THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1136, 8 December 1893, Page 18

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, November 30th; (Before the Chief Justice.) The criminal sessions were opened at 10 o’clock a.m. THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a Grand Jury :—William Thomas Hildreth, Bernard Fear Whitaker, David Sutherland Gray, James Daniel Baird, William Clark, John Guthrie Wood Aitken, William Bishop, George, Henry Plimmer, John Coombs, Robert Cross, Arthur Henry Duff, Samuel Saxby Prouse, Louis Proctor Blundell, William Boyd, Frederick George Woolams, Frederick Townsend, Charles Plimmer, Wellington Raymond, David James Bremner, William Dene Lyon, William Atack, Walter Elias Woods, William James Harland and George Liddle Hitchcock Cuningham. Mr J. G. W. Aitken was chosen foreman. THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

His Honor in delivering his charge to the

Grand Jury said some of the cases upon

the calender were of a more serious nature than was usual in this district. The most serious charge of all was one of the administration of poison by a Mrs Blake to her husband. According to the depositions it was stated that Blake had been in the hospital not long since for treatment for stricture; that shortly after his return home he became very ill, and showed signs of mercurial poisoning; that upon enquiry being made mercury poison was found mixed with chalk, in the form of a white precipitate, in his wife’s possession; that she tried to conceal it, and then alleged that the precipitate was to be used for the purpose of cleaning her children’s heads, but that their heads did not need this application, and that there was nothing to show that the article had been used for this purpose ; that Mrs Blake was the only person who prepared and administered her husband’s food ; that there was a feeling of ill-will between the parties, fhe husband being older than his wife, in feeble health, and needing much attention, and that he had been jealous of the visits of a male person to the house, while the wife was said to have used expressions of ill-will against her husband. It was not necessary for the Grand Jury to be satisfied of the prisoner’s guilt; it was only necessary to satisfy themselves that there was a case to call upon the prisoner to answer. After referring to another serious case, Hi 3 Honor said there was an indictment against a person named Kirk, charging him with an offence under the Bankruptcy Act of 1892, viz., with not keeping books, such as he ought to have kept m his business. In the case of a person in business who was incurring debts that he was not likely to be able to meet, this non-keeping of books was now an indictable offence. The evidence, he understood, was to the effect that Kirk had not kept these books, that he had concealed in his books the nature of some of his transactions, and that he had been incurring debts that lie had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay. He did not think the jury would find that Kirk was very largely indebted when hq incurred this particular debt to Messrs Nathan. His Honor then proceeded to refer to the indictment for criminal libel found against E. H. Haggen, of the Woodville ; Examiner, on a charge preferred by | J. P. Clark, of Pahiatua, in eonnec. tion with certain poisoning cases in that district. ' There seemed to be no dispute about the publication. The jury would also have to consider whether the published matter was defamatory, and for this purpose they would have to determine whether the article conveyed to the minds of ordinary persons the charge that Clark was the person who pilt poison into the food partaken of by. certain persons at Pahiatua/who sooft afterwards displayed all the symptoms of poisoning, and two of whom died. Although an article might begin by stating the writer’s dis-

belief in t;he charge, yet the article might be ; s6 u worded as. to convey to the minds of the'readers 1 the : fact that such a charge was' xn'ade; Justification could only be a special pled, and it must then-be shown that not only wus the !article true in’ its statements, but also that it was published in the public interests. ' ' The Grand Jury then retired. BREAKING AND ENTERING. Joseph Knight pleaded guilty to a charge having on the ,7th October bntereci the dwellinghou’se of A. C. Matheson, at" Feildjfiiig, with intent to steal therefrom. He was° remanded for sentence till this 1 (Friday) morning at' 10 o’clock. ■ 1 - - lArceny.

