LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8669, 11 September 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings. Thursday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Larceny from the Person.—Samuel Wilcox and John Thomas Donovan were charged that on 24th of June they feloniously stole from the person of George Ford Hill a purse and £47 10s, and there was a second count in alio indictments, charging them with receiving the property, knowing it to be stolen. Both prisoners pleaded not guilty,. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for Wilcox. Donovan, who had no counsel, asked His Honor to kindly watch the case on his behalf, as ho had not the means to engage counsel. Witnesses were ordered to leave the Court. The facts of the case, as opened by the Crown Prosecutor, are as follow The prosecutor, a man well advanced in -years, is a farmer, residing at Takapuna. On Wednesday, 24th of June, ho came to Auckland with a draft for £47 10s on the Bank of New South Wales, which lie cashed, receiving four £10 notes, one £5 note, two £1 notes, and 9s Gel in silver. ' He wandered about the street for some time, and eventually found himself in tho Alexandra Hotel, in Chapel-streot, in company with the two prisoners, and subsequently a woman came on the scene, and she induced Hill to go with her to her house (a disreputable one), in Chapel-street. The two prisoners followed them into the house, but subsequently they loft him with tho woman, and it was supposed that it was before they left that the money was abstracted from Mr. Hill's trousers pocket. The woman was arrested on this charge, but she was in bad health, and she was sent to tho hospital, where she subsequently died. Several neighbours would testify to seeing Hill and the woman going into the house, followed by Donovan and Wilcox, and to the two latter leaving tho house by themselves. The prisoners, who, prior to this, had very little money, spent money very freely, and disposed of four £10 Bank of New South Wales notes, three of them in hotels, and one of them in Mr. Dal ton's tailor's shop. The accused could not identify either of the notes, but four £10 notes and one £5 note were traced to the prisoners, Wilcox having left £19, including one £10 note and one £5 note, for safe keeping with tho landlord of tho Bricklayers Arms Hotel. George Ford Hill, the prosecutor, in his evidence, said lie met Donovan in the street, and they went to the hotel in Chapel-street, and had a drink, lie left the house to complete his business, but he lost, his senses, and the next thing lie recollected was getting a blow on the head in a house, and being pushed into the street by Wilcox. He missed his purse just before he got the blow on the head, and he did not remember seeing anyone but Wilcox at the time he got the blow, or when he missed his purse. He was positive hi- purse was in his pocket when he left the Alexandra Hotel, and up to that time he had not parted with any of it, having paid for the drinks out of change he had in his pocket, In cross-examination by Mr. O'Meaghcr, the prosecutor said he had received the draft from England. He was perfectly sober before he went) to the Alexandra Hotel. He could not tell exactly how he into conversation with Donovan, or where ho met him, but he had not known him previously. He did not notice Wilcox in the hotel at all, but he was positive that it was Wilcox who struck him on the head and pushed him out of the house. He did not know who was fin the house when he went there, as lie had no senses, but he had no recollection of seeing any woman at all. Mr. O'Meagher said there were glaring contradictions in the evidence given now and that given in the lower Court, but he did not wish to put in the depositions, as by doing so lie would give counsel for the Crown the right of reply, and he asked His Honor to put the questions or allow him to do so as the mouthpiece of tho Court-. Mr. Williamson objected, as he could not reexamine op His Honor's examination. He ■contended that; tho usual course should be followed, and the depositions put in if the witness was to be examined on them. His Honor said tho evidence (.riven in the lower Court to that given now were directly contradictory. He swore then thai he did not know who struck him, and now he positively swore that Wilcox struck him. ' He would give 'Mr. O'.Meagher permission to recall the witness at a later -rage, and to