ■•," surrounded by the usual difficulties, ■ I he animal which the accused were charged with stealing was not seen by the owner for several; months, and '. its identity was more . proved by the ; brands; of ' the person from . whom it had been purchased (in December) than in any other way. It was bought by the prosecutor in December, and- was missing until April; and then it was sold to a butcher, who, seeing the brand on the hide, led to the iinquiry being made. Through the brands on the hide it was identified as the beast sold to the prosecutor in December. If that was so, it was for ; the accused to account for and explain how ho became possessed of it. The elder prisoner, whom be took to bo the father of.the other, said that the beast he sold was unbranded, that ho did not brand his cattle,' but if lit

was proved time he sold this branded boasb, ! it inighb be some proof that ib was stolen. The case, however, was far from clear. There I was another case which would probably '. take them some little time to consider. It was a charge of perjury brought against a Maori who was accused of having mitted perjury in a case brought by another Maori. To constitute perjury there must be false swearing in a Court of J ustice, and the evidence musb be on 60iue material point. If they 'considered that what was sworn/although ib might be false, was nob material, they musb throw out the bill. The prosecutor had been charged with killing a bull, and admitted that he had killed the bull but nob on the day alleged and sworn to by the accused, and if the Grand Jury considered that ib was material whether the bull was killed on one day or the other, they would find a true bill. But if they thought that the fact of killing the bull wa3 the material issue, and nob the date, they would throw out the bill. There wa.s a large mass of evidence, and no doubb some hard swearing, but the Grand Jury would have the advantage of hearing- the witnesses, which he had nob, and they would have to judge, whether there was , a case to send to the common jury. There was another charge of a peculiar nature. Two Maoris were

charged with conspiracy. It; appeared that one of them laid an information against a man named Scott for damaging a buggy, and the case was heard. Both tljp accused gave evidence that they saw Scott damage the buggy, but other witnesses proved that the buggy had been'damaged some time— at all events, some days—before, and th.e case -was dismissed. There was no dcjubb that if the accused swore that the buggy was injured by Scotb oh a certain date, and that they saw him do it, .although the injjiry had been previously done, they were liable for perjury, but they - were not charged v»-ith that, and the grand jury would'havfj to satisfy themselves that they combined; before the charge was laid. If not, the charge would not be supported, for it required more than one to make a conspirIt was proved that between Scott and one bf the accused there was an enmity, and the magistrate held that the charge was unfounded, but the Grand Jury must be satisfied that there was a combination before the charge was laid. He regretted to say that they would have to consider a charge of murder. The case was a peculiar one, for whoever committed the crimo probably did not intend to kill the victim, but to disable him. On the 23rd of March a man named Veitch was called out of his louse and,met a man who struck him a violent blow with a stick or piece of wood, which knocked him clown, and he then struck him. repeatedly afterwards nnd robbed him of his watch. Veitch was taken home and survived for eight days. During the interval proceedings were taken againsi the accused, who was charged with assault and robbery, and on that charge evidence was taken, including that of the man since deaci, which was given in the presence of the prisoner a week after the assault took place. Thero wore then hopes that Veitch might recover, but ho died on the following day, and the evidence was

clear that his death was caused by the injuries he received. Now, although the man who indicted those injuries may not have intended to kill when he struck the : blow; still, if the man who was struck died from the effect of the blow, it was murder. If a man in the course of committing , .a felony inflicted wounds which resulted in death, it was murder. There was , no doubt, the man Veitch was , murdered • by somebody, and it would be for • them to say whether that person. was tho ; prisoner. The prisoner, it appeared, was known the nickname of " Mexican" in the neighbourhood, and deceased said that " Mexican " did it. But that might , :." not j be conclusive evidence coming from . a man :' in the state in which deceased'was. It appeared that prisoner ' had been for some nights sleeping in a hay loft with another man, who testified that ; the accused had no I watch, but about an hour after the' assault I ttio accused was met some distance away by another man; to .whom ; ha said that he had been fighting at a certain place, and he showed some stains on his clothes, which he said was blood. Ho then had a "silver watch, and ho told tho man tho time twice. Ho stated where the fight was, and where he bought some vinegar. If it was shown that thero was no fight at the time i and place stated, it would bo '[ some evidence against the prisoner. In tho barn which prisoner occupied was found a swag, which lie claimed to bo his. He had no watch when '•''arrested, • but on tho day after the : arrest a watch ; , ; was found in tho. hay loft wrapped up in hay and placed on a beam. ;■ This lie % did not claim, but it was identified by a son of doceased aa ': that which his father wore. Prisoner acknowledged that tho swag was his, but notitho,watch, and it would. be for j them 'to consider whether thero was,sufficient evidence before them to place accused on his trial. Ho did nob. think lib need trouble them with any further remarks on the cases, but ho would remind them that, although in some cases the evidence, of .the first witness might bo sufficient to send a case for trial, they should take the evidence of all the witnesses before throwing out a bill, 'for the most important testimony might bo that of ■■ the ' last witness,;: The rand Jury then retired. fjAHOENV.— John OkarUs Taylor, a negro,' pleaded guilty to tin indictment charging

