Law Intelligence.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 361, 11 January 1879, Page 11

Law Intelligence.

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO. Friday, January 3rd, .3 879. (Before his Bourn- the (’liief Justice.) IN RE SAMUEL. JOHN HILL. Mr. Cowan appeared and presented a petition from Samuel John Hill, who had been imurisoned for contempt of Court in having disobeyed an ixijmic ion of the Court. The petition ran as folVuws:— ‘ (3) Your petitioner was arrested and imprisoned in terms of an order of this honorable Court, dated 3 4th November, 1878, for breach of an injunction and order of this honorable Court in the matter ©f Fanny Hill, my wife, against Samuel John Hill ; (2) that I submit to the order and injunction of this honorable Court, and hereby promise and agree never to molest or disturb my wife Fanny Hill in her person, or in her manner of living, or in ber liberty or freedom of going to or staying in or returning from such place or places as she shall think fit ; (3) that I deeply regret and apologise for having heretofore disobeyed the order and injunction of this honorable Court, and if I am released from pi isou I promise and agree not to molest or disturb the said Fanny Hill, my wife, in her manner of living or in her person, or in her liberty or freedom of going to or staying in or returning from such place or places as she shall think fit; (4) that I have made application to numerous friends in Wellington aforesaid to go sureties for me in this case, hut my said friends one and all decline to enter into any bond on my behalf, and therefore I am able to enter only into my own personal bond to keep the peace towards my said wife, and that I will never molest or disturb her in her person or in her manner of living, or in her liberty or freedom of going to or stayiug in or returning from such place or places as she shall think fit. Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honorable Court will order that the said Samuel John Hill be released from prison, and that his apology may be accepted, and that the contempt of Court herein may be declared to have been purged.—S. John Hill.” Mr. Brandon, jun.,appeared on behalf of petitioner’s wife, and said she had no wish to keep her husband in gaol, and she hoped that after his recent expeiience he would not again molest her. The Chief Justice said he should accede to the prayer of the petition, but he hoped Mr. Cowan would represent that if a repetition of the offenoe occurred the consequences would be more serious. Mr. Cowan thought Hill’s bitter experience had taught him a lesson. It might also be added that he said he had not been previously -aware of the nature of the injunction or he would not have offended. Order for discharge granted unconditionally. VULCAN QUARTZ MINING COMPANY V. GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN. Mr. Stafford (on behalf of Hart and Buckley) moved for an order under section 149 of the Mines Act, 1877, enlarging the time for setting down a special case on appeal from a decision of the Warden’s Court. He read an affidavit by William Pitt, solicitor, of Reefton, setting out certain circumstances which would prevent the case being set down previous to the expiry ef the time ordinarily allowed. There was no opposition, and a rule nisi was granted, returnable seven days after service if the rale, proceedings to be stayed in the meantime. The Court then rose. SUPREME COURT.—CIRCUIT SITTINGS. Monday, January 6, 1879. (Before Hie Honor the Chief Justice, and Juries of Twelve.) The Court sat at 10 am. GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a •grand jury:—Messrs. W. Hutchison (foreman', F. C. Binns, Barraud, junr., Barrett, Meek, John Watt, Reeves, T. J. Ladd, Greenfield, W. Bendall, Britam, W. Davis, C. T. Richardson, R. Kent, W. Dawson, IT. Willcox, I. 'Turnbull, S. W. Alcorn, A. B iker, J. Maginooity, Coleridge, C. J. Toxward, and J. Lockie. THE JUDGffi’B CHARGE. His Honor said the calendar was of an ordinary character, and as such called for no 'special remark from him, beyond that in the case of McElwaine there would be no indictment presented, as the Crown Px-osecutor was credibly informed that the man had died. There were two eases in each of which a woman was charged with having attempted self-destruction. It might be attempted to be shown, and perhaps might be proved, that the prisoners were not of Bound mind at the time of the commital of the offence, but with that the grand jury had nothing to do. That was for the petit jary, and on their finding the law directed what should be done. There were two cases of forgei-y in the calendar. In one case, a person in the employ of the Bank of New .Zealand had committed forgery by filling in a blank cheque for an amount in excess of that which he was authorised to fill in ; and undoubtedly, if proved, that was forgery. In another case of forgery the accused bad -attempted to put in circulation a cheque signed as it would appear by a fictitious per-son-—the cheque being drawn ou a certain baxik at which the person purporting to sign it' (as it turned out) had no account. It might be that the prosecution would on the facts aak for a conviction of having attempted to pass a valueless- cheque—to ob’taiu money by means of false pretences. Of cfiurse the jury must be aware that certain facts would often constitute more than one offence —the facts in this carse might either constitute forgery or the other offence indicated. It was to be regretted that there was one case of a class which had not been so frequent lately as they were two or three years ago. Then there was also a charge .against a man of stealing <£2o0 —ten £2O Union

Baxik notes. The prosecution weuld ask (as be gathered from the depositions) the jury to conclude that certain money fouxid in prisoner’s possession shortly after the robbery was part of the money prosecutor lost, although, it would not be attempted to identify the money found in prisoner’s possession with that lost. That line was frequently adopted by the prosecution—in fact, must be done, because thei’e were some articles which could not possibly be identified after being lost—tea and sugar for instance. But perhaps the prosecution might have other evidence than that contained in the depositions, because they were not at all bound te lceep within the depositions. There was also a case in which a man was charged with stealing a watch. The article was found upon him very shortly after it was stolen and according to law he was bound to account for it. TRUE BILLS. True bills were found by the Grand Jnry in the following cases:—Sarah Hannah Jacobs, attempt to commit suicide; Kate Dawes, attempt to commit suicide ; William Wat-on, alias Sutton, larceny in a dwelling; George Webb, alias Smith, forgery; P. G. Murtagh, assault and wounding; Charles Schmidt, stealing from a dwelling ; James Murphy, rape; Andrew FallooD, assault; Jas. Allen Mackay, forgery. LARCENY IN A DWFLLING HOUSE. William Watson, alias Sutton, was indicted for having, on the 13th October, 1878, stolen a watch, the property of Bob Vin, in the dwelliug-house of Robert Webster Littlewood. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was remanded for sentence. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. Sarah Hannah Jacobs was indicted for having attempted to commit self-destruction. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr. Izard, Grown Prosecutor, said the husband of prisoner had desired him to state that he believed the prisoner would not again attempt the offence, and that he was willing to enter into recognisances for her future good behavior. Therefore he hoped the Court would deal leniently with prisoner. The husband came forward and stated that drink was the cause of prisoner’s conduct, and he believed that if the Court would deal leniently with her, she would behave herself better in future. His Honor inquired whether prisoner was not insane at the time, and whether she had not committed the same offence before. Mr. Jacobs Baid it was the effects of drink; she was never insane. His Honor remarked that Jacobs had, according to the depositions, stated that she vras insane. Perhaps he ought not to have been examined at all, but still there the evidence was. Jacobs said he was at the time of the examination laboring under a good deal of excitement. It was the drink which did the mischief. In answer to his Honor, Mr. Read, the gaoler, said prisoner while under his charge was quite sane, but when she was first brought in was suffering irom the effects of drink. His Honor drew the attention of prisoner to what had been said, and pointed out how drink was ruining her. If she intended to continue to drink in this way [Prisoner: Never no more, your Honor.] it was of no use to let her go. It was all very well for people to think they pleased themselves by attempting suicide, but they were guilty of a serious offence against society, and put others to a great deal of inconvenience. For instance, prisoner’s freak on this occasion had put the country to a good deal of expense. However, he would order her to be released on her husband entering into a recognisance to bring her np for judgment when called upon to do so. The necessary bond was at once entered into, and the parties left the Court. MURPHY’S OABE. The Grand Jury in this case wished to inform his Honor that they believed the medical testimony disclosed a graver offence than that which the indictment charged. His Honor agreed. He thought that the Crown Prosecutor might have framed an indictment for the graver offence. Mr. Izard said he would see that another indictment wa3 framed to meet the views of the Grand Jury. The Foreman : An indictment which will include both charges ? His Honor : No, that cannot be done in a case of this sort. If a man is charged with the graver offence, the jury cannot find him guilty of the minor offence on that indictment, although, as I have said before, there may be more than one indictment on the same set of facts. Perhaps it is a defect in our law, but whether it is or not is open to question, because it may be said that if a conviction for a lesser offence could take place petit juries would be too apt to follow the pleading of counsel for prisoners, who often ask for a compromise by the conviction of a prisoner for the lesser offence. The foreman said that the evidence was so strong that the jury felt it their dnty to represent the matter to the Court. His Honor : No doubt you have done perfectly right. FORGERY. George Webb, alias Smith, was changed with having, on 6th December, 1878, forged a cheque or order for £7 ss. Witnesses were called to prove that the prisoner went to Mr. Thorburn’s drapery establishment, Willis-street, and bought goods, in payment for which he tendered a cheque signed David Smith. He represented himself to be.the nephew of David Smith, a settler at the Silverstream. On presentation the signature to the cheque was found to be a forgery. This was discovered some days afterwards, but an hour after the cheque was given prisoner went to the police station in a state of drunkenness, and confessed forgery. The police did not believe what he said, but as he bad evidently been drinking for some time, they locked him up and charged him with insanity. A peculiar

