LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8970, 30 August 1892, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.Criminal Sittings.

Monday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] The Criminal Sittings of the Supreme Court for gaol delivery were opened this morning before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly, who took his seat on the Bench at eleven o'clock.

Grand Jury:. —The following gentlemen were sworn of the Grand Jury :— Messrs. G. W. Binney (foreman), Wm. Brigham, Geo. Alfred Buttle, Ebenezer Cardno, Henry Edmonds, Walter Frater, Richard Knighb Garlick, Wm. F. Hammond, Charles Keleey, Thos. T. Masefield, James B. Macfarlane, John Mitchell, Robert G. Morrow, Gerald O'Halloran, Harry C. Tonks, Walter Frederick Utting, Geo. Winstone, and Michael Yates. Mr. Pierson Wilson, who had been summoned on the Grand Jury, did not appear, and Constable Clark was called by His Honor. He stated that he served Mr. Wilson with the summons personally, and did nob know why he was absent. His Honor imposed a fine of 40s. The Judge's Charge.—His Honor then charged the Grand Jury as follows The charges to be brfeught before them were not, he was glad to say, numerous, and with one or two exceptions they were not at all complicated. There, were three cases of simple larceny, but in all instances the stolen goods wore found almost immediately in the possession of the accused, and that was strong presumptive evidence against them. So also in the case of larceny as a bailee. The accused had been entrusted with a cheque to deposit with a tender, but | as the tender was not accepted, the cheque was returned to the accused, who, instead | of restoring it to the owner, cashed it. | There was a case of larceny from the person of a drunken man, and two cases of breaking and entering gumdigger's dwellings. These cases would present no difficulty, for' practically they were admitted. One case of horse-stealing was admitted, but another case was not quite so clear. The horse was sold by the accused on the 29th of April, and it was safe on the 12th of April. The accused said he had purchased the horse from a Maori, and produced a receipt, which was dated the 9th of February ; so, at all events, ho though it was a case which should properly be sent for trial. In the case of killing a beast for tho purpose of stealing the carcase, the killing was admitted ; but the prisoner stated that ho believed the animal belonged to another person, who had given him permission to kill it, and ho did actually take a portion of the carcase, but one portion of it was buried, and this was the peculiar feature of the case. There was a charge of arson against a man who was accused of setting fire to the Hamilton Borough Council offices. It was a mad act, but tho accused admitted it. There was a case of assault and inflicting grievous bodily harm. Two men went into the house of the prisoner in Grey street, in which accused's wife was. When he went in the men ran away, and ho pursued them, and the prosecutor was struck on tho Read with a brick, which inflicted a wound that might have proved very serious. He denied having thrown the brick, but if they thought he did the case should be sent for trial, for although the accused might have great provocation, that was - not for the grand jury to consider. (The remaining portion of His Honor's charge, in which special reference was made to two charges of indecent assault, and .in which ho commented strongly on the whole question of the proposed abolition of grand juries, is published in ezlenso elsewhere). The Grand Jury then retired to consider the indictments placed before them. Larceny from a Dwelling. — Ellen Dunnovitch was charged that on the 21st of January, she feloniusly stolo a quantity of counterpanes, curtains, clothing, etc., the proporty of Win. Neil, from tho dwellinghouso of Robert Martin. She pleaded guilty. Mr. O'Meaghcr appeared for the accused, and applied that she be admitted to probation. She had been two months in gaol since her arrest, and had conducted herself well. Her husband was working as a miner ab Huntly, arid she had three children, the eldest only 14 years of age, besides which she suffered from asthma. His Honor said Air. Keston's report was favourable, and ho ordered her to be admitted to probation for six months.

Breach of Probation.Wm. George, a young man, was brought up for- non-com-pliance with an order of the Court, made under the First Offenders Probation Act. Mr. Tole appeared for tho accused. Mr. Reston, probation officer, deposed that on the 11th March, 1891, prisoner was convicted on his own confession on two charges of larceny and breaking and entering, and was placed on probation for twelve months, and ordered to pay £20 toward the cost of the prosecution within six months. He had duly reported himself in Auckland and Aratapu up to April last, when the twelve months were expired. He paid three instalments amounting to £4 10s towards the costs. Witness wrote on several occasions urging him to pay. t At the expiration of his term he ceased to pay, and ceased to report himself, but he was not discharged, and he was re-arrested on the 4th June last. In reply to His Honor witness said that except while in Aratapu accused lived with his parents, who were small farmers in the Takapuna district. To Mr. Tole : He was arrestod within three months after the expiration of the term of probation. Ho paid the £1 10s in three payments of £2 £1 10s and £1. Mr. Tole contended that this lad, who had only entered on this 20th year, had complied with the conditions of the Probation Act. He had only been employed precariously on the gumfields, since which ho had been assisting his mother on the small farm, and he was not in a position to pay. His Honor asked prisoner whether, if ho gave him six months longer, he could pay the money ? Accused said ho was out of employment, and could get no work, except gumdigging. His Honor said the orders of the Court should not be treated with contempt, and an able-bodiud young man like this should be able to pay the line imposed. The sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term of three calendar months.

Larceny.—Robert A. Collier was charged with having, on the 18th of May, stolen a double-barrelled gun, the property of Andrew Heavey. He pleaded guilty. Mr. Mahony appeared for the accused, and pleaded, in mitigation of penalty that prisoner was respectably connected at home, but since he came to the colony he had got into bad company, and took to drink. The prosecutor, in answer to His Honor, that he knew the accused had sold him some clothing, and he believed prisoner had spoken about purchasing the gun, but ho knew nothing further about him. Detective Chrystal, in answer to His Honor, said he believed prisoner obtained remittances from home. He had been living with prostitutes, and was under police surveillance. His Honor sentence! the accused to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Larceny from a Dwelling.— Coltes, with several aliases, pleaded guilty to a charge of having, on the 30th of March, stolen an electro-plated jug, a wine-strainer, and some blankets, the property of Charles Underwood Wooll. He pleaded guilty, and having nothing to say in extenuation, he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Arson.—William Lawlor was charged with having, on the 25th of June, feloniously set fire to certain offices, the property of the borough of Hamilton. He pleaded guilty. He said he was lame, and incapable of doing any work, and could not get sufficient food, although he had applied for it. He did nob intend to burn the house, although he lib the paper. That was only, however, to attract attention to his position. Mr. Barton, town clerk, Hamilton, was called and questioned by His Honor. Ho said he had known the accused for a number of years. He had been a hardworking man, but he believed he was addicted to drink. He believed his intention in lighting the fire was to draw attention to his hardships, as he thought he would be better in gaol. He had been in the Hospital and subsequently in the Refuge, but he had been expelled from the latter for non-compliance with the rules. Ho could not say whether or not he was right in his mind, bub he did not think he was strong-minded. His Honor said it was a serious offence, for which prisoner might be sentenced to a long term of penal servitude, but as he hardly seemed to be responsible for his actions, he would only impose a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Breaking and Entering. — Thomas Weston, a young man, was charged with

having, on the IP 1- !? of -]une, broken into the dwelling of one Henrjr ..Smith, of Waitakerei, and stolen a tweed suit and other clothing, and utensils. He pleaded guilty. He was further charged with having, on the same date, broken into the dwelling of John Peterson, and stolen a quarter of a cwt. of gum and certain other articles. To this he also pleaded guilty. Constable O'Brien said, in answer to His Honor, that the prisoner had been leased out of the Training School, first to his mother in Archhill, bub he absconded, and was arrested and sent back to the Training School. He was subsequently leased to a farmer in Port Albert, bub had again absconded. Henry Smith, the prosecutor in the first case, said accused was a gumdigger, and had lived near witness for about five months. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. Horse Stealing.— John Middleton, a youth about 17 years of age, was charged with having, on the 28th of June, feloniously stolen a mare, the property of William Frederick Bell. He pleaded guilty, and in reply to the usual challenge, said he had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed, on him. His Honor said he thought the best thing to do would be to send him to prison for a long term to separate him from his bad associates. ~ The sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term of 12 months.

