The Courts.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 426, 10 April 1880, Page 10

The Courts.

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL

SITTINGS.

Monday, April 5. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) The usual quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court commenced at 10 o'clock, when the following gentlemen were empanelled on the GRAND JURY — Messrs. E. W. Mills (foreman), Al exander Eddie, T. W. Young, S. S. Jacka, J. R. Blair, C. E. Zohrab, W. C. Chatfield, B. Holmwood, G. V. Shannon, H. F. Logan, W, Whittem, Alfred Boardman, Frank Allen, Peter Laing, Wm. Staples, Charles McKirdy, David Anderson, junior, G. H. Luxford, George Dixon, R. Cleland, John Gwynneth, and J. B. Harcourt. HIS honor's charge. His Honor briefly addressed the Grand Jury. He said the number of prisoners on the calendar appeared to be about the same as usual for this district, and the class of cases was one calling for no particular comment, and, generally, he thought they would have no difficulty in dealing with them. He had very few observations to make. There was one charge of suicide, with which they would probably have no difficulty in dealing, even although it might appear to them that the man's mind was affected at the time he made the attempt on his life, for that matter was rather for the Court's than for their consideration, if they found that he did the act with the intention of committing suicide, even although they should think he was not in the possession of his senses at the time. There were one or two cases of false pretences, one only of which, however, called for any remark at his hands. It was a charge of presenting a false cheque, although not accompanied by any statement of its goodness. The mere presentation of the cheque, if there is nothing at the bank, constituted the false pretence. The mere fact of not having an account at the bank in such a case constituted a false representation. That of course did not mean that if a person had an account at the bank, although he might not happen to have funds, but was in reasonable expectation of receiving them, there was a false pretence. Then there was a charge of arson, also of a peculiar character. The daughter of a small farmer living in the Wairarapa was charged with setting fire to the premises of her father. There should be some evidence to satisfy their minds, not only that the girl committed the offence, but that it was done to injure her father. There was also a charge against a lad of about 16 or 17 of stealing a post letter. It was not necessary for them to have evidence that he was receiving salary, but merely that he was employed at the Post Office. In this case it appeared that he was employed in the ordinary way, and as such had something to do with some of the letters. The charge, too, was not merely one of stealing, but one of secreting. If he were actuated only by a desire to look into people's correspondence; and not taking any money, there would be no defence. His Honor then referred to the charge of rape upon a child, and of indecent assault upon a grown girl, and afterwards dismissed the Grand Jury to their room. false pretences. Frank Hook, a respectable looking young man, was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with obtaining by false pretences the sum of £25 from Thomas John Glew.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty. The whole of the facts of this case have been fully before the public, and the evidence given yesterday was the same as that given at the Police Court. It will be remembered that the prisoner borrowed the money on the

security of a duplicate letter of credit for the sum of £3OO, which he stated was lying to his credit in the bank at Christchurch. When the prosecutor became suspicious of this ho saw the prisoner, who still affirmed that the money was at the bank at Christchurch. He made the same statement to the manager of the Bank of New Zealand, but when asked to sign a cheque for the full amount he declined to do so, and confessed that he had drawn the money from the Christchurch branch of the bank in October last. He asked the prosecutor not to press the charge, and he would pay him the amount back in a month. It also transpired in evidence that Glew had lent him a second £25 on an 1.0. U., so that he was a loser of £SO through the action of the prisoner. The jury found him guilty and he was remanded for sentence. BOBBERY FROM THE PERSON. Charles Stewart Burns was indicted for stealing a sum of £l7 from the person of James Maginnity, of Greytown, on the 20 th January last. The facts of the case, as opened by the Crown Prosecutor, were that the prisoner on the day of the robbery had cashed a cheque, and had been drinking with the prisoner; that he went to lie down for a bit in the back parlor, and that while he was asleep the prisoner came in and disturbed him. On going out in about an hour to pay some money in a different part of the township, he missed his bundle Of notes. The prisoner, who before the robbery had stated that he had no money, was found te be in the possession of a considerable sum shortly afterwards, although there was nothing to lead to the identification of any of the notes which he paid away. The prosecutor gave his evidence in a most extraordinary manner, and his Honor asked the Crown Prosecutor if he thought he was sober. Witness affirmed that he was perfectly sober, but Mr. Izard said |he did not think he was fit to give evidence, and on the question being put to the jury as to what they thought of the matter, several of them unhesitatingly declared the man to be drunk. Under those circumstances his Honor refused to allow him to proceed with his evidence, and asked the Crown Prosecutor if he could proceed to a conviction without him.

