SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 866, 5 October 1888, Page 17

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before his Honour tho Chief Justice.) Thursday, October 4. SENTENCES. Silas Pugsley, convicted of receiving a stolen dingy, was presented for sentence. The Probation Officer’s report on the case was very favourable to the prisoner. His Honour said the Legislature put him in a .very peculiar position. Here

was a case in which a man had been found guilty after pleading not guilty, and being defended by counsel, by whom all sorts of ideas were suggested as to the prisoner’s innocence. For aught he knew, the case might have been attended with circumstances showing that the crime had been premeditated. The prisoner aid not make any explanation, of the circumstances under which the stolen boat came into his possession. He would allow the case to stand over till next day, so as to give the prisoner an opportunity, if he wished, of making a statement. His Honour remarked that the First Offenders Probation Act was very different to the Act of which it professed to be a copy, for the other Act gave rules for the guidance of the Court, and this did not. George Hodgetts, convicted of rape on a girl 12 years of age, was presented for sentence. Asked the usual question as to whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, the prisoner made no reply. His Honourcalled MrGarvey, Governor of the Gaol, and said this hoy was said tw be fifteen years and four months old. Did the hoy seem to he more fully developed than usual—more of a man ? Not with respect to the offence, hut generally as to strength and vigour. Mr Garvey said he should say so. From information that had come to his knowledge he would have judged the prisoner to be considerably over 15 years old—judging from what the prisoner had said to other prisoners in the gaol while he was awaiting trial. His Honour said the certificate of registration had been put in showing the prisoner’s age to be 15 years and 4 months. What the prisoner had said to others was, he supposed, about his own doings ? Mr Garvey : Yes. His Honour: With women or girls?—Mr Garvey : Yes. His Honpur : Boasting, I suppose, of what he has been doing ? —Mr Garvey : Yes.

His Honour : In this part of the country ?—Mr Garvey : No ; in Christchurch and on the West Coast, your Honour. The father of the prisoner, who was in Court, stated, in answer to his Honour, that the boy had never been out of the Hutt district, except when he was m the Wairarapa for a year with bis mother.' He had never been in the South Island.

His Honour said that, from a hurried look at the .Offences Against the Person Act, 1867, he had thought that whippings could not be given to a person of the prisoner’s age ; but he found now that that Act did not apply to the offence of rape at all, but that the amending Act of 1874 did provide for whippings, -whatever the age of the person might he. He was very glad to find that that was so, because the opinion he had formed was that that would be the proper punishment for the prisoner. It would not be suitable punishment to send a hoy for a long term of imprisonment ; a short term with severe whippings would be the proper punishment. He might be wrong in the amount of whipping he should order, hut he did not suppose he was. However, the medical officer would see that the whippings were not given so as to cause anything like permanent injury. The provision of the law was that in all such cases the surgeon or medical officer of the gaol should be present, and might, if he thought fit, order the punishment to be postponed. Was Mr Garvey able to tell him what instrument was used in giving punishment ? Was it what was. called the “cat.” Mr Garvey said it was the caf-of-nine-tails, made of whipcord. His Honour asked what number of strokes would constitute a severe whipping. Mr Garvey said that would he a medical question. Generally from 17 to two dozen strokes were given at once. His Honour said the sentence of tho Court was that the prisoner he kept in The Terrace Gaol for six months with hard labour, and that he be twice privately whipped, the number of strokes at each whipping to he 20, and the instrument to be used that known as the cat-of-nihe-tails. He had no power to fix the date of the whippings, hut lie would express the opinion that one should take place as soon as possible after sentence being passed, and the other just befepf©, the prisoner was liberated. He. had nothing to say to the prisoner..;, h,e.had not the least doubt, from, wh,af Mfp Gaevoy told him and from, iiis, o.wn, observation, that no words pf hj& would have any effect on the. nrjgpftcj.. The- prisoner was then removed. William James Simmons, who had been convicted of stealing a small case of match boxes from the shop of Nathaniel Nathan, was- presented for sentence. He had pleaded not guilty to charges- of stealing a coat the propertyof G. W. Smart, and three shirts belonging, to J. A. Higginbotham. He now however withdrew his, plea, an,d pleaded, guilty in both charges. Mr Tanner (who appeared for the, prisoner) asked his Honour to take into consideration that both these offences were committed ill one night, while the prisoner was suffering from delirium tremens.

Mr Garvey stated that the prisoner was suffering from the effects of drink when in gaol in June last, and stated when he was discharged that he was to receive LIOO from his brother in England. The prisoner said he had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed. His Honour said the case was a very melancholy one. The prisoner, who seemed to be respectably conneceed, and was a good tradesman (an engineer), was

brought to his present position by drink. It was not a case with which he should deal harshly, aud would give the prisoner another chance. The sentence was that the prisoner be kept to hard labour in the Terrace Gaol for two years with hard labour on each charge ; the sentences to run concurrently. FORGERY AND UTTERING. George McCoinbe pleaded not guilty to forging and uttering a cheque for L 6 10s, purporting to be drawn by John McMeneman. Mr Gully prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Bunny was for the defence. (Left sitting.)