AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13096, 8 February 1906, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

ROBBERIES WITH VIOLENCE.

TWO YOUNG MEN SENTENCED. Thomas Finnegan and Patrick Murphy, two able-bodied men, pleaded not guilty at the Supreme Court, yesterday, before Mr. Justice Edwards, to a charge of stealing with violence a watch .and chain, a pendant a sovereign-ease, j i( nd £1 9s in. monev from the person of Charles M. Spinier. Spinier, a tailor pressor, said that on the afternoon of December 29 he went into the Criterion Hotel, where lie saw the two accused. Murphy asked him for the loan of a few shillings, and' lie refused, and Murphy said he would have the lot. Witness left the hotel, and was followed by the accused, and Murphy grabbed him from behind, while Finnegan relieved' him of his watch and chain and 295, a sovereign-case, and pendant. In. the lower Court a man named Thompson was brought in, and said j(, was he who committed the robbery, but witness was certain it was not Thompson. It was the accused.

hi answer to questions by the prisoners, the witness said he had been working on the. same job as they had. The barmaid at. the Criterion Hotel deposed to having seen the accused and Spinley in the hotel on the day in question. She saw Spin Icy go out, and the two prisoners followed directly after him. Spinley was not sober. The porter at the hotel stated that lie found the sovereign-case produced while he was washing the bat. It was under the linoleum. Constable Douthett gave evidence as to the arrest of Finnegan, who saiid when charged, " How do you know I done it?" The prisoners said they knew nothing about the case, and therefore would not give evidence, but wished to call a man named Thompson. William Thompson, who is awaiting trial on «i charge of burglary, was called. He swore that it was he who had robbed Spinley. He had got into conversation with Spinley, during which he relieved him of the articles mentioned in the charge, but there, was only about 14s or 15s in money. He sold the pendant to someone. He did not know who it was. He got a little frightened about the watch, and threw it over the Hobson-street Wharf. Mr. Tole: You must be an old criminal? The Witness: Oh. no. Mr. Tole: For about the last eight years you have been in and out of prison. In May, 1901. you got two years, and before that a year. You are now waiting trial on a little burglary charge of your own? Witness: Yes. I am now serving a sentence for assault.

Mr. Tolo: And do you think the jury will believe you?— That is to be decided. Hi.s Honor read out the previous convictions of witness, viz., resisting the police, theft, forgary, drunkenness, and assault.

In reply to a question put by His Honor, th- witness said that he saw the two prisoners when they came into gaol. They told him that they " were in" on the chair<re of having *' robbed the fellow that was doing the cakewalk at the Criterion Hotel." Witness then told them that it was he who had done it. Mr. Tole questioned him as to where he put the match-box, and he replied "Under the oilcloth of the hotel bar." Mr. Tole: What was it? Matting or oilcloth? Witness: I don't understand those things. You ought to know where I have been during the last eight or nine years. Thomas Finnegan was further charged with having stolen £2 3s from the person of Thomas Elliott on December 30. The evidence for the prosecution was to the effect that the accused bumped up against Elliott suddenly in a. hotel bar, andi put his hands in his pocket, and took the money out. Finnegan made a. statement to the effect that he knew nothing about the case. He had not put his hand into Elliott s pocket. The jury found them both guilty. In sentencing the prisoners, His Honor referred to their records, their convictions going from drunkenness to manslaughter, for which Murphy got two years. In the interests of society, their career would have to be checked. Each prisoner was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, and Finnegan, for the "theft from the person, received another sentence of four years, the sentences to run concurrently. ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES. A CARPENTER ACQUITTED. Archibald Douglas;, alias Donald Dunbar Floss. a middle-aged man, and a carpenter, was brought forward on a charge of false pretences at Papakaura. The facts, as deposed to by William Gibson Ray, who was licensee of the Drurv Hotel, were that the accused was staving at the hotel a week before November Bth, 1904. On that date the accused asked him for a blank cheque, saying he wanted a "fiver." The cheque was made on for £4, and witness gave him the cash for it Accused went to town and came back a few days later, and borrowed 10s from witness. When he sent in the cheque about three weeks later, it was returned from the Bank of New Zealand, marked "no account." He did not see the accused again until after he was arrested. To Dr. Baniford, who appeared for the accused, witness said h? had known the prisoner for about 12 years. He had always borne a good character. About the time of the signing of. the cheque, the accused said he was going to get some money out of a transaction. Constable Lanigan said that- he was present when the accused was charged in the lower Court. He then plead- d guilty without any qualification. The accused, on oath, said that at the time of signing the cheque he ."aid thathe had made v sale to another man _of a piece of land. At the time of signing the cheque there was an arrangement between witness and the man to whom he was transferring the ground that the balance of the purchase money should be put into the Bank of New Zealand, to the credit of witness. When he got the cheque cashed by Mr. Ray. he explained that to him. The uncompleted transfer _ was put in as evidence. The prisoner said he admitted having' signed the cheque, and received the money, but with 110 intent to defraud. l; The jury, after a short retirement-, brought in a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. THE BIRKENHEAD ASSAULT CASE. • SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. William Fox, a man about the age ot 40, . i v as charged with having indecently assaulted a seven-year-old girl at Birkenhead, on November 24. 905. The complainant gave evidence. in which she said that she was sent out for a paper one afternoon. She saw accused who sat down with her, and committed the offence he was charged with. Other evidence, was also given. Detectives Fahey and Miller gave evidence as to the arrest of the accused, alter 1 long chase. The accused did not give evidence, but addressed tie- Court. He admitted that he was there, but said he committed no offence, nor did he try to. He had a wife and two children, and had only lately come out from England. The'"jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty. His Honor, in sentencing Fox, who put in v. "character," said that character was of no avail in anything of this sort. Re sentenced prisoner to two years' imprisonment.

The Court adjourned, until this morning.