SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 955, 20 June 1890, Page 22

SUPREME COURT.

Thursday, June 12. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) THE MUSEUM ROBBERY. James Jansen was arraigned on an indictment charging him with having, on the 24 ch January, broken into the Colonial Museum, and stolen therefrom a {quantity of gold, silver, copper, and brass coins, and also with receiving the coins knowing them to have bean stolen. The witnesses examined for the prosecution up till the time the Court rose were J. A. Bigg, A. Huett, T. W. Kirk, Mrs Lovell,' Mrs Jenness, W. Chisholm, and A. R. Hislop. Mr Jellicoe asked if his Honor would allow the prisoner bail and accept the same sureties as before. He stated that there were two sureties of LSO each. His Honor said he did not like to allow bail during a trial for felony. Mr Jellicoe remarked that his Honor had offered to take bail in Schwass’ case during tho course of the trial. His Honor did not think it was usual to take bail during a trial, and he must decline to accept it. The Court then adjourned until 10next m oruing. Friday, June 13. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) THE museum robbery. The trial of James Jansen, on the charge of having stolen a quantity of gold and silver coins from tlieMuseum, was resumed yesterday. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr Jellicoe submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. The prosecution had failed absolute y to establish in this case a corpus delicti. There was, he argued, no evidence to show that the gold or silver found in the possession of the prisoner resembled the coins taken from rhe Museum. The prosecution had been unable to trace any of the coins to the possession of the prisoner. What they (the prosecution) suggested was that they hid found some pieces of gold and silver upon the accused, but neither Mr Littlejohn nor Mr Hislop, who had been called by the prosecution, could state what the metal had been.

His Honor thought there was evidence to go to the jury. Mr Jellicoe asked if his Honor would reserve the point if necessary. Ti is Honor agreed to do that. Mr Jellicoe then opened the case for the defence, at considerable length, after

which he proceeded to call evidence, as follow :

John F. Ahlgreen, jeweiler, who stated that he had over 20 years’ experience at his trade. He stated that the clay mould produced would not be of any use for smelting gold. It would be necessary to have an iron mould. Had heard it said that diggers could melt sovereigns in a clay pipe, like the one produced, bub he had never seen it done. He also expressed the opinion that an electro-plater would use zinc plates and copper wire such as had been found in possession of tbe prisoner. In cross-examination the witness stated that the holes in the pieces of silver were caused through the metal being put in a bad mould. The metal had not been cast in an iron mould. They might have been cast in the clay mould produced. At 5.30 p.m. the Court adjourned until next morning. Saturday, J une 14. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) THE MUSEUM ROBBERY. Tlie hearing of the charge against James Jansen of stealing a quantity of gold and silver coins from the Colonial Museum was resumed. Detective Campbell, who was recalled by Mr Jellicoe, stated that Detective Kirby had informed him that the accused had a workshop in Glenbervio terrace. Detective Kirby, he believed, obtained the information from the prisoner’s bondsman, Mr Copeland. Annie Jansen, sister of the accused, stated that her brother returned from Sydney in December last, and had since lived with his mother and witness in Abel Smith street. He (accused) had stated that he had worked as an electro - plater in Sydney. Had often seen some silver pieces in his possession which he had brought back from Australia, and he had also showed witness the nugget of gold produced. On Friday, the 24th of January, accused was home all the evening, and went to bed at the same hour as witness. Early in February accused told her that he had taken a workshop on Glenbervie terrace, and since then he had gone to work regularly. Cross-examined : The witness stated that it was by letter that she learnt that the accused was working as an “lecfcro-plater in Sydney. Had never seen anything in the nature of a furnace about the house in Abel Smith street. She unders'ood that accused was getting ready to start business when he was arrested.

