LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8663, 4 September 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT. —Criminal Sittings , Thursday. (Before Ills Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] The Libel Cases.—His Honor had announced on the previous day that it would be convenient to take the pleas in the three libel actions in order that if special ploas were Bet up, and replications were necessary, there should be no delay when the cases were called for trial. Mr. Campbell said ho appeared for Messrs. Kelly and Baulf, and on their behalf he said there would be no special pleas ; their plea would bo "Not guilty." His Honor said that in that case he need not call on them to plead. Tho cases could nob possibly be heard before Monday. In regard to the charge against Hugh Shortland, the accused appeared on his own behalf, and said that in his case there would be a special plea. His Honor : Is it ready ? Accused : No ; your Honor. His Honor: Then ib should nave been ready. You might have been called on to plead on the first day of the sittings. You will bo called on to plead to-morrow morning. ~ Indecknt Assault. —Tho charge of indecent assault against William Vereker Bindon was then resumed, Mr. Heskoth and Mr. Cotter for the defence. The case for the prosecution had been closed on the previous evening, and Mr. Hesketh now opened the caso for tho defence, announcing that he intended to call tho accused to give evidence, and also some other witnesses, and he briefly explained the nature of evidence which was to be adduced. The accused was then sworn. He deposed that ho was a commercial traveller in the. employment; of Hancock and Co., brewers, and his duties wore collecting and canvassing for orders principally. On Monday, 3rd of August, ho went to tho Government Insurance Buildings to deliver accounts, and see three gentlemen —Mr. Bloomtield, Mr. li. S. Graham, and Mr. Shera—a little after tlireo o'clock. Ho went to Mr. Blooinfield's office first, and after finding the door locked, he saw tho little girl standing in tho passage. He had never to his knowledge seen her before. She asked him if lie knew whon Mr. Bloomtiold would be in. He replied do, adding that he wanted him himself. Just then Mr. Speight came up, and witness asked him if ho knew when Mr. Bindon would be in. He said, No, Bloomiield, I do not, ho is very uncertain in his movements," and going on lie unlocked the glass door of the Official Assignee's old office. Witness asked Mr. Speight if ho occupied those rooms now, and he replied, "Oh, ye 3, bub I have let them to F. A. White." He then went into the room, and witness walked to the foot of the steps, leaving the girl behind him. Witness went upstairs to Air. Graham's office, and went into the room in which ho had formerly done business with Mr. Graham, but found ho was not there. This was tho room numbered 17 on the plan of the upper storey of the building. Ib. had two doors—one open and one locked and ho had to go into 17 through 16. Finding there was no one there, .he went to No. IS, and just looked in, saw there was no ons there, and turned to go back, and on doing so he saw the little girl just behind him, "and that was the first he knew of her presence since lie left her in tho passage on tho first floor. Witness remarked to her, " There's no one here, you had better go downstairs," and she turned and went down in front, witness following her, and he went then to Mr. Shera's, in Mr. Tole's office, which is immediately at the foot of the top steps, and passed in his invoice, which he had selected from a bundle while coming down the steps. Ho did nob notice anyone before he went into Mr. Shera's room, and leaving Mr. Shera's office, he went along the passage again to Mr. Blootnfield's office, and in doing so, saw Mr. Graham's name on No. 13 room, and he went in there to deliver an invoice, and ask for an order, which he did. Ho then left and went down the lower stairs, and into Queen-street, no did not make any other visit to the building that day, and ho could not have been there more than from five to seven minutes. After he saw Mr. Speight go into the Assignee's office he did not see tho girl on the lower stairs, nor did he leave the building and come upstairs again, and meet her on the lower stairs ; and the only time she spoke to liirn in reference to Mr. Bloomtield was in the recess on the first floor, and her statement that she mob him on the lower stairs, and asked him where Mr. Bloomfield was, and that he said " Let us go upstairs and see" was not correct. When ho previously did business with Mr. Graham, it was in his office on the third floor, and he