Mr. Izard replied that he could not. His Honor said under those cireumstances the case had better be withdrawn from the jury, who, under his Honor's direction, returned a verdict of not guilty. His Honor then addressed the witness, and said that even with the whole of his evidence it was exceedingly unlikely that the jury would have convicted, for it was evident he was drunk when the offence was committed. He had put the country to a great expense, and if he were certain of his being in a state of intoxication, he would certainly punish him very severely. As it was, he should order him not to be allowed his expenses. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. Samuel Jackson, an elderly man, was charged with having attempted to commit suicide by cutting his arm open with a razor. The prisoner at first pleaded guilty, but afterwards withdrew the plea, saying he had no intention of taking his life. His Honor asked the Crown Prosecutor whether he thought this was a case in which the time of the Court could be profitably employed. The head gaoler stated that the accused had been in gaol for three months. He appeared to be a quiet, well-conducted man and had committed the act while in a state of drink. After some discussion, the Crown Prosecutor elected to offer no evidence, and the prisoner was acquitted. FALSE PRETENCES. Alexander Wicher was indicted for obtaining the sum of £2 17s. 6d. by false pretences, from Mr. Thomas Myers, picture dealer, of Lambton-quay, by means of a valueless cheque for £5 15s. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner owed the prosecutor the sum of £1 17s. 6d., and that in payment of this he gave him a cheque for £5 on the Bank of New Zealand, signed by himself. He received the change, and when the cheque was presented it was found that the prisoner had not an account at the bank. He was arrested a few days afterwards at Christchurch. Prisoner's defence was that when he had given prosecutor the cheque he had asked him not to present it for a few days, as he had money in Christchurch and would transfer it to Wellington. As a matter of fact, a friend of his forwarded the amount to the prosecutor (after the prisoner's arrest), and this was accepted, the prosecutor stating that he did not know it was a criminal proceeding. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. LARCENY.

James Harris pleaded guilty to stealing a gold watch, a gold chain, a golden cross, and a greenstone, the property of James Nichol, from the dwelling-house of James Mcintosh, of the Lower Hutt. He was remanded for sentence. LETTER STEALING.

George Vickerstaff pleaded guilty to stealing two post letters from the Post Office at Taratahi, the property of he* Majesty's Post-master-General.

Mr. Allan, who appeared for the prisoner, stated that the mother of the young man had waited upon him in reference to her son. He had looked through the case, and finding that it was impossible that the prisoner could get off, he had advised him to plead guilty. From what he could hear the letters had been opened from a feeling of prurient curiosity more than with any felonious intent. Mr. Butts, the Chief Postmaster, expressed the same opinion. Prisoner was not connected officially with the Post Office service, buthe was employed by the postmaster. It was improper of a postmaster to allow any person to touch letters but himself without special authority from the department. His Honor said he gathered from the depositions that this boy and a girl were ingthe

habit of giving out letters. There was a draft for £lO in one of the letters that was opened, which prisoner stated that he had burnt.

Mr. Butts said he believed this was so. The duplicate of the draft had been presented and the money paid. Mr. Fiske, the country postmaster, also agreed with the opinion expressed by Mr. Butts. He was aware that be ought not to have allowed anybody to have anything to do with the letters, but he had thorough confidence in the lad, who had the run of the till, but he did not think he had taken any money But for this offence he could give him a character for honesty. This was the first place he had had since he had come to the colony. His Honor said the Courts were generally guided in their punishment of prisoners of this class by what was recommended by the postal authorities. He would consider the matter, and sentence the. prisoner in the morning. FOR&ING AND UTTERING. Thomas Young, alias Alexander McGregor, pleaded guilty to forging and uttering a certain order for the payment of money. He said he had done so while in a state of intoxication, not knowing what he was about.

His Honor said if he had no felonious intent he should plead not guilty. Prisoner, however, persisted in pleading guilty. He was remanded for sentence. NO BILLS.

No bills were returned in the cases of Caroline Gooden, for arson, and Henry Beattie, indecent assault. TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned in the whole of tho other cases, and the Grand Jury were thanked for their services and discharged. Tdesd.iY, April 6. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and a Common Jury.) SENTENCES. Frank Hook was brought up for sentence, having on the previous day been found guilty of obtaining money under false pretences. When asked what he had to say why sentence should not be passed on him, the prisoner said that through life he had always borne a good character. He had been in the colony for two years, and was for a long time in the employ of Messrs. Nathan and Co., of Christchurch. He had never before been in the hands of the police, who had searched all his private papers and had found nothing against him. He hoped the Court would have mercy on him, for no one could say anything against him before this matter had occurred.