him stealing a cash box containing £44 ta 6d in money, and a large quantity of {, jewellery, the property of Marion Stewart, on the 28th of ApriL The prosecutrix was called by his Honor, and said that she had , never seen the accused until the evening he £ came into the house. It was not she who . put the cash box under the sofa, it was her ' little girl. She got all the property back, except £8 or £10. The prisoner asked to • be admitted to probation, as he had never _ appeared before this Court previously, but as he had been twice convicted of larceny ' in Invercareill this was refused, and pri- » soner was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour twelve calender months. Burglary.— Oustav Adolf Petersen was ' indicted on a charge of having on the loth of March, at about two o'clock in tho I morning, feloniously and burglariously broken into the, dwelling - house of ] Ellen Lawson, at Auckland, and stolen therefrom a pair of boots and some clothing, the property of Michael Bains. He pleaded guilty, and handed up a written statement to the Court. In reply to His Honor, the Crown Solicitor said that nothing was known with regard to the prisoner by the police. His Honor said,it was very fortunate for the prisoner that nothing was known of him, for he' felt very much inclined to doubt his statement that he had never previously been guilty of any offeuce; for the manuer in which he effected this robbery made it clear thats he was accomplished at this kind of work. He had to climb a verandah 12 feet high, get in through a window, steal those articles, and effect his] escape, without creating any disturbance or noise. It was totally inconsistent with his statement that he was drunk. Had there been any previous conviction against him he would sentence him to a long term of penal servitude ; but, as there were no convictions, ho would let him off with a comparatively light sentence of twelvo months' imprisonment with hard labour. '.. .'

Larceny from the Person.— John Henry Coiisidine and Matthew Chan. Parsons were charged that, on the 25th oi April, they feloniously stole from the person of Jane Kobbs a purse and £1 12s 6d. Considine pleaded guilty, and Parsons, a youth of about 17, pleaded not guilty. The facts as opened by the Crown Prosecutor wore as follow -. —At six o'clock on Saturday evening, the 25th of April, the prosecutrix, a Maori married woman, was sitting by herself in a little room off the bar of the Thames Hotel. The two prisoners came, and Cousidine entered into conversation with the prosecutrix. The girl in the bar observed Considine put his hand into the pocket of the prosecutrix's dress, take out a purse, and hand it to Pai-sons, and they then left the place. The prosecutrix soon discovered her loss, and made a noise.about it. Parsons was seen to .drop something outside the hotel door by an acquaintance named Healy, which he said was a banana peel, but when Healy heard of the robbery he went to the spot and found the purse, which was identified by the prosecutrix, but the money was gone. Parsons admitted having received the purse from Considine, but said he had no intention of stealing it.- Jane'Hobbs (the prosecutrix), Mary Codlin (housemaid at the Thames Hotel), Martha Poss, David Healy, and Constable Young gave. evidence in support of the indictment, and neither of them was cross-examined by the accused.