had never done business with him in any other office in that building, except in No. 17. His Honor said Mr. Graham had not been asked a word about this, and he should have him recalled. Examination continued: The first time lie knew Mr. Graham had his office on the first floor was on August the 3rd—the day in question. The girl did not enter either of the rooms 17 or 18 in witness's presence, and her whole statement as to what she alleged took place there was entirely untrue. He did not place his arm round her or assault her, and she weut down the stairs in front of him, and he noticed nothing peculiar in her manner, in fact, he took so little notice of her that he did not know her the next time he saw her. Her statement that he offered fcer a shilling when coming down the stairs was untrue. He never spoke to her on the stairs, and most decidedly made no offer to her to keep quiet, and the last ho saw of the girl was at the bottom of the top steps went he went into Mr. Shera's office. She did nob speak to him on the stairs, and he positively denied that she said anything to him about telling the police. He was arrested on Tuesday, after returning from Onehunga, and was bailed out by friends, and caught the six o'clock boab for the North Shore, and went homo. Ho was a married man. At that time lie had seen Mr. Cotter, who acted for him in getting bail, and he made an appointment with him for half-past eight, and was at Mr. Cotter's office -punctually at that time, and had a consultation with him regarding the case in the presence of Mr. Butt, his brother - in - law. The consultation was over about half-past nine o'clock, and he and Mr. Batt went to Mr. Speight's house in Hepburn-street, as he wanted Mr. Speight to corroborate the evidence which he had given to Mr. Cotter. He did nob then know Mr. Speight was a witness in the case ; ho only knew that ho was the only person who had seen himself and the girl togethor. When he saw Mr. Speight lie was nervousand upset at the charge which had been brought against him. Witness's wife was present at the interview with Mr. Cotter. When they reached Mr. Speight's there was .no light, but Mr. Speight asked who was there, and he replied " Bindon," and Batt said, " I have come to see you, as you aware that Bindon has been arrested." Mr. Speight asked them into tho sittingroom, and accused asked him to repeat 1 he conversation he had with him in the recess on the Monday, and asked him did he nob ask him when Mr. Bloomfield would be in, and did he not reply he did nob know, that his movements were uncertain. Mr. Speight said "Yes, Bindon." He (accused) said nothing more, and the rest of the conversation was conducted by Mr. Batb. Mr. Speight did nob check or reprove him in any way, and he denied having made any indirect overture to Mr. Speight to say lie was not in the building that"day. In fact, he went to him for the opposite reason, to corroborate his evidence as to the conversation in the recess, as he was tho only person who had seon the girl and himself together. The accused was cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor. In explanation of his statement that he had never been to Mr. Graham's office on the first flab, he said that previous to the 3rd of August his invoices wore posted to him. He had heard Air. Graham say in tho Police Court that he (the accused) had had business transactions with him in his office, two or three times during the last three months, and also that ho had occupied his present offices for 12 months, with the exception of two months, when he was upstairs, but that was seven months ago, but in the face of that he distinctly denied that lie had seen Mr. Graham at the office on the first floor. It was in the top office ho first made Mr. Graham's acquaintance. _ When coming down the stairs after the girl he did nob see Mr. Speight, and if Mr. Speight saw him it must have been while lie was in the act of selecting Mr. Shera's invoice from the bundle in his hand. His Honor : "You stated that the invoices to Mr. Graham had been posted during the last six months. Why was ib personally delivered then ?" Accused said invoices of this sorb were

