AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13456, 5 June 1907, Page 5

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. ASSAULT ON A MAORI GIRL. Mr. Justice Dexniston presided over yesterday's sittings of the ' Supreme Court. The Hon. J. A. Tole was Crown Prosecutor. ' - . ' ■'■;■'■; :■ ■; .-.;./ * '■ - * John Bennett, a middle-aged man, who was on Monday found guilty of assaulting a Maori girl under the age' of 12, was brought up for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor said that he found by the police report that the prisoner was addicted to ; drink and had a bad reputation regarding j women. His Honor, in sentencing the | prisoner to three years' imprisonment, pointed out the seriousness of the offence. SIX MONTHS' FOR PERJURY. William J. Lyons was brought up for j sentence for perjury committed at GifiI borne. The prisoner said that he did not know what he was doing when he committed the perjury. He was silly with drink. The accused ' had sworn that he had never before been convicted, while lie was convicted in New South Wales, and got five years' for wounding a horse. His Honor said that he would deal with the; perjury as isolated from any previous convictions. He warned the prisoner that if he ever came before the Court and was j found guilty he would not have accorded hito the leniency he would now receive. Prisoner was sentenced to six-months' imprisonment. j

A LAUNDRY PROPRIETRESS ACQUITTED.

i Mary Ann Glover, a laundry proprietress, was charged with theft, and also ; receiving stolen property. The articles alleged to have been stolen consisted chiefly of household linen, and the estimated'value was given at £18. The accused, pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr. J. R. London.

Mrs. Scherff, of Glenalvon, said that she used between August, 1905, and April, 1906, to send her washing things to the Imperial Laundry, of which the prisoner was proprietress. She discontinued sending things in 1906 because continually there were things missing. On one occasion she missed nine sheets. The towels produced with the corners cut out of them were of the same pattern as those she had sent to the prisoner's laundry. The brand on the towels produced was hers. She also identified the following articles as hers: Nineteen pillow cases, 11 sheets, three tablecloths, three teacloths, six serviettes, two toilet covers, and -five quilts.' Of other things produced she believed five quilts and some bath mats to be hers. The articles, when new, she valued at about £18. Her laundry bill with the accused used to come to about £20 a month.

The witness was examined at length by Mr. Lundon. Only one one occasion had she taken anything off the ; account,. for articles missing. :■ Wm. Henry .; Whitehead proprietor of Whitehead's Coffee Palace, said ho sent his laundry work to the prisoner from February, 1906, to February, 1907. The following articles produced he had sent to the laundry and not had returned:— pillow cases, a sheet, two toilet covers, a , quilt, and a tablecloth. To Mr. Lundon: He paid to Mrs. Glover about 10 or 12 shillings a week. During the twelve months' he dealt with Mrs. Glover he had had no reason to doubt her , honesty. . ■ ... : v * . Detective Shine said that on March 2 ; he in company with Detective Scott search- < ed the prisoner's place at College Hill. The bundles of articles- produced he found • jsnthe premises. The articles were in vari- . ions * trunks; while ' Others were" apparently in use-. She at first said she had noth- ' ing" belonging to Mrs. Scherff, and later said she might have a few things, " over--1 counts." Mrs. Glover produced some things, and witness understood her to say, "I have some of Glenalvcin's articles and they have mine." To Mr. Luti'don: When witness asked for a particular box, Mrs. Glover said, : "I know your informant; she is Miss May .Murphy." / ' -■-■■- ? , < Mr. Lundon: Did one of your detectives then say," You are a good picker; you ought to be out at the racecourse picking them?" No. ' i Further questioned by Mr. Lundon,: . witness said he did not demand two rugs; . from the accused ; they were given by her to Detective' Scott. The two rugs she said belonged to Miss Murphy, and . Miss Murphy had done that out of spite. She said also that, all laundries kept "over counts." She did not say that when goods were not ready she sent out her own in substitution. The prisoner, on oath, denied any criminal intent in regard to the things. She explained that' when unable to send all Glenalvon's washing back she had sent her own.- These . before being returned for washing purposes were generally branded with the result that 'her reserve was constantly decreasing, arid she produced articles similar to those named in the charge with the object. of showing that the quality of the articles found in her possession was equal to that of her own which she. sent to Glenalvon. : It was a .common thing for Mrs. Scherff, or her assistants to . enter serviettes on the list, but fail to actually include them in the dirty linen. When she got a list with some articles short she would supply them herself from a surplus kept for that purpose. This surplus was made up by keeping any articles 'might be sent which were not marked on the lists. This they had to do to keep the trade. This, as far as her experience was concerned, was adopted by laundries generally. j

Continuing the witness said she always sent home the full amount of washing received. Since she had been in the business she had been four times in -bed ill and unable to look after the laundry. She had given. up the laundry in January last. Since first starting the business she had lost about £50 worth of her own linen by making up shortages.. ~ .

A married daughter of the prisoner gave evidence. ■ ' °

Win. Glover, who did the collecting and delivering of the washing for the laundry gave corroborative evidence on the point of making up shortages. William Wilson, a former porter at Wenalvon, gave evidence as to the method of counting the linen at the boardim.--liouse, and said he had never heard of shortages. Mr. Lundoii addressed the jury for the defence, but the Crown Prosecutor did not speak. His Honor in summing up, said the case was simple, and that there were onlv really two witnesses of any importance. ' J lie jury,, returned a verdict of " Not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged