Law Intelligence.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 243, 15 July 1876, Page 8

Law Intelligence.

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) The circuit sittings of the Supreme Court opened on Monday at 10 o'clock. Mr. H. D. Bell appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. The following gentlemen were sworn in as the Grand Jury :—Messrs. T. Kebbell (fore-, man), H. Blundell, C. P. Powles, C. Cappei-, C. C. Graham, P. C. Kreeft, H. M. Lyon, J. Holt, B. Smith, T. J. Ladd, D. Mclntyre, J. H. Wallace, E. T. Gillon, P. Laing, T. Turnbull, T. McKenzie, A. E. Bowden, W. H. Levin, G. H. Vennell, T. K. Macdonald, J. McDowell, J. Watts, and H. Willcox. His Honor's remarks in the formal charge to the jury were brief. The calendar was numerically a heavy one, but the several charges were not of a very serious nature, and did not indicate a marked increase of crime in the community. Having interpreted the law touching upon the different Gases to which the jury had to give its consideration, he remarked as to the case of rape that offences of the class had been very frequent of late in this colony and the neighboring colonies of Victoria and New South Wales, where the offenders had been dealt with very severely, although probably not too severely considering the nature of the offence. The remainder of the cases he did not refer to at length, the only one upon which he dwelt at all being that of robbery with violence, a class of crime which, he said, should be sternly suppressed. TBUE BILLS. True bills were found as follows :—James Calder, felony; James Kelly, felony; John Osborne, felony; Elizabeth Jane Williams, larceny from a dwelling-house; William Henry Williams and Elizabeth Williams, receiving stolen goods; James Shennan, rape; Albert Horner, robbery with violence; Joseph Handley, larceny; Carl Iverson and Anna Iverson, larceny; Nicholas Johnston, unlawfully wounding ; John Buchanan and Francis Coyne, larceny. STEALING FROM A DWELLING. James Calder was charged with having on the 14th March, 1876, stolen a piece of greenstone, valued at £25, the property of Wi Manupuka, of Te Wahiroa, in the province of Wellington. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Bunny defended prisoner. j ur y—Messrs. W. H. Bragge (foreman), J. Knight, E. Sheen, G. W. Firmin, Perrin, Hooper, D. Buick, Boulcout, J. Flanagan, T. B. Allen, James Fox, W. H. Harton, and W. Morgan. The evidence showed that prisoner had been employed by prosecutor, and had access to the room in which the greenstone was kept. The greenstone was missed from the room, and on search being made it was discovered in the house of a publican at Greytown, to whom prisoner had tried to sell it, and with whom, on the refusal of the publican to purchase, it wa? left. Mr. Bunny called no witnesses, but addressed the jury for the defence. After a short absence from court the jury convicted prisoner, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. His Honor said he had learned from the proper authorities that from 1867 to 1870 he had been leading a criminal life, but since then he had been endeavoring to lead an honest life, which latter fact his Honor had recognised by giving a lighter sentence than Avould have been inflicted had he been brought up soon after 1870. STEALING- MONEY. James Kelly was charged witli having stolen a sum of £5 from the person of William Thompson, the property of the said _ William Thompson. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was undefended. Jury—Messrs. P. Wrixon (foreman), Peter Smith, C. Somerville, Magnon, G. South, S. Midgeway, W. James, J. A. Parker, Quinlan, S. J. Hill, W. C. Deverill, L. P. Blundell. It was alleged that prosecutor and prisoner were employed on Mr. Oakes' contract at Pakuratahi, and on the day named in the infortion went to the Pakuratahi Hotel. Prosecutor was rather the worse for liquor, and prisoner robbed him of a five pound note. Some doubt arose in consequence of discrepancies between the statements of witnesses, and the jury acquitted prisoner, who was thereupon discharged. ARSON. John Osborne was charged with having on the 18th April wilfully and maliciously set fire to a house at Karori, the property of Joseph Cole. Jury —D. Buick (foreman), W. H. Harton, T. B. Allen, J. Hooper, W- Morgan, W. Wallace, J. Fox, W. Somerville, W. H. Bragge, J. G. Figgis, S. S. Griffiths, and T. Mellor. This was rather a peculiar case, but the leading facts have been published before. _ The prisoner was a woodcutter at Karori, living in prosecutor's house, and early on the morning of the day named in the information got up and set the house on fire. On committing the act he immediately dressed himself in some fanciful costume and walked into the Wellington police station and gave himself in charge. He could give no reason why he set the house on fire. An impulse to commit the act had come iipon him the previous night, and he successfully resisted it; but the impulse returned next morning, and he could not resist it. Evidence as to the commission of the offence was tendered, and Dr, Bradford then stated that from