usually posted, and bis reason for delivering them that month was that their new managing clerk had instructed him to deliver the invoices personally to renew hi 3 acquaintance with the customers, and seoit there were any complaints. \\m. »V. Battwas examined as to the conversation at Mr. Speight's house. He corroborated the statement made by the accused. He denied that anything had been said ' about Bindon not being on the premises that day, for Bindon from the first admitted that he was. Nothing was said about Mr. Speighb_bemg able to say that he had not been in the building, and no overture, direct or in'direct, was made to Mr. Speight to- say Bindon was nob in the building that daymost certainly nothe would not be mixed up with such a thing. Bindon did not say that • Mr. Speight knew that he had not been in the building that day, but Mr. Speight, in answer to witness, said that he had seen Bindon in the building, and spoken to him, and it was on the footing that Bindon had boen in the building that the interview took place. The witness was cross - examined ab some length, and said that from the first to the last Bindon never denied that he was in the building. His 'Honor read to the witness Mr. Speight's evidence on this subject, and stated that nothing had been said which could have reasonably caused Mr. Speight to suppose that they wished to prove that Bindon had not been in the building. It was»witness, not Bindon, who commenced the conversation, and he did the greater part of it. This was all the evidence. Mr. Williamson said he folt that tho case was nob complete withoub , the evidence of Mr. Graham, and as he understood he would be hero in a few minutes, he suggested that the usual adjournment be taken now (12.30). His Honor consented, and the adjournment was taken to 1.30. When the, Court resumed Mr. G. S. Graham was in attendance, and was recallod, and in answer to His Honor said that for about three months ho occupied temporary offices in the upper storey, bub ho came down to his own offices in November last. His Honor : Can you say whether the prisoner was in your office from November, 1890, to August, 1891? Witness: Oh, yes he has been there on many occasions. He could scarcely say on how many occasions, bub from memory he should say accused had been ab his office two or three times within the last two or three months. His Honor said he was sorry to have been obliged to interrupt Mr. Graham's journey, but his evidence became material, and was nocessary. Mr. Graham said thab it was nob through any disrespect that he had left Auckland, but ho bhoughb that on the close of his evidence yesterday lie was dis- • charged. His Honor said he was quito sure that there was no intentional disrespect. Mr. Hesketh said ho desired to put a few questions to tho witness on the now phase of matters. His Honor said he could nob allow questions by counsel to a witness whom he had recalled, but he could allow them to bo put through himself. In answer to Mr. Hesketh's questions, put through tho Court, witness said he had been in Wellington for a few days in July. He left Wellington on the 27th of June. He was at that time resident in Wellington, but that was in 1890. But in July of this year, ho went to Wellington for a week. Witness was asked whether he was in Wellington in June, this year, but ho said ho travelled so frequently that he could nob recollect. He might have been. He loft for Wellington early in July, bub ho could nob recollect the date. Were you away during tho months of Juno and July, and returned on the Ist of .August, two days before this offence was alleged to have been committed. Witness : "It may be so ; I can't swear to it." In answer to further questions, witness stated that the last time ho saw Bindon he called for orders. " How many orders have you given to tho accused during the last twelvemonths?" His Honor said it was not a reasonable question, but ho would put it as the witness did not object-. Witness : " I gave him one or two orders during the last twelve months, but I put him off on other occasions on the plea ef being busy. Was nob the last order given in the street opeosite your brother's office? Witness: I think so. Was not tho previous order given in Hancock's office ? At that time Air. Bindon was most assiduous for his employers, and frequently wont to Hancock's office and ordered what I required. His Honor said there must bo a limit to this. He reminded counsel that these matters were not elicited in examination or cross - examination by counsel, but in answer to questions by the Court. The witness was recalled by the Court, and for the information of tho Court, and ho would not take tho position of prosecuting counsel. He would, however, put the question of Mr. Hesketh, " Was the last order but one given by you in Hancock's office?" Witness: I think so. Mr. Hesketh : Had ib been the practice prior to August to have your accounts posted to you ? Witness : I sometimes received them by post, sometimes by hand. Mr. Hesketh : After you removed downstairs, did you retain the room upstairs? Witness : Well, thab is rather a peculiar question to answer, but practically I did. I