HAMILTON SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14928, 28 February 1912, Page 5

HAMILTON SUPREME COURT

PROSECUTIONS FAIL. [BY TELEGRAPH.— CORRESPONDENT.] Hamilton, Tuesday. At the Supreme Court to-day Linda James, a young woman, who had been employed by Mr. A. H. Palmer, was charged with forgery, by altering a cheque, drawn by her employer', for the sum of £2 10s, and with uttering the same to John W. T. Stonehouse, jeweller, of Hamilton. Mr. H. T. Gillies, Crown solicitor, prosecuted, and" Mr. C. Z. MacDiarmid defended. The evidenco showed that tho cheque was drawn out by Mr. Palmer, and was left in his desk all night, and when given to the accused was placed on the mantelpieco for some hours before being taken away from tho house. Her two employers gave her a very good character, and stated that she possessed their fullest confidence. The only evidence that the cheque had been forged before being placed in Stonehouse's hands was that of Stonehouso himself and a man named Hyde, who said that ho saw Stonehouse give tho . girl some sovereigns, at least three. The judge, in summing up, said that unless the jury had reasonable grounds for doubting the prisoner's guilt, throughout tho trial she had been very straightforward, they would not be justified in acquitting her. Tho jury retired at 11.30, and returned at 2.40 o'clock to inform His Honor that there appeared no possible chance of them arriving at a unanimous agreement. Ilia Honor stated that ho could not release them until they had deliberated for four hours, so they accordingly sat till 3.40, when they again returned', and said that they were still unable to agree. The judge sent them back again with instructions that all reasonable doubts must be removed by the Crown, and after a few minutes' adjournment they returned with a verdict of not guilty, and tho prisoner was discharged. " Edward Hanlon was charged with assaulting Patrick Marshall and striking him with a slash hook. Much evidence for the prosecution was tendered, during which) Hanlon, who was unrepresented, put all the witnesses to a thorough cross-examina-tion. Tho evidenco pointed to the blow being more in self-defence than aggressive, and tho jury returned a verdict of notguilty.