put in the depositions. In further cross-examination witness said he lid not know how lie got into the house. Ho had only one pint of beer at the Alexandra Hotel, and he swore lie did not enter the house with a woman. His Honor warned the prisoner to be careful; and, in rej>4y to Mr. O'Meagher, witness admitted that Dr. Giles had threatened to "ommit him for contempt when he was ,'iving his evidence in the Police Court. Mo could not explain how lie became insensible from one pint of beer, except -oinethinir was put into if. He saw noMody in the house but Wilcox when lie was -trunk and pushed into the street. He may have made a demand for his money before ho was struck ; but lie did not recollect it, .tnd he did not recollect seeing a woman at ail. Besides the money in the purse he had i £1 note in his pocket which was marked 1 with a cross, and it was because ho refused 'u say wlmb the mark was that Dr. Giles hreatened to commit him. At this -tilgo Mr. O'.Meagher put in the deposition*, and they were read. The evidence ,v.i« glaringly different from that now _;iven by the prosecutor, but Mr. O'.Meagher • lid not examine him on them, contenting himself with putting the depositions in evidence. He was, however, cross-examined I'V the prisoner Donovan at some length. He denied having gone into the hotel with ■>. carpenter or plumber, and , having a drink with him, and having an argument on the subject of religion, and appealing to the landlord and witness for their opinion. He had no drink in the hotel except one, tnd that was with Donovan, who went to the hotel with him. He was further crossexamined with a view of:.showing that lie had three pints of beer with this man referred to, and to being called to the door by a woman, but he denied that anything of the kind took place, or that lie spoke to a woman at all, or that he said he had been robbed by the women up there before. He had no recollection of seeing Donovan at ill after lie left the hotel. In reply to Mr. Williamson the witness said he didnotgivo this money to anyone, or consciously and knowingly permit anyone to take it. To His Honor : He believed it was Mr. Pierce who served him with the beer. It was a man behind the bar, but whether ho was the landlord lie did not know. He did not suspect this man at all of drugging the beer. Hugh Robison, teller in the Bank of New South Wales, deposed to cashing' t.!i« draft, for Mr. Hill or. the 2-1 th June. Rose Ertle Bell, residing in Chapel-street, in a tenement house, part of which Mrs. Hammond and Wilcox lived in, gave evidence as to seeing Hill and Donovan go along (Jhapcl-atreettowards the Alexandra Hotel, and she subsequently saw Hill and Louie Hammond (the deceased woman) at the corner by the hotel. She took Hill by the coat and pulled him towards her own house. She opened the door, and pushed Hill into the house. Wilson and Donovan walked outside for. a few minutes, and then they went in together into Hammond's house. She next saw Wilcox and Donovan come out with a kit «ind go towards the Alexandra Hotel. During that time witness went to tho back for some wood and coal, and saw Hill and Hammond standing against the mantelpiece in the back kitchen, and when witness came in she heard Hill singing out to Hammond that she had robbed him, and demanding his money. Neither of the prisoners was then in the house, but she went at once to the front door, and saw Wilcox and Donovan with the kit go into the house, and Wilcox opened the door and chucked Hill out. Hill fell, and witness picked him up, and stood him against the door, and from what ho told her she sent for the police. The witness was crossexamined by Mr. O'Meagher and Donovan. Alfred Wadsworth, cabman, deposed to driving the two accused, to the Thistle Hotel, where lie saw some notes changed, and he subsequently drove Wilcox to the Bricklayers' Arms Hotel. Thomas Davis, junior, son of the landlord of the Thistle Hotel, deposed to the two accused coming to tho hotel and having drinks, Donovan changing £1 to pay for them. They then went into a room, and on returning they had another drink. Wilcox said that Donovan was his brother, and that for taking him home when he was drunk he had made him a present of £25. Donovan asked him to show the money, and Wilcox placed two £10 notes and one £5 note on the counter. Subsequently Donovan came back and asked for eight sovereigns in change for eight pound notes, and witness gave them