discrepancy occurred in the evidence. Mr. Thcrtrarn stated that prisoner came to his shop at 3 o’clock p.m. on 6th December, but the Inspector of Police stated, on the authority of the police books, that prisoner gave himself up at 2 p.m. on the 6th, and was kept in custody till the 7th, when the forgery was reported, and prisoner charged with it before the Court; while on the other hand, Mr. Thorburn stated that the forgery was not discovered till two days after the 6th. The accountant of the Bank of New Zealand made matters a little more clear by stating that the cheque was paid in on the sth, thus showing that Mr. Thorburn must have been mistaken in dates. Mr. Forwood, who appeared on behalf of prisoner, could not deny that an offence had been committed, but said the transaction was the result of a drunken sprse, and hoped that would operate with the jury, and induce them to endeavor to influence the mind of the Judge towards lenity. In summing up, his Honor said, although if a person was so drunk that he did not know what he was about when he committed the offence, hie drunkenness might be a good defence so far as the intent to defraud was concerned, but nothing more, and even then it would be a defence which, if it prevailed, would be very dangerous to the best interests of society. The jury convicted prisoner, but recommended him to mercy, on the ground of his being a married man. RAFE. James Murphy was tried on a charge of this - character ; Mr. Cowan defending. Prisoner convicted, and remanded for sentence till next day. Tuesday, January 7. SENTENCES. George Webb, convicted of forgery, was placed at the bar. Mr. Forwood, prisoner’s counsel, said the man had been in a chronic state of drunkenness, and did not know what he was doing when he committed the crime. Therefore he hoped his Honor would favorably consider the jury’s recommendation of the prisoner to mercy. His Honor thought under the circumstances that the comparatively light sentence of twelve months would meet the case. William Watson, convicted of larceny in a dwelling, was brought up. It appeared that prisoner had in 1866 been convicted of a similar offence, for which he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. At the same time he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for a breach of the Arms Act, which sentence was made cumulative upon the other one. One or two criminal charges had since been preferred against him, but he was acquitted, though there were a number of summary convictions against him. The Court sentenced prisoner to three years’ imprisonment. James Murphy, convicted of a gTave offence, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and twenty-five laches. LARCENY IN A DWELLING. Charles Schmidt was indicted for the robbery of £2OO from Robert Cooper, at the the Empire Hotel. Mr. Buckley appeared for the prisoner. Schmidt was a night watchman at the Empire, and Mr. Cooper missing £2OO in £2O notes out of the pooket of his trousers, which he had hung up in his bedroom the previous evening, and which were missing in the morning, suspicion fell on the accused. Subsequently some £BO in £2O notes were found in accused’s possession under circumstances which led to the belief that he was the thief. Prieonsr was convicted, and remanded for sentence. FORGERY. Arthur L. Sweet was charged with having forged a eheque for the payment of £3 10s., purporting to be drawn by B. F. Jones. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended. After hearing evidence, the jury retired, and after a lengthened absence returned into Court with a verdict of guilty against the prisoner for uttering the cheque. His Honor said he could not accept such a verdict as the prisoner was indicted on a different charge. The jury again retired to their room. At 10 p.m. the jury having been sent for returned into Court. His Honor said he understood the jury had not agreed. The Foreman : Nor are likely to do. His Honor : Then, as you are doubtless aware, I have no power to release you, or at least it is generally held so, and I don’t care to take the responsibility of releasing you nntil twelve hours have expired. To-morrow I have my duties to perform, and so have the officers of the Court, therefore it seems useless for me to stay here. The best thing I can do is to go home to bed and leave you here to deliberate. At the- same time, I think it is a pity the law stands as it does. I think where it is manifest a jury cannot agree they ought to be discharged within a reasonable period, leß3 than twelve hours. However, I have power to order you to have refreshments and that will be done. There seems to be no reason for thinking that withholding refreshment would enable you to arrive at a verdict. The Foreman : It would not make the least difference, your Honor. His Honor: Very well, gentlemen, you may retire to your room. The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock next morning. Wednesday, January 8. JURY DISCHARGED. . In Sweete’s case the jury, who had been locked up all night, intimated that they had not arrived at any conclusion, and were not likely to do so. His Honor ordered their discharge, and It was intimated by the Crown Prosecutor that he wished to take the case again when the other cases on the list were disposed of. SENTENCE. Charles Schmidt, convicted of larceny, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SELF-DESI RUCTION. Kate Dawes surrendered to her bail, and was