Charles Jansen, brother of the accused, deposed that the prisoner had shown him two pieces of silver shortly after his return from Australia. Witness slept in the same bed as accused, and on the night the robbery was committed he (accused) was home all the evening, and did not go out again that night. Was aware that accused had taken a workshop in Glenbervie terrace. The witness also gave a description of the accused’s dress and personal appearance on the day after the robbery, which differed from that given by Mr Littlejohn. Edward J. Morley stated that he had brought the nugget mounted on a pin (produced) from Mahakipawa, and had given it to accused. Charles Jansen, recalled, stated that on the 28th February, before prisoner removed his property from Glenbervie terrace, he and accussed had agreed to meet Detective Campbell for the purpose of showing him the premises. The detective, however, did not keep his appointment. Richard A. Copeland stated that accussed was at his own home until past 10.30 on the night the robbery was committed. This was all the evidence for the defence. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. The jury retired at 5.30, and after about an bout’s deliberation returned a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was then discharged. The Court adjourned until Monday next. Monday, June 10. (Before hi 3 Honor the Chief Jubl ice.) MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING. Charles Cunningham pleaded not guilty to % charge of having, on the 26th March last, maliciously stabbed his wife, Catherine, with a knife. Mr Bell prosecuted and Mr Coates de- , fended. The case for the Crown was to the effect that on the night of the 26th March the accused and his wife had a quarrel, and Cunningham, who was under the influence of drink, stabbed his wife in the cheek with a pocketknife. For the defence it was contended that the wound was caused by an accident. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. The jury retired at 3.10 p.m., and returned 20 minutes later with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY. Cornelius E. Stevens was charged that he did within four months of his bankruptcy, on the 22nd March, quit New Zealand and take with him L2O and uj) Yard, which should by law have been divided amongst his creditors. Mr Jellicoe (instructed ty the Crown Sober or) prosecuted, ard Mr Grey defended the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. The evidence was similar to that given

when the case was before the Resident Magistrate. The jury, after a few minutes’ retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty.

Mr Jellicoe said that he would enter a nolle prosequi with regard to the other count of the indictment against the prisoner. His Honor said he did not know that he could accept this. Mr Grey preferred, that the same jury should be empanelled and the prisoner acquitted. His Honor agreed to this course, and the accused was then arraigned upon a charge of having within four months of his bankruptcy,, ,to wit, on - the 21st March, unlawfully disposed of otherwise than in the utdmary way of trade a broughaivv two horses, and a double set of harness, ■ which he had obtained by credit from C. -Falkland. The accused pleaded not guilty. His Honor,. addressing the j ury, said that as the Crown would offer no evidence, they would simply have to acquit the accused. In accordance with this direction, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was then discharged. The Court adjourned until next morning. Tuesday, June 17(Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) HAY V. BROWN. This was an action brought by James Hay against fhe 'defendant, a resident of this city—a former partner of his in a flax milling venture, at Opunake—for the recovery of the sum of LIOOO and interest accruing thereon at the rate of 8 per cent, dating from the 18th January last. The defendant in the statement of claim was described as being a mechanical engineer, and it was set for h that he covenanted to pay to the plaintiff the sum of LIOOO ; that the amount mentioned had not yet been paid, neither had the amount of Ll 3, as interest accruing thereon, been paid. The parties to the suit, it appeared, had been partners in a flax mill at Opunake, but dissolved partnership in October last, when the plaintiff retired in favour of Bro:>vn, who undertook to pay the amount of LIOOO, asset forth in the statement.

Th'e'defendant did rot appear either personally or by counsel, but he had filed a statement denying his indebtedness, and further claimed that the plaintiff was indebted to him to the extent of LIOB 11s 6d on account of cash advanced at different times. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the plaintiff. A juiy, was empanelled, who, after hearing the evidence of the plaintiff, returned a verdict in lii3 favour for the full amount claimed. Judgment accordingly was entered up, with costs on the highest scale, tlie counter claim being dismissed with costs. LOVE V. EPUNI. This was an action involving a charge of alleged s’ander, and one in which the plaintiff’, Taniora Love, a farmer of Waiwetu, sought to recover the sum of LIOOO damages from Atanatui te Puni and Alice, his wife. The parties to the suit are residents of Pitone, and being all of them residents of Wellington and its suburbs, the matter at issue naturally caused some little curiosity in Court. -The case is being tried by a common jury, Mr W. J. Holliday being the foreman.

Mr Morison appears for the plaintiff, the defendants being represented by Mr Haselden. Lieutenant-Colonel McDonnell was sworn in as interpreter. The statement oi claim sets forth that on and prior to the 19th March last the plaintiff was attorney for and agent of Oriwia te Ateaukawa, and that on the 12th March the male defendant, in the presence of the plaintiff’s wife, made an allegation, of w hich the following is a translation :—“I now, know that your husband stole and consumed the moneys of Oriwia. Your husband consumes the moneys of Oriwia, and leaves Oriwia in want and hunger. Your husband manages Oriwia's affairs, and it is well known that he (Taniora) has consumed the moneys that on the 22nd March last the female defendant falsely and mali ciously spoke of the plaintiff as follows : “You are a thief, a rogue, and a robber.” The Court adjourned at 5 pm. until next morning, when it resumed, and the case was continued all day. It was expected to finish last evening.