examinations made he was of opinion that prisoner was perfectly sane. His Honor, in summing up, remarked on the peculiarity of the case. The jui-y convicted prisoner, but recommended him to mercy. LAKCENY. John Buchanan and Francis Coyne were charged with having stolen a waistcoat and trousers, the property of James Smith. Coyne pleaded guilty ; Buchanan, not guilty. Jury—Messrs. J. L. Davis (foreman), G. South, Joseph Knight, J. W. Firmin, C. Somerville, Quinlan, Press, Parker, W. James, Sheen, L. Blundell, and Deverill. It was proved that prisoner was seen in company with Coyne pretty well the whole of the day upon which the goods were stolen, and assisted Coyne to sell the goods missed from Mr. Smith's shop. The learned Judge, in charging the jury, said although the goods might not have been in the manual possession of prisoner, if the jury were satisfied that he was in possession jointly with Coyno, they would convict. The prisoner was convicted, and remanded for sentence. The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock next clay. Tuesday, July 11. The circuit sittings of the Supreme Court were resumed at 10 a.m. SENTENCES. John Osborne, who had been convicted on the previous day of setting fire to premises belonging to Mr. Cole, of Karori, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labor. The circumstances of this case were peculiar, the prisoner being actuated by an apparently uncontrollable impulse. These peculiarities and the fact of the jury having recommended the prisoner to mercy, induced the Chief Justice to deal leniently with him. John Buchanan and Francis Coyne, convicted on the previous day of the larceny of a trousers and vest, were sentenced, Buchanan to three years' penal servitude, and Coyne to twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labor. Buchanan made a long address to the Judge in arrest of sentence, insisting that the verdict of the jury was incorrect, and asking for a postponement of sentence to next sessions. However, it was stated by Inspector Atcheson and not denied by the prisoner, that he had been previously sentenced to periods of two and three years in Auckland and twelve months in Canterbury. LAKCENY FROM A DWELLING. Elizabeth Williams, a young girl apparently about twelve years of age, was charged with having stolen from the premises of Francis Loudon, storekeeper, Foxton, a watch, two rings, and sundry other property. Mr. Gordon Allan defended the prisoner. His Honor made some remarks as to the careless way "in which the depositions in this case had been prepared. jury.—Messrs. C. Somerville, Press, South, P. Somerville, Mudgeway, J. A. Parker, W. Morris, J. Sutherland, L. P. Blundell, W. H. Bragge, W. H. Harton, and S. S. Griffiths. Francis Loudon stated that prisoner had been in his service. Missed several articles, and on taxing prisoner with the theft, she said she had only taken one ring. Went to the house of the girl's mother, where he found sundry goods belonging to the store and private house, amongst them some books of the class usually given as prizes at Sunday-schools. Mrs. Williams said she had understood that he had given her daughter the things. Stated to her it was unlikely he should have given her daughter so many and such things as those stolen. Took soma of the property to his house, assisted in doing so by the prisoner, and then gave information to the police. Went with a constable to the Williams' house again, and found some more of the missing articles. Had not sold the goods, nor was he aware that they had been sold by any one else. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Allan, with a view to show the precise ownei*ship of some of the goods, about which there seemed to be a doubt. Witness stated that he recognised a right in his sister to use anything from his store as she thought fit. Elizabeth Loudon stated the nature of the prisoner's duties while with her. She had been in her enrploy about nine days. Identified the books, watch, &c. The girl's wages were Is. a day. Had not given her the property in question. The only thing witness gave her was some old gossamer. John Purcell, constable, corroborated the evidence of Francis Loudon as to accompanying him to the Williams' house and finding part of the property. Prisoner came in while witness was searching, and was present when Loudon identified the property. The girl said she knew nothing about it. As he observad the mother's eyes fixed * on her he took her out, when she said that if he (the constable) would accompany her, she would show him where the other parts of the watch were. Went with prisoner, and found, on sifting the sand at a place pointed out by her, a part of the watch. She said the other jiarts were in the closet. Prisoner repeatedly said that Miss Loudon had given her the things. The case of the watch had been broken into several pieces. Mr. Allan having raised some objections as to the exact ownership of the property, the charge was left to the jury as simple larceny. Mr. Allan having addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, his Honor pointed out the various points of the case to the jury, telling them it was for them to say whether, presuming the prisoner had taken the things, from what had been placed before them, they considered the prisoner was of an age to know clearl) what she was doing. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended her to mercy on account of her youth. She was remanded for sentence. DECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. Elizabeth Jane Williams and William Henry Williams, parents of the girl just convicted, were charged with having received some of the property mentioned in the former indictment, knowing it to have been stolen. The accused had been on bail.