After hearing the evidence, the jury ia a few minutes returned a verdict of" guilty." The prisoner Considine, au old offender, was sentenced to three years' penal servitude, and Parsons was sentenced to four months' imprisonmenb with hard labour. Assaulting the Police.— liicJiard Inoin was charged that on the 10th of April he assaulted Edward Lamb, a peace officer, in the execution of his duty. Prisoner pleaded nob guilty, and in reply to the J udge he said he had no counsel. The jury having been empanelled, Mr. Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, opened the case for the prosecution. He said it was a simple case. The accused was charged with assaulting Constable Lamb, and inflicting on him serious injuries. The evidence was very clear. The accused was found lying drunk in Queen-street by .Constable Addison, at ten o'clock at night, in a gutter, and when he was arrested he became very violent and resisted. Addison, who was in uniform, whistled for' assistance,' and Constable Lamb came. Prisoner tripped up Constable Lamb, who fell against the ksrb and injured his shoulder. Dr. Collins, superintendent of the Auckland Hospital, deposed that Constable Lamb was brought to the hospital on tho nighb of Friday, 10th April, and on examination he found that the left shoulder was dislocated. He was under witness's care for aboub a fortnight. The recoverv

may be tedioue, but there were no per manent injuries.. Constable Addison gave evidence as to the. occurrence, and in reply to His Honor, said Lamb was also in uniform. Herbert John Stephens, night porter at the Pacific Hotel, George;, Greenland,, who assisted the constables and who was himself kicked by the prisoner, Henry Hattamore, Constables Lamb and Young, also gave evidence. The prisoner made no defence, and- the jury, after about five minutes' conference, returned a verdict of guilty. Prisoner, in answer to the usual challenge as to whether he had anything to say why sentence should nob be passed on him, said he had nothing to say. His Honor said ho looked on prisoner as a very dangerous character. For a number of years lie had been continually in custody for assaulting the police, and had only received small sentences of two months, one month, three months, and 24*liours." Besides he had been sentenced for' obscene language, drunkenness, and larcefly. Ho would on this occasion give him a Ion" , sentence as a caution to others, and he re" gretted that he had not some of those who encouraged him alongside the prisoner in the dock. The sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term of two years. No TnuE Bill.—ln the. indictmenb for cattle stealing preferred against .John Hodgson and Edgar Hodgson, the Grand Jury returned no true bill and the prisoners were discharged. Tote Bills.—True bills were brought in in all the other cases except that against two natives for conspiracy, and this in reserved for further consideration by the Grand Jury. The Court adjourned until ten o'clock on Tuesday morning.

POLICE COURT.—Mondav. [Before Messrs. Gordon and Oilmour, J.P.'.s.] Drunkenness.—A first offender was fined 53, with the alternative of 2-i hours' imprisonment. Larceny.—Chas. Plonnings was charged on reinnnd with having on the 28th May stolen three singlets, the property of Chas. Hopkins. Chief Detective Kirby deposed that from something a cabman nuuied Bowdeu had told him:! ho pursued the accused and asked him about tho singlets ho had tried to dispose of to Bowden. The accused said the singlets were his, and refused to tell witness anything more about them. A. Bowden, cab proprietor, deposed that tho accused had como up to him on the istrcet and offered to sell him the singlets l:or 2a, but on heuring that Air. Kirby was coming along ho cleared, leaving the goods in witness's hands. The detective followed the accused, and got him. Charles Hopkins, draper, gave evidence to the efl'cct that the singlets belonged to him, he having missed ijix ; from a placo where they were exposed for sale. The accused, in reply to the Bench, said he had not stolen tho singlets, although ho could not toll where l?o had them. Ho had nob been long in Auckland, and had not been previously beforo tho Court. , The Bench 'said they had ■ a record before them which showed that the accused was not only capable of stealing, but also capable of telling a deliberate lie, and that, in a Court of Justice was worse than thoft. The accused had been a considerable time in Auckland, and had been previously convicted of larceny. He would be sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Au-Konn RoitiiEHY fuom tub Pf.ksox. Juno McManus was. charged on remand with having stolen £1 from tho person of W. H. Hall. Sergeant-Major Pratb applied for a further remand for a week to enable* him to secure the attendance of the prosecutor. Remand granted accordingly. Ajcmsoed EMBB/.zr.KMKNT.— Tliomas Meikle Ford, alias John Williams, was charged (1) with having on the 23rd May embezzled the sum of £5 Sβ Id, the property of his then employer, Malcolm Crow ; and (2) wit!) having on the 13th January embezzled tho sum of £1 Bs, tho property of his then employer, Thomas Billington. Sergeantmajor • Pratt stated that tho accused had boon arrested at New Plymouth and only brought back to A.uokl«tud on tho previous

day. Hβ (the; Sergeant-major) therefore applied t fo> a remand for a week. The Bench granted the application.