left some packages there by permission of the landlord, but I paid no rent. To His Honor I left no furniture. By Mr. Williamson : His name was on the door of the room, on the upstairs room still, as it had never been rubbed out. On tho 3rd of Angust his name was on the door of his present office, which was always open during business hours, and the name was not then visible from the passage or vestibule. Since the examination in the lower Court he thought it his duty to advertise himself, and had his name now on each side of tho door as well on tho door itself. Before leaving the box, Mr. Graham said that he had been supoenaed as a witness ab tho Supreme Court in Wellington, and also in the Resident Magistrate's Court, in the same city, and by missing the boat to-day he would have to telegraph some excuse, and he would ask His Honor to bear him out as to the cause of his detention. He ought to be in Wellington for tho Resident Magistrate's Court on Saturday. His Honor said he would let the Resident Magistrate ab Wellington know the cause of his detention. Mr. Uesketh commenced to address the jury ab twelve minutes past two on bohalf of the defendant, and he quoted the doctrine that a charge of this kind was easily made, but difficult to disprove. He then proceeded to comment on tho evidence, dwelling especially on tho contradictions between the evidence given by the girl in the lower Court and that given in this Court. lie dissected tho evidence carefully and ably, pointing out discrepancies and improbabilities in her testimony. He also commented on Mr. Speight's and Mr. Batt's testimony, and contrasted and compared the statement of the accused and that of the girl. He concluded an able address at a quarter to fouro'elock. Mr. Williamson then addressed the jury, pointing out that it was never suggested that this charge was laid for the purpose of levying black mail, and in an able manner he explained the apparent discrepancies in tho prosecutrix's evidence. He concluded his summing up of the evidence at 25 minutes past four o'clock. His Honor then summed up the case to the jury at considerable length, and concluded by pointing out that the issue for the jury was very plain. It was, was the girl's statement true orfalse? Theirs was a painful task ; for, if they found the prisoner guilty, ib was a serious matter for him, but if not ib threw a slur on the girl. They were entitled to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt; bub if they had no reasonable doubt they must do. as they were sworn to — namely, to give a verdict according to the evidence. The jury retired at 10 minutes past five o'clock. At a quarter to ten o'clock His Honor sent a message to the jury, and the reply received was a request for a few minutes delay. At twenty- minutes past ten the jury again came into Court, and the foreman said the jury desired to know whether it was before or after the alleged offence was committed that Bindon went into Mr. Graham's room arid gave him the invoice. His Honor said that according to the girl's evidence he went into Mr. Graham's room before he went upstairs, but according to Bindon's statement it was nob until after they came downstairs. He could nob tell them, and it was for them to judge which statement was true. At the request of a juror, Mr. Graham's evidence was read over by His Honor. In answer to a question by His Honor as to whether there was a probability of their agreeing, the foreman said they might possibly agree within an hour. His Honor said it was now halfpast ton, and as there was a heavy day tomorrow, he was not disposed to wait so I late. He had no desire to hurry the jury

in their deliberations, and he would waib until eleven o'clock. If they were nob agreed then, it would be necessary thab they should be locked up for the night. Another juror said thoy would like to be informed whether' Bindon had been in Mr. Graham's office after his removal from the temporary premises which he. occupied on the upper floor." His Honor -said thab Mr. ; Graham had distinctly said so this morning, and he read his evidence on the subject. Mr. Graham had nob been asked on the subject in his first examination, bub in his • examination to-day" he was positive that Bindon had been ;ab his office on the first floor. The jury again retired, and returned at eleven o'clock. • In answer to His Honor, the foreman • announced that they could nob agree. His Honor said he regretted bhab he. would . have to detain them'till morning. "He would be in attendance shortly after nine o'clock in the morning. The Hospital Laundry Cases.Sarah Rowe and Mary Kenny were indicted, the former on a charge of larceny as