Jury.—D. Buick (foreman), W. James, K. Wrixon, A. Boulcout, A. Quinlan, T. Mellor, Somerville, Morgan, Firmin, Fox, Sheen, and Hooper. Mr. Gordon Allan for the defence. The evidence was similar to that against the girl Williams. In addition, S. Gray, brother of Mrs. Williams, deposed to seeing some of the goods in his brother-in-law's house. He asked the girl if Miss Loudon had given her the things, or if she had stolen them, upon which her father hoped that she had not taken them, and she said Miss Loudon had given them to her. The male prisoner was acquitted, and the female prisoner found guilty, and remanded till the following day for sentence. LARCENY EROII A DWELLING. Carl Iverson and Anna Iverson were charged with the larceny of some clothing, drapery, &c, from the house of George Coleson Sage. The prisoners were undefended. Mr. Petersen was sworn as interpreter. Carl Iverson pleaded not guilty, the female prisoner guilty. There not being, in his Honor's opinion, any case against Carl Iverson, the Crown abandoned the charge against him. A jury was, however, by direction of his Honor, empannelled to acquit the prisoner, which was done. Anna Iverson was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment, with hard labor. The prisoner had only lately arrived in the colony by the Shakspere, and is now undergoing a sentence of six months' imprisonment for stealing a watch on board that vessel. The Court then rose. Wednesday, July 12. The sittings of the Court were continued this morning at 10 a.m. SENTENCES. Elizabeth Williams, convicted the previous day of receiving stolen goods, was brought up to receive sentence. Dr. Rockstrow gave evidence that the prisoner had been lately confined, and had had typhoid fever. She, as well as her husband, had borne a good character while they had been in Foxton. Constable Purcell stated that the girl Williams, daughter of prisoner, who had been convicted of stealing the goods mentioned, had the character of a pilferer, and that her mother was thought to encourage her, though her father was an honest, hardworking man. . The Chief Justice experienced some difficulty in dealing with the case. He trusted that if he passed a light sentence, the prisoner would reflect on what she had done, and that it would have a good effect on her. He would sentence her to three months' imprisonment, with hard labor. If she were not fit for hard labor, in consequence of her illness, she could not be asked to do it. He would ask the governor of the gaol to see that she was kept apart from her daughter, and from persons of bad character, which Mr. Reid said would be done. Elizabeth Jane Williams, daughter of the last-mentioned prisoner, was also brought up. His Honor deferred sentence for a day. He was not aware if there was a reformatory to which the girl could be sent. It was probable she could not be sent to a reformatory ; but he would direct inquiries to be made. Her father was called, and said he had not had any reis on to suspect her of pilfering, and that she had never previously been charged with so doing by those who had employed her. RAPE. James Shennan, charged as above, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the prisoner. The case is an exceptionally painful one, the accused being father of the child: The evidence is unfit for publication. The testimony of the girl herself, her sister, and that of Drs. Diver, Bradford, and Pockstrow, of Foxton, (on the medical aspect of the charge) was given for the Crown. The counsel for the prisoner did not offer any rebutting evidence. The case occupied the attention of the Court nearly the whole of the day. The jury retired, and after an absence of about nalf-an-hour, found a verdict of guilty of an attempt to commit a rape. Mr. Allan asked his Honor to reserve a point for the Court of Appeal. The Chief Justice could see nothing to reserve. Ultimately, it was decided that the matter should be referred to next morning. The prisoner was remanded for sentence. UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. Nicholas Johnston was charged with unlaws fully wounding Andrew Crodis. He pleaded not guilty, and was undefended. Jury.