brought up charged with having attempted self-destruction. Prisoner pleaded guilty to having gone into the water. His Honor said that was no offence. Pri - soner must plead guilty or not guilty to tb* charge preferred against hex*. Ultimately she pleaded guilty, and was liberated on Mr. J. F. Margetts entering into recognisances to bring her up for judgment when called upon. FORGERY. James Allen Mackie was indicted for forging an order for the payment of £I3OO. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Izard prosecuted for the Crown, Mr. Buckley representing the Bank of New Zealand ; Mr. Forwood defended thb prisoner. The evidence in chief given was similar to that taken in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and recently published by us. In cross-examination Mr. Mabey said : On one occasion I went to the bank aud prisoner said—“ I should have forwarded £3OO to Murray’s account at Nelson. Will you give me a cheque for it.” He said, “ I expect it down fi’om Murray to-morrow morning or next day.” I gave him my cheque as requested, and the money was subsequently repaid me. I first heard of this on the 28th December. I saw him in the gaol on that day, also on the following Monday. On neither occasion did I oomplain that he had exceeded mv authority. I did not complain to the police or attempt to lay an information against him. I did not go to the bank and repudiate the matter. I tried to get bail for him in u £IOOO. I was willing to go bail on Saturday and Monday, but not on the Tuesday. I waw willing to recoup a a portion of the money on Christmas morning in oi’der to get prisoner out of his trouble. Mr. Forwood: Your aocount is not affected by this transaction. Witness: No. His Honor: Well, I don’t know; it has bean held that if a person gives a blank cheque, and it is filled up for a larger amount than the drawer wished, and it is passed on to a third person and cashed, then the person foolish enough to give the blank cheque loses the money. Mr. Forwood: Yes ; I am asking witness what his belief is irrespective of law. His Honor: Very well. Witness : I understand my account ia not affected by this ti-ansaction. Mr. Lawrie gave evidence as to the discovery of the forgery (as reported in our columns previously). Prisoner at first received £l5O, and allowances £SO ; in April last his salary was increased by £25, and the allowance continued. He had rooms found him on the bank premises, aud also a railway ticket supplied by the bank for travelling between the Upper and Lower Hutt. On examining the books at the Lower Hntt everything appeared right, but on arrival at the Upper Hutt to count the cash, Mackie said he had bad news. The cash would be found to be £l3lO short. He said he had none of it left; it had all gone in driblets. He said he was in debt when he left Wellington, and being pressed he had helped himself. Forwood, for the defence, called nowitnesses, but addressed the jury. He urged them to be very careful to be fully satisfied of the intent to defraud before they convicted prisoner, and thus blasted for ever the character of a young man whose conduct hitherto had been irreproachable. He put it to the jury that Mabey the principe 1 party here had not been defrauded, and by his action in making no charge, and wishing to find bail and to raise the money to assist prisoner, he ratified the transaction. The evidence showed that there was some authority delegated to prisoner, and all that he had done was to exceed his authority, of which Mr. Mabey did not complain. Whatever the jury might do, the fact of the bank paying so small a salary would relieve the prisoner of moral guilt, because of the great temptation placed in his way. His Honor confessed inability to see any proof of ratification and explained that according to law the facts sworn to were sufficient to support the indictment, provided the jury were satisfied with the truthfulness of the witnesses. That was a question for them to decide. The amount of a man’s salary had nothing to do with crime. The jury retired, and after an hour’s absence returned into Court with a verdict of guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth, the apparent negligence of the bask authorities in the lax inspection, and the insufficiency of the salary paid prisoner to maiiv tain the position be occupied. Prisoner was then indicted for stealing £l3lO, the property of the bank, and pleaded guilty. He was remanded for sentence on both charges. The Court then adjourned. Thursday, January 9. SENTENCE. James Allan Mackie was brought up for sentence for f«rgery and larceny. Mr. Forwood reminded his Honor of the recommendation of the jury, aud expressed a hope that in passing sentence he would take this into account. Mr. Buckley said he had known Mackie for more than two years. He had always hitherto borne a very good character. Mr. Arthur Baker gave similar evidence, and, in reply to liis Honor, said he believed that Mackie had, immediately before entering the service of the bank, been on a sheep station in Canterbury. Before this he had be :n at sea, and was previously in the army, according to his own statement. In passing sentence, his Honor said—l need not tell you, prisoner at the bar, that the position of one who is manager, or acting a* manager, of a bank, is one necessarily of great riionetary trust, and it is one in which, by the falsification of accounts or by the forgery of documents, detection may for a time-—perhapß for a long time—be avoided. I belirve that the practice of the courts in sucli cases