Larceny from the Person.—William James Rogers was indicted and charged that on the 14th of August ho feloniously stole from the person of Thomas Mitchell Dawson a purse and £8 10s in money. Prisoner's answer to the indictment was "No, sir, I.never stole it." This of course was taken as a plea of nob guilty, and a jury was empanelled for the trial of the case, the prisoner nob exercising any right of challenge. Mr. Hudson Williamson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was as follows : The prosecutor was mate of the vessel Waitemata in Auckland port at the time, and he was staying for some days in the Waitemata Hotel. On the evening of Sunday, the 14th of August, he met with a man named Drummond, and after having some drinks they paraded the streets, and at about twelve o'clock he found himself with Drummond in Abercrombie-street and went into prisoner's house, Drummond introducing Dawson to the prisoner. After a little prisoner asked Dawson to shout, arffd he gave him 2s to get drink, but accused put his arm round him in an affectionate manner, and putting his hand into prosecutor's trousers pocket took his purse and money. Dawson felt the hand in his pocket, and on missing his money he fol lowed prisoner, who had bolted, in the direction of the Wynyard Arms Hotel and overtook him. Just then they met Constable Keep, who was on duty, and Dawson accused the prisoner of having robbed him. The accused denied that he had any money, but on being searched a pound note was found in his hat, and the chamois leather purse containing the rest of prosecutor's money was also found on him. Mr. Williamson said he understood the defence would be that the prosecutor had given the money to the prisoner, but ib would be for the jury to decide whether it was at all probable the prosecutor would give his money to the prisoner who was a perfect (stranger to him. The prosecutor, Thos. W. Dawson, Daniel Drummond, and Constable Geo. Keep gave evidence in support of bhe indictment. The evidence of the witnesses showed that neither of the parties were the worse for drink except the prisoner. The accused asked a few questions of the first witness, but did not cross-examine the others. Accused did not give evidence, and merely replied that he had no recollection of the matter. The summing up by His Honor was very brief. The jury retired for ten minutes, and returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor said he saw by the report of the Probation Officer that prisoner was a man of good character except that ho was addicted to drink, and there was a chance of his reformation if he refrained from drink. Ho did not like to send a man who had such a good character to gaol. He would admit him to probation for 12 months and during that time he must pay £10 towards the Co3t of the prosecution. True Bills.—The grand jury returned true bills in all the cases except two charges of indecent assault on a child, preferred against John Bergquisb, and in these cases they returned no true bills. The grand jury having completed their duties, and having no presentment to make, they weto discharged from further attendance at the present sessions.

The Charges of Indecent Assault.— The grand jury having thrown out the two indictments charging John Bergquist with committing indecent assaults on a child six years of age, the accused, who was on bail, was called and discharged. This was the case so strongly commented on in the Judge's charge to the grand jury. Mr. Cooper appeared for Bergquist, and was about to comment on the fact of such a case being sent for trial when His Honor told him he had already commented on the case and informed the grand jury that there was not a tittle of evidence against the man. Mr. Cooper said that when the case was before the justices at Whangarei, Mr. Clendon appeared for the accused, and protested against the whole proceedings. He had only been consulted five minutes before the trial, and after the magistrates determined to commit Bergquist for trial he applied that he might be allowed bail, but the justices refused, telling him he must apply to the Supreme Court for bail. It was one of the grossest travesties of justice that had over come under his knowledge. His Honor said he was probably unnecessarily severe in his comments on the solicitor who appeared for the accused for cross-examin-ing the witnesses when there was not any evidence instead of objecting to the evidence. Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Clendon. from the first had objected to the whole proceedings. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock next morning.

POLICE COURT.—Monday.

[Before Captain Harris, and Mr. F. G. Clayton, J.P's.]

Drunkenness. — Three first offenders were fined 5s and costs each or in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Compulsory Education.—Samuel Brown was charged that during the week ending June 24, 1892, he did fail to comply with an order of the Court to send his child, Christopher Brown, to school. Mr. J. Small, truant officer, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Matthews appeared on behalf of the parents, and pleaded guilty to the charge. George Melville Burlinson, headmaster of the Chapel-street School, deposed that Christopher Brown, who was nine years of age, was present 21 times during the school quarter ending March 21, and was absent 65 times. He was present 13 times during the quarter ending June 30, and was absent 94 times. On numerous occasions the parents were notified of the boy's absence, but replied that they were unable to get their son to school. On one occasion the boy escaped from school, after having been brought there by his parents. The boy did not once attend the school during the week ending June 24, 1892. The boy was a fairly-intelligent one, with whom something might be done if he was carefully looked after. The mother of the child promised to see that the child would be sent to school in future. Mr. Matthews stated that the boy's father had been ill, and unable to send him to school. The Bench said they thought the case was one for lenience, and although they were of opinion that children should be sent to school, they would dismiss this charge, Mr. J. Blades, the chairman of the City Schools Committee, said he would seriously consider whether the City Schools Committee should the decision of the Bench, as the accused pleaded guilty to the charge. Withdrawn.—Samuel McGuire was charged with unlawfully assaulting Hamer T. Gillmann, on August 26. On the application of Mr. C. E. Matthews, the case was withdrawn.