a bailee of a quantity of bed-clothing, &c., the property of the Auckland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, and the latter with receiving tho same, knowing them to be stolen. There were three counts in tho indictmenb, and prisoners pleaded guilby. Mr. Baume appeared for bhe prisoner Rowe. The same prisoners were then separately charged with illegally pawning the articles, and pleaded guilty. Mr. Baume addressed His Honor in mitigation of sentence on behalf of Sarah Rowe, and asked that she should bo admitted to probation. She was a woman 60 years of age, who had hitherto borne an excellent character, and her former employer, who was present, .would speak as to her character. His Honor might take notice of the amount of remuneration which she received for the .hospital washing, 5d a dozen, which included washing, carting, etc., besides which she had to pay for assistance, and he was informed by a member of the Board thab the cost of tho Hospital washing now was from to lid a dozen. He had gone into a calculation and found that the whole value of the articles taken chargeable against the prisoner Rowe was £2 14s, and the money advanced on them was only 275 l The total amount alleged in the information was £16, bub that was very materially reduced by the evidence, and lie might also add thab in bho lower Court Mr. Oxley stated that the Board was indebted to Mrs. Rowe £10, although ib turned out nob to be quite so much. As His Honor would notice from the depositions, matters had been very loosely kepb at the Hospital, otherwise these thefts could .nob have gone on. Ho was placed in. a peculiar position in tho lower Court. He could nob apply to have the cases dealt with summarily, first on account of bhe value laid on bhe property, and second, because of tho constitution of tho Bench, and he wished an expression of opinion from His Honor on this subjecb. The two justices who sat on the cases were members of the Hospital Board, the prosecutors, and he could nob therefore ask them to deal with the case. Ho asked His Honor to deal with Sarah Rowe under the First Offenders Probation Act, pointing oub thab she was an aged woman who had hitherto borne an excellent character. She was subjecb to fibs, bub her daughter, who was present, and her husband offered to provide a home for her and look after her. He called Mr. Thomas Wigg, who made an affirmation in lieu of an oath. He was a laundry proprietor, and Sarah Rowe had been in his employ dtfring five years, concluding shortly before the Hospital contract was let. He was always satisfied with her, and ho only sont her away owing to tho slackness of work, and he always found her honest. A• fair estimate of the Hospital washing would bo 18d a dozen, and 5d a dozen would hardly pay for tho soap. Mary Kenny said that she pawned tho clothes at the request of Mrs. Rowe, who represented to her that she had taken them out of pawn. Mrs. Rowe only gave' her a few coppers occasionally, and on two occasions a shilling. Detective Hughes detailed to His Honor the articles which had been recovered, and said the thefts had been going on since December. Rowe's contract commenced in June lasb year. His Honor said that Mary Kenny had been previously convicted of a similar offence, but that was many years ago, and ho should nob take it into consideration ; bub ho considered there had been great laxity on the part of the Hospital authorities, and he should impose a short sentence of throe months' imprisonment on each prisoner for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently.

In Chambers. Probate.—On tho motion of Mr. Campbell, probate was granted to the executors named in the will of Übcnezer Martin. Robson v. Renata Hanuiuanui.'— This was an application by Mr. Dewes for a change of venuo for tho convenience of tho parties, and an order was granted by consent that the case be tried ab Napier ab the civil sittings, commencing on the 22nd of September. Law Practitioners' Act.—Mr. Calder moved by summons under the Law Practitioners' Act that Mr. Hugh Shortiand, solicitor, show cause why ho should nob deliver up certain deeds, the property of David Wood Taylor. It was ordered that the deeds be delivered up on payment of Mr. Shortland's bill of costs, said bill to bo taxed by the registrar, and to be delivered to him for taxation within lour days, costs £2 2s, and court costs were allowed to the applicant. ■■■-■■