Edward Cloke and William Burton, two youth's, pleaded guilty to five charges of larceny, viz., (Ist)'on the 4th September stealing a tot of carpenters’ toots belongs ing to J. C. Qavin; (2nd) on the 6th September stealing' carpenters’.' tools belonging to H. P. Higginson; (3rd) oh the 25ih 'August stealing carpenters’ tools belonging 'to Robert' Rharazyn; ‘(4t(i) on the 4th August stealing a box of tools belonging to ! David Williamson ; dud (sth) bn the 14th August stealing some cups' stiucers and siigai; baMqs, Ac., belonging to (fames Stack. The prisoners were remanded for sentence till this morning. James Mannix pleaded guilty of stealing £8 from Patrick Leahy at Pahiatua on the 21st August. He alleged, however, that he was drunk at the time and did not know what he was doing, and that he only took £2. His Honor said the prisoner was released from gaol in 1892, after serving 12 months for larceny. If he could be satisfied that he had been working since then, the fact would weigh with him, However, he

could not take the unsupported word of the prisoner as to that. A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, was then imposed. . , INDECENT ASSAULT. . Daniel Phillips was charged with having indecently .assaulted a girl at Belmont, Hutt Valley, ori the 24th November. Henry Samuel Moore was chosen foreman of the jiiry; The prisoner pleaded hot guilty; The evidence was to the effect that between 12 and 1 on the day in question prisoner accosted the girl, who was returning along the Hutt road from a message, and accompanied her up a lane, which was a short-cut to her school, and there committed the offence alleged. A young woman came along the road at this time, and the girl called out to her for assistance, and went back along the road with her.

Evidence was given by the father of the girl, who said his daughter (would be 14 years of age on Christmas Day next; the girl herself, who said a young man passed by while she was screaming, and took, no notice; Mary Osborne; John Bailey Sherlock, who said the girl was crying as he passed: and Constable Cruickshank. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and after a quarter of an hour’s absence, returned with a verdict of guilty. Sentence was deferred until this morning. PLAYING WITH A REVOLVER. Edward Wade was charged with demanding liquor by threats from Mary I Killery, at the Army and Navy Hotel, j Wellington, on the sth October last. He pleaded not guilty. Mr Geo. Mcllvride j was foreman of the jury. Mr Gully prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Jellicoe defended. The evidence was to the effect that prisoner went into the Army and Navy Hotel with two other men, and drinks were supplied to all three. These were not paid for, and after 'oonsuming them they asked for more drinks. Miss Killery refused to give them, whereupon prisoner pulled a revolver out of his pocket and forced her to supply their demands. In cross-examination it was admitted by Mary Killery that she would have given Wade credit for the drinks,

His Honor thereupon stopped the case, remarking that in the face of that evidence the jury could not possibly convict. It was a foolish act on the part of the accused, and if he had been taken before the Magistrate on a charge of assault he would probably have been dealt witli there and then.

The jury then formally returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. THE WORK OF THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury found no true bill against John O’Keeffe, charged with cattlestealing, and J. 0. Ward, false pretences. The consideration of the charges against Thos. Geo. Frazer, larceny; Patrick Scott, alias Williams, larceny, and A. J. Kirk,breach of the Bankruptcy Act, was adjourned until Thursday next for the production of witnesses. True bills were returned inwall the remaining cases, and the Grand Jury was then discharged until Thursday. THE WOODVILLE LIBEL CASE.

Mr J. P. Clark failed to appear to his bond to prefer a charge of criminal libel against E. A. Haggen, of Woodville. His Honor remarked that if the Grand Jury had been discharged he should at once have estreated Clark’s recognisances of <£so. As it so happened that the Grand Jury had to return next Thursday, he did not think it necessary to take that extreme course. If Mr Clark, however, did not put in an appearance by Thursday in next week, his recognisances would be estreated.

At 5.30 p.m. the Court adjouimed until 10 o’clock next morning.

Friday, December 1. SENTENCES. Daniel Phillips, convicted the previous day of indecently assaulting a girl- of 14 at Belmontj Lower Hutt, was brought up and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with hard labour. His Honor remarked that although the prisoner- had been convicted before of an offence, it was different in character from the offence now sheeted home, and did not, therefore, - affect the sentence. • •• • .