Is one which will on consideration be found te be a proper one. It is this—that the greater the trust, the greater the offence, in the estimation of Courts of -Justice. Where the offence of embezzlement or stealing a master’s money is accompanied by a falsification of accounts or forgery of documents, the offence is a very grave one. Frequently cases of embezzlement are before the Courts of Justice in which the Court finds iteeif able, in the interests of society, to pass a Sight sentence. For instance, the. unfortunate man may have given way to habits of intemperance,’ or he may be suffering under temporary irritation of mind, or he may be exposed to sudden temptation, and applies some portion of his master’s money to his own use —generally when it is in his own pocket; hut sometimes he forges a cheque for a small amount—to pay some pressing creditor. Such offences, though necessarily grave, and punished with some degree of severity, are very different from an offence committed by a bank agent or clerk, especially when accompanied by forgery or falsification of accounts. The jury recommend you to mercy on account of youth. They are manifestly mistaken in this, for a person of thirty-one years of age is long past that time when youth may be taken into aocount when considering any offence he may have committed. The jury have also felt themselves justified in saying there was a want of care in the inspection of the books by the back authorities. Mr. Lawrie, who had only been in the bank at Wellington for about four months, certainly said nothing which showed a want of inspection. The ordinary inspection appears to have been half-yearly, and he said nothing to show that this did not take place. The jury also seem to consider that the inadequate salary paid to you was a reason for recommending you to mercy. I do not know whether this has any effect on my mind ; I think not ; it should not, and I hope it has not. There are cases in which such a matter might be taken into consideration. Some man with a large family—a storeman 'or shopman somehow or other gets into temporary difficulties, possibly through disease or illness in his family, and gives way to temptation, uses a few pounds of his master’s money, and is discovered and apprehended shortly afterwards—then that circumstance might properly be taken into account, and have an effect upon the sentence passed upon him. That manifestly is not yonr case. According to your own statement, you went into the bank in monetary difficulties ; almost immediately afterwards you began to help yourself from the bank’s funds for the purpose of paying those debts, and you appear to have been helping yourself by driblets ever since. Y r ou must somehow or other have been guilty of falsification of accounts or forgery before this instance under notice, or you could not have escaped detection so long. This being the case, I feel bound, notwithstanding the recommendation of the jury, to pass a severe sentence. Ido not know that this is an occasion on which I ought to say anything to the bank, for I know from experience that persons unacquainted with banking mattere are not competent to offer advice or sxiggestions, but' I certainly am inclined to think that some check should have been put upon the bank accounts. If two officers had had to certify that the cash balances were all right, the danger of fraud would have been greatly lessened. In apportioning your sentence I have taken ints account that there is nothing against you except the crime with which you are charged, and also the fact that, the punishment to you must be more severe than to a person who has been in gaol previously. I can only express a hope that those who are now anxious to assist you, will endeavor not only to fortify you in bearing your punishment, but that they will, at the expiration of your sentence, aid you iu obtaining some creditable employment in which you may regain your lost character. Though I mxist not consider the inadequacy of yoxxr salary as an excuse, I may remark that there is a tendency at the present day, not only in banks but in other business, to pay those in a position of trust too lightly. It is supposed that a person may be safely entrusted with money, though he has not been in the habit of handling it. I apprehend that this is a false idea, for it is just as necessary to have a man experienced in the resistance of temptation as a man experienced in plastering walls. The sentence of the Coxirt is that you be imprisoned for four years on this charge of forgery, and four years on the charge of larceny, the sentences to run concurrently. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO INFLICT GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. Arthur Falloou, a respectable looking man, was placed in the dock, charged with having assaulted Philip James Murtagh, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Prisoner was defended by Mr. Travers, with him Mr. A. N. Bunny ; while Mr. Gordon Allan assisted the Crown Prosecutor, The charge arose out of some dealings in property at Masterten. There was an agreement by one Tait to transfer a house and land, &c., to Murtagh, but quarrels arose ’between the parties, and on Tait, accompanied by prisoner, attempting to enter a room which had been his bedroom in the house, ». scuffle took place between Murtagh and prisoner. Cross informations were laid, and bv,th men were committed for trial. The matter was very much involved, and the trial of Falloon occupied some hours. Finally, as the case appeared to reveal principally civil disputes, the Crown Prosecutor dropp ed the prosecution, and the prisoner was found not guilty. In Murtagh’s case, when he was called on to plead, he pleaded not (guilty. A jury was empannelled, but no evlrjence was offered, and the prisoner was acquitted. PASSING A VALUELESS CHEQUE. Arthur Swete was again put on his trial in this case, convicted, and ordered to be imprisoned for six months. This concluded the criminal bxisiness.