R.M. COURT.—Thursday. [Before Dr. Giles, 11. M.] Undefended Cases.ln each of the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiff: — C. M. Crombie (Property Tax Commissioner) v. Caleb Wood, claim £1 2s Id, costs (5s ; Garlick and Cranwell v. Duncan Campbell, claim £1 15s, costs 7s; G. W. Binney v. J. C. Galbraith, claim £6 15s Id, costs £1; Paterson and Co. v. Owen Griffiths, claim £69 15s 2d, costs £5 4s ; D. A. Nairn v. Robert Logan, claim £3 10s Gd, costs 19s 6d. Pollen and ARM IT AGE v. W. D. DALLES. —Claim £38 30s fid, for damage to plaintiff's horse, through a collision with defendant's trap. The evidence in this case had been heard on a previous occasion. Dr. Giles gave judgment for the defendant. From an inspection of the road ib was very hard to believe that tho horseman could well have been run into unless ho crossed the vehicle almost at righb angles. The evidence for tho plaintiff by no means proved that the driver was the only one to blame, if he was to blame at all. Mr. T. Cooper'appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Armstrong for tho defendant. Eliza S. Ward v. R. S. White.—This was a claim for £30 lent by plaintiff to defendant, her brother, in October, 1885. Mr. Laishley appeared for the plaintiff, and called evidence to show that the money was lent in order that the defendant might buy a certain property, on which property he promised to give plaintiff a mortgage as security. However, the security hail not since been given, and defendant will not admit that he owes the money. He had, notwithstanding this, paid interest on the amount from time to time. The money was lent until plaintiff required it again. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that the plaintiff offered to lend the money. There were no conditions. He understood that she was taking up a share in the land, Dr. Giles thought the defendant had not made oub any case. Ib was monsbrous that he should have defendant's money and invest ib without giving her any security. Judgment was given for plaintiff for tho amount claimed, with costs, £5 6s. Peter Box v. Elizabeth Lacey.— £3 7s for goods sold to defendant, and for which defendant had nob paid. Mr. Baume appeared for the plain biff, and Mr. W. J. IS'apier for the defendant. After hearing the evidence of a man named Charles Andrews, to the effect thab he was at the house of the defendant on the day the goods were sold, and that he bought bhem, bub bold plaintiff at the time he would have to wait for a considerable time for payment, Mr. Baume agreed to accopt a nonsuit, without costs. Johanna Grace v. Henry Bowman.— Claim, £2 Bs, representing three weeks' rent, £1 16s, and one week's renb in lieu of notice, 12s. The defendant claimed a set-off of £1 15s for certain fowls againsb any sum recovered againsb him. Mr. J. A. Tole appeared for bhe plaintiff, and Mr. W. J. Napier for the defendant. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs £19s.

POLICE COURT.— [Before Messrs. S. Y. Collins and E. F. Tizard, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness.—Elizabeth Kennedy was ordered to pay a fine of 40s, or go to prison for 14 days tor having been drunk. David Cleary and Patrick Kiely were fined 10a

j each, with 48 hours' imprisonment in default. Two first offenders were dealb with in the usual manner. Dog Stealing. — Joseph Welling was charged with having on the 21sb August, stolen an English setter dog, valued at £2, the property of Alfred M. Griffiths. The accused denied the offence, and SergeantMajor Pratt conducted the prosecution. Ib appeared from the evidence thab Mr. Griffiths, having missed the dog, for several days, found it in the possession of the accused, and claimed it. The accused; asked to be paid for its koep, but prosecutor refused his request, and nob being desirous of entering into a dispute in the street, lefb him, and informed bhe police. The accused afterwards sold the dog for 30s to Mr. T. G. Santon, of the North Shore. The evidence for the prosecution having been taken, the accused made a statement to the effect that the dog had been given to him, and thab lie had been willing bo restore him to the owner on the expenses of its keep being paid. The Bench considered the charge proved, and sentenced the accused to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Larceny of Tools.— Welling was further charged with having on the 21sb August stolen three chisel3j one oil-stone, and one crew-driver, valued ab 10s, the property of Harold D. Bumby. SergeantMajor Pratt conducted the prosecution, the accused having denied the offence. The evidence showed thab Welling had taken bhe tools from an out-house adjoining prosecutor's residence, North Shore, and sold them to Frank Fern, general dealer, in whose shop they were found by Detective Chrystal. Three months' imprisonment with hard labour ; sentence to run concurrently with thab passed in the previous case.