His Honor said the prisoner had been in custody for three months, and that would be taken into consideration. The amount of money of which he had defrauded the prosecutor was actually £SO, for, although, he had lent the first £25 on the security of the letter of credit, he had no doubt lent the second £25 on the same security, although it was not specially mentioned at the time. The Court was not informed by the police of there being anything against the prisoner, and he (the Judge) must therefore assume that this was his first offence. The sentence of the Court was that he be kept in the prison at Wellington for the period of nine calendar months. James Harris, who had pleaded guilty to stealing certain articles of jewellery, was placed in the dock. The Chief Justice said that the prisoner had according to the calendar been previously convicted on two occasions—in 1877 and 1879. Did the prisoner deny that he had been so convicted ?

The prisoner admitted the convictions. His Honor said it was quite evident that the prisoner was not a person of good character, and that a severe sentence would have to be passed upon him. He would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment on each count of the indictment, the sentences to run concurrently: George Vickerstaff, who had pleaded guilty to stealing letters from the Post Office at Taratahi, was brought up, but sentence was again deferred until the following morning. Thomas Young, alias Alexander McGregor, who had on the previous day pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, was brought up for sentence. When asked what he had to say,

The prisoner admitted that the writing oa the cheque was his, but he did not know how it came there, or where he got the cheque. He had been drinking at the time, and was not in his proper senses, or he would scarcely have filled up a cheque in that way with the name of a person whom he had never known, and who did not exist so far as he knew. When he arrived in Wellington he had £52, but he was sorry to say he got drinking, and that in the course of a fortnight the whole of that money had passed from him to the publicans. He ought to be ashamed of himself to say so, but it was the truth. He had never robbed anybody, and had received no money for this cheque. His Honor : But it was not your fault ; you tried to cash it with the publican. Prisoner said he was a stranger in Wellington. He had served for ten years in the navy, which he left about seven years ago without having a single mark against him. His Honor : I will remind you that there was another cheque for £SO found on you.

Prisoner : It was only waste paper. His Honor : It was signed, at all events. _ Prisoner : It only shows the state I was in. I must have been drunk at the time. His Honor : The writing does not look like it. It is a good free bold hand, and shows no evidence of being written by a man in drink. Prisoner : I got a good education for a working man's son. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to eighteen months' imprisonment. CHARGE OF STEALING A CASH BOX. John Thompson, a colored man, about twenty-seven years of age, surrendered to his bail to take his trial for steal-

that there was any excuse for that, and if he had been a grown person he would have been very seriously punished. The boy would now be discharged on his own recognisances, and would have to come up for judgment if called •»pon. The Crown Prosecutor said the Postal authorities wished it to be distinctly understood that their leniency in this case must not be taken as a precedent. The boy was then discharged, and afterwards entered into recognisances for the sum ••f £SO. RAPE. George Longhnrst, a respectable looking young man about 23 years of age, was charged with committing a rape upon the person of a little girl named Genevieve Elizabeth Adams, a child between seven and eight years of age.

The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr. Gordon Allan and Mr. Quick. All witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr. Allan said before the case commenced he would like to state that he considered it necessary that the-jury should see the premises where the alleged offence place. It would be very difficult to get an of them from a mere plan, and he felt it most important that the jnry should see the place.^ His Honor said he had seen the deposition", and could not see any necessity for granting the learned counsel's application. It would be very inconvenient, for if the jury went, the Judge and the counsel would have to go as well, and it would be very difficult to keep them from speaking to anyone, or to prevent them from overbearing the remarks of other persons. He had power to grant the application, but at present he did not think it necessary. If, however, he saw the necessity of it he would allow the premises to be viewed before the close of the trial. Mr. Allan said he had at least thought it his duty to make the application. The case was then proceeded with. A large number of witnesses were examined, but the main portion of the evidence is unfit for publication. It would seem that the prisoner and the child were living in the same house, the prisoner being a lodger with the child's parents, and that the capital offence was committed in a shed at the back of the house. The girl did not give information to %er mother until the fol owing day. At 10 o'clock, the defence not being finished, the case was aojourned until 10 o'clock next morning.