—P. Wrixon, W. Moylan, J. Hooper, E. Sheen, J. Manders, T. Mellor, P. South, J. Sutherland, T. D. Pettis, W. Morris, J. L. Davies, and S. Mudgeway. Andrew Crodis stated that Johnston had been living with him. On Thursday evening last Crodis met the prisoner, in company with a Mrs. Turner, in, he thought, Majoribanks-street. Johnston and Crodis went into the City Hotel and had two brandies hot each. Afterwards had a pot of beer. They and Mrs. Turner went to her house. They were all sober. Prisoner while they were at Turner's com : mitted the assault, kicking Crodis repeatedly, as well as biting his nose nearly off, whereupon he and a man named Williams went for the police and had Johnston ai-rested. Prosecutor's face still exhibited marks of the ill-treatment' he bad received. William Williams corroborated what has been stated above. Dr. Diver described the injuries which Crodis had received as they appeared nextday. A piece of his nose about lfin. long by Jin. thick was nearly bitten off, and the lower, portion of his face was severely bruised. Prosecutor would be disfigured. The injuries endangered his health, and possibly erysipelas' might set in. Prisoner stated that he had paid the rent of the house occupied by Mrs. Turner ; that he considered he had a right to turn Crodis out, and that - when he (prisoner) tried to do so prosecutor would not go, but wanted him to fight. He had committed the assault in selfdefence, Crodis having struck him. He called William Morris, the landlord of the house.

which Mrs. Turner occupied, who stated that he considered Johnston as his tenant, he having paid him the rent for it for the previous six weeks. He had not known of any previous ill-conduct on prisoner's part. They were all drunk in Turner's house on the occasion mentioned. W. Thomas, boardinghouse keeper, said he known Johnston for 'about twelve months. Considered him a quiet inoffensive man. The jury acquitted the accused, and The Court then adjourned. Thuesday, July 13. The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were continued to-day and concluded. SENTENCES. James Shennan, convicted the previous day of an attempt to commit a rape, was brought up for sentence. Prisoner called Mr. Bead, governor of the gaol, who stated that the prisoner had not been in his custody before, but he knew nothing as to his moral character. He also called Inspector Atcheson, and afterwards made a statement which was irrelevant. The Chief Justice, addressing prisoner, said that no remarks he could make were likely to have any effect. The sentence would be the highest he could inflict, viz., ten years penal servitude. The points referred to by Mr. Allan the previous day were again mentioned. They were overruled by the Chief Justice. The sentence of Elizabeth Jane Williams was further deferred. BUEGLABY. Joseph Handley was charged with the robbery of money, a ring, and a coat from the European Hotel, on the night of the 24th June. He pleaded not guilty, and was undefended. Mrs. Hausman, wife of the landlord of the European Hotel, deposed to having gone to bed the night of the robbery at a quarter past one. Thought the doors and windows were securely fastened when she went to bed. Was sure the kitchen door was locked. Identified the coat and a marked sixpence (produced) as her husband's property. In cross-examination Mrs. Hausman said she was aware that Buchanan, convicted during the present sittings of the Court, slept in her house on the night of the robbery. She had heard, in the bar, the bad character of Buchanan. G. Hausman identified the coat produced. It was his, a coat which he had been in the habit of wearing when he went out on business. Had bought it from Mr. Lewis Moss about a year ago. M. Harrison, cook at the European Hotel, remembered the night of the robbery. The kitchen window was fastened when he went to bed. Did not know if the passage door was. It was shut. Got up next morning abottt twenty minutes past five. Was the first up. Saw some paper on the bench in the kitchen where he had been accustomed to work. On taking the paper up a sovereign fell out of it. Brought a light so as to look for the sovereign, when he found it, as also a £5-note. The paper proved to be unused note-paper and envelopes. Cross-examined : Buchanan had been employed about the hotel for some days prior to the robbery. He (Buchanan) had access to the upstairs part of the premises. Detective Farrell deposed to finding prisoner at Newell's boardinghouse, in company with Buchanan. The coat mentioned in the case ■was in Handley's swag. He said he bought it at Waipawa for 355. This was at 11 a.m. Went away, and returned about 3 o'clock. Found prisoner making ready to leave the house. Arrested him and took from his pocket 13s. in silver, amongst which was the marked sixpence identified by Mrs. Hausman. Prisoner made a statement to the effect that he had lately come from Foxton, and was accidentally acquainted with Buchanan and Coyne. He stated that he had received the marked sixpence in change for a half-crown tendered in payment for some beer at the Thistle Inn. He called Mrs. Brady, and asked her if she recollected giving him the sixpence. Mrs. Brady remembered his having been at her hotel, but not as to the marked sixpence. Mr. Moss was called by the prisoner. He thought the coat mentioned was one which had been bought from his shop, but he had not sold the coat himself. Mr. Hausman had bought the suit to which it belonged from one of his assistants. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and while they were consulting Mr. Moss returned to court, and stated that from enquiries he had made since he had been called for the defence, he was of opinion that the coat was not one which he had had in stock. The coats, of similar material, belonging to him were, he believed, double breasted and had two rows of buttons. This one was single breasted, and with but one row. His Honor allowed the. statement of Mr. Moss to go to the jury, who were recalled for the purpose. The jury again retired, and shortly afterwards returned into court with a verdict of not guilty. His Honor cautioned Handley to be more careful of his company in future, to which Handley desired to be allowed to reply by stating that he had only arrived from Foxton the Wednesday previous to the Friday mentioned in the indictment, and that his being in suspicious company was accidental. BOBBEBY WITH VIOLENCE FROM THE PERSON. Albert Horner,- charged as above, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Gordon Allan defended the prisoner. Frankland Valentine, landlord of the Prince of Wales Hotel, recollected the prisoner being at his hotel. Robinson, the man from whom the money was alleged to be stolen, "shouted" a bottle of champagne besides other drinks while there, paying him with a £5 note. Prisoner was in Bobinson's company while in the hotel, and shared in the drink. Bobinson showed several notes besides the £5 note, stating it was his birthday, and that he had a lot of money. He at first said he would remain for the night, but afterwards changed his mind. Mr. Valentine urged prosecutor to leave his money with him.

He thanked the landlord, and declined, saying he would take care of his money himself. Prisoner volunteered to see Bobinson home, and they left arm-in-arm at a quarter past 10 o'clock. It was, Mr. Valentine thought, a clear night. In cross-examination Mr. Valentine said he eould not say how many drinks Horner had had. Prisoner had worked for him (Valentine), and as far as he knew was a decent man, living with respectable people. Prisoner was an express-driver, but out of employment at the time of the affair. T. Bobinson stated that he was a cook at the station of Mr. J. C. Crawford. He came into town on the day mentioned in the indictment with £22 in his possession. Prosecutor did not seem to be certain as to the exact amount of money he had at Valentine's. His impression appeared to be that he left the hotel with about £l9. It was not shown that he had spent more than a £l, if so much, at Valentine's. Altogether he seemed confused as to the number of notes he had. Bobinson gave an account of his proceedings at the Prince of Wales very similar to what had been stated by Mr. Valentine. He then described what occurred after leaving the hotel. He had a bottle of brandy in his possession. On going a little way along the street Horner asked him for a drink. Puthis handin his pocket to produce the brandy, when Horner struck him a violent blow. The blow stunned him for the moment, and his next recollection was of prisoner standing over him trying to put his hand in his pocket which was protected by his belt. Tried to prevent him, when he threat- , ened to put something in his hand into him. (Bobinson could not say what Horner had in his hand.) He kicked him (Bobinson), but without hurting him much. Prisoner then made off. Followed him and met two men to whom he related what had occurred. Furrie and Muir the two men referred to, gave evidence as_ to stopping Horner, and his replies to them, which his Honor thought unimportant, except his saying, in answer to a question, that nothing was the matter, when he could only have just left Bobinson. One of the witnesses considered both himself and prisoner drunk—"sensibly" drunk. Muir found Bobinson's purse about 100 yards from where he first met prisoner. The notes were not in it then. Detective Farrell deposed to having arrested prisoner. He was, when arrested, driving an express. Mr. Allan addressed the jury for the defence, pointing out the probability of there being merely a drunken squabble between the two men, and his Honor charged the jury, who after a short retirement acquitted the prisoner. The Court then adjourned.