to him. HeSthen asked him for ten sovereigns instead of a. £10 note, bub witness could nob oblige him and handed Donovan the note back again. In cross-examination the witness said he had previous to this changed a sovereign for Donovan at _ the bar. Thomas Davis, licensee of the Thistle Hotel, deposed that after accused had a drink in the bar on the evening of the _-*th June he had a bottlo of champagne 1 " a private room and .paid for ib with a £10 Bank of New South Wales note. Witness gave him the change of the note, and shortly afterwards his son came with eight .single notes, for which witness gave him eight sovereigns. He afterwards wanted to change another £10 note, but witness declined, not having the gold. The note was on tho Bank of New South Wales. Witness, 1 in cross-examination, said lie had never seen gold in Donovan's possession. He did not know he was a betting man, but thought he was a fighting man. The witness's depositions were read, and in these he stated that ho know Donovan was a betting man, and lie explained that he understood the question asked by 'Mr. O'Meagher was whether he knew the accused was a sporting man. He was also cross-examined by Donovan in regard to a memorandum on which lie had made a number of the £10 note, and he swore ho made the memo, within ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after receiving it. William McSkimming, shopman, in the employ of Mr. Dalton, tailor, Queen-street, stated that both the accused came to the shop on the 24th June, to order a suit of clothes for Wilcox, who was measured. He paid a deposit, giving witness a £10 note. Witness procured change at an adjoining shop, from Mr. George Henry Wilson, and gave him the note. Witness retained £5, and gave the balance to Wilcox. This, so far as witness could remember, was between three and four in the afternoon. They were driven to the shop by Wadsworth in a cab. In crossexamination, witness said the clothes had not been made, but the money had not been; refunded. In reply to Donovan, witness said ho ordered no clothes, and paid no money. In reply to His Honor, witness said no one had demanded this £5 back. George Henry Wilson, of the firm of Wilson, McCullagh, and Co., who changed the £10 note for the last witness ; Robert William Brown, licensee of the Bricklayers' Arms Hotel, Chapelstreet, who received from Wilcox £19 in notes to keep for him, out of which he subsequently gave him £1 ; John Lees, barman at the Star Hotel, who changed a sovereign for Donovan in payment for a small bottle of champagne, and who subsequently on the same evening changed a £10 note for him in payment for another small bottle of champagne, gave evidence. Stapylton C. Cau l ton, licensee of the Central Hotel, where Donovan stayed from the 2lst to the 28th of May, and left without paying his account, leaving his luggage behind, stated that a day or two before the robbery Donovan came and asked permission to get some of his things out of his box. Witness refused to allow him to do so until he paid what was due. and Donovan replied that ho had no money and could not pay, bub ho said lie was going to the Thames to give a boxing entertainment, and no doubt he would be able to pay then. Constables Matliieson, Grey, and Russell also gave evidence, and Patrick Connolly, blacksmith, in the employ of Mr. Quinn, Albert-street, deposed that the two accused went through the blacksmith's shop from Wilcock's houso in Chapel - street) into Albert-street on the 24th of June. James Craig, licensee of the Star Hotel, and William Porter, express driver, wore also called, but their evidence was unimportant. Mr. O'.Meagher then addressed the jury on behalf of Wilcox, and commented on the total unreliability of the prosecutor's evidence, and then he proceeded to comment at length on the other evidence, pointing out that it was entirely circumstantial. The prisoner Donovan elected to give evidence on his own behalf, and made a lengthy statement. His cross-examination was deferred, and the Court at six o'clock adjourned until ten o'clock next morning.

R.M. COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles, 11.M,] Undefended Cases,—ln each of the following undefended cases judgment was given for plaintiffs :— 1 . He\yin and Brother v. James Kellett, claim £1 5s 9d, costs Gs ; Henry Walker v. M. Moran, claim £1 Is, costs 6*: Morrin and Co. v. A. G. Potter, claim £2 1 Is (id, costs 9s ; Sharland and Co. v. .J. O'Donnell Quigley, claim £15 lis lOd, costs £2 13s ; Secgner and Co. v. C. Redfern, claim £8 lis, costs 2Gs ; Cook and Gray v. N. L. Nev/bolt, claim £4 13s, costs 15s; J. Andrew v. George McQuay, claim 14s, costs 7s.

Dekdkk Box v. Charles Anduzk.—This was a claim for £3 5s :>cl, for goods supplied. Mr. Baume appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brassey for the defendant. Mr. Brassey contended that Anduze was living' as a member of a native tribe, and should therefore bo deemed a person of the native race. The summons should hive been signed by a magistrate and translated in to' Maori. Mr. Baume replied that what Mr. Brassey had advanced was rather a matter for evidence. lie knew of his own knowledge that defendant could understand and speak English very well. In fact, the man seemed to know Latin also, for ho spoke of Mr. Brassey's olliee as that* gentleman's sanctum sanctorum. Dr. Giles said that, the absence of a translation did not invalidate the summons, for such a translation could be supplied now, but he thought that if the man was a member of a native tribe the summons should be signed by the Resident Magistrate. After hearing the evidence of Mr. Muckay, native interpreter, and of the defendant, Dr. Giles ruled that the defendant must be considered a person of the native race within the meaning of the Act. The case was then adjourned to enable th e summons to be .signed by the magistrate, and the defendant to be provided with a Maori translation of it. This was to be done without any costs to the plaintiff. Foster and Co. v. Alfred Rarvkv.— This was a claim for £5 for loss and damage suffered by reason of the breach of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiffs set forth that it was mutually agreed that the defendant should be engaged by plaintiffs in their factory as a benchman, the plaintiffs keeping the defendant constantly employed at the rate of wages known as " The Masters' Local Statement,*' and that the said agreement should be binding on both parties for the term of two years from the 10th of August, 1S')1. The defendant continued at his employment, until the 13th August, when lie absented himself, and from that time he has refused to perform his part of the agreement. Mr. Edward Cooper, appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. J. A. Tote for the defendant. Mr. Tolo applied for an adjournment, as he had not been able to see an alleged agreement upon which the action was founded, lie had made a courteous application to Mr. Cooper to be allowed to see the deed, but had been refused. The Court had no power to enforce the production of the agreement, and the only analogous power was to require that the particulars should be more fully given. He would, therefore, ask the Court to order that further particulars should be given. The particulars spoke of the rate of wages known as the Masters' Statement. He did not know what was meant by this. Until ho had seen the agreement, he would not be prepared to go on with the case, Mr. Cooper did not consider that he had been asked courteously for a copy of the agreement. The copy was not asked for, but demanded. He felt quite annoyed about the matter. Mr. Tole replied that the gentleman who had seen Mr. Cooper thought that lie had been improperly treated. However, lie would promise to apply most courteously to Mr. Cooper. He felt almost inclined to supplicate him. Dr. Giles said that with regard to the production of documents, all he would say was, that when a deed was not produced after a writtten application had been made, he would be prepared to consider any application for adjournment. The case was adjourned until Monday next.

Thomas Marshall v W. and G. Winstone.—Claim £5 lGs Sd for 200 sacks at scl each, and 100 sacks ab 4d each. .- Air. Theo. Cooper appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had accepted delivery for the whole of the sacks. The defence was that the defendants only agreed to accept sacks according to a given sample. Forty sacks had been received which came up to the samples, and for these defendants had paid 15s into Court. The remainder of the sacks were not according to sample. Judgment was given for the defendants, with costs, £1 Is. Alfred Pkeeob v. Sophia Fernandez.— Dr. Giles gave judgoaont in this case for the

plaintiff for the sum of £14 10s, with costs £2 2s. The question as to the rights of executors was brought up, the plaintiff suing the defendant as the executor of the late Solomon John Fernandez, of Coromandel. The judgment was given against the assets of the estate. Mr. Humphreys appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter for tho defendant.

POLICE COURT.Thursday.

[Before Messrs. E. V. 'lizard, anil W. Loilcler, J.P's.J

Drunkenness.—One man, a first offender, was fined 5s and costs, or in default 24 hours hard labour. Ann Swift, charged with being an habitual drunkard, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Indecent Language.—Mary Naughton wat charged with having used indecent language in Albert - street, within the hearing of persons passing by, on the 31sb August last. Mr.' C. E. Madden appeared for the defendant, and pleaded nob guilty. Sergeant Donovan and Richard Lunn gave evidence for the prosecution. Tho defendant deposed that on the occasion in question she was on her own premises. She did'not make use of any indecent language. It was a pity she could not be left alone by the police. 'Another witness also gave evidence to the effect that the defendant was not a noisy woman. The Bench were clear that the language had been made use of, but as no one in particular seemed to be addressed, they would take a lenient view of the case, and sentence the defendant to 24 hours with hard labour.

PAPAIvURA R.M. COURT. Tuesday, September 8.

[Before Captain Jackson. 11.M., anil Messrs. J. Atchison, and 1). McLennan, J.P.'s.] Dividing Fence.JohnColquohoun, farmer, Wairoft, sued Daniel ' Shaw, ■of the same place, for £5 2s Gd, being the half of repairs to dividing fence. _ The case.was struck out for want of jurisdiction, each party to pay their own costs.

Thomas White v. Charles Rhodes.— Claim £1 10s for carting timber from Hunua Railway Station to the farm of defendant. Defendant paid 10s into Court, and cost of summons, as payment in full, and alleged that plaintiff had damaged about 500 feet of the timber by cutting long lengths into halves. Judgment for 13s Gd in addition to the amount paid into Court. Arrears ok Rates.—The Hunua Road Board sued ten absentees for rates. Mr. George, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Board, and judgment and costs were given against the following :James Kearnes, John Smith, William Robinson, William Griffin, William Wilson, Josiah Buttress, and William Tanner. Opaheke North Road .Board v. William Hall, sen., to rates 15s 4d. Settled out of Court.—[Own Correspondent.]