Joseph Knight, who had, pleaded guilty of housebreaking at Feilding, next : appeared in the ‘dock. His Honor said there was a record of convictions ' against the prisoner for housebreaking in South 1 Australia, Victoria' and’ New South Walds, lp§ last sentence in Australia'buying been 10 years’ penal servitude, ’ TJie gaoler said the prisoner told him he had been driven by shefer necessity to commit the offence for which he was : now before the Court. ;i , 0 *’

His Hbnor remarked that he had no doubt there Was ' considerable difficulty ih getting work, especially [by inen who did[ not bear a very good character. He felt it necessary to ■ impose a severe ‘sentence, both on account of the prisoner’s record anfi sO that it might serve to deter persons of the prisoner’s class coming to New Zealand from the other colonies; The sentence of the Court was seven years’ penal servitude'.' ‘ ' ' Edward Cloke and William Burton, who had pleaded guilty to five charg-Cs* <3f' larceny 1 , chiefly; of 'carpenter's’; tools; were next brought ‘ ujj for sentence. The prisoners’ hafidqd in a written* statement to the effect that they were equally to, blame, and had stolen the tools with a view to, getting employment, They repented their conduct, pleaded for a lenient sentence, and asked that they might be kept apart from the other prisoners.

His Honor- was inclined to think the offences had been committed more in a spirit of adventure than anything else. As both prisoners were already serving a term of three months’ imprisonment, received from the Resident Magistrate,. a further sentence of nine months was inflicted,

making the full term for each prisoner 12 months’ imprisonment. ALLEGED LARCENY.

Henry Valeille was charged with having on the 30th September, at Levin, stolen a sjlver watch belonging to John Prendcrgast. There was a further count of receiving the watch, knowing it to have beeri stolen.

The prisoner (a Frenchman) pleaded hot guilty. He asked for the assistance of an interpreter. In answer to His Honor, Constable Smith said he had been acquainted with the prisoner for four months past, and could say that he knew the English language perfectly well. His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said he was not satisfied that an interpreter was needed. However, there was one present, and if the prisoner had thought to delay the trial by making his application, he was greatly mistaken. He did not say that the prisoner might not avail himself of the services o£ the interpreter, but he saw no reason for it, as the prisoner had been able to do without one in the lower Court. Evidence was then given by John Prendergast, a labourer, working on the railway at Heatherlea, near Levin; Robt. Bevan, butcher, of Manakau: John G. Campbell, licensee of the Manakau Hotel; Constable Walter Smith, of Levin ; Constable Timothy O’Rourke, of Otalri; and John Webber, contractor, Otaki, the services of the interpreter not being made use of. Prisoner having been heard in defence, the jury, after a short retirement, found a verdict of guilty on the first charge. His Honor said the prisoner had been convicted twice in 1891. It was to be

hoped he had now seen the advantage of being in work instead of being in gaol. A sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment with hard labour was then imposed. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN.

- Dennis Driscoll and James Morris were arraigned upon an indictment charging them with having on the 10th October uttered to Thomas Morrison a base and false counterfeit coin, resembling and intended to resemble a florin.

The prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr Jellicoe appeared to defend Morris. In opening the case Mr Gully (Crown Prosecutor) explained that at 7 a.m. on the 10th October, Driscoll went to the Masonic Hotel in Cuba street, and attempted to pass as a florin a penny coated with a silver wash. It was refused by the barman. Shortly afterwards Driscoll returned with Morris and a third person. Drinks were called for, but as no money was forthcoming they were removed, and the three persons cleared out. At 9 o’clock the same morning Driscoll and Morris turned up at the Albert Hotel and called for drinks. Driscoll passed to Morris the base coin, and the latter tendered it in payment. The night watchman, who was serving them, saw that it was spurious, returned it to Morris and called in Constable McCarthy. His Honor did not think there was any evidence on the depositions of guilty knowledge on the part of Morris. There might be evidence of a joint passing, but there was none of a joint knowledge. There was no evidence that Morris had received the same warning as Driscoll had at the Masonic Hotel. It was therefore only embarrassing the case to indict him. Mr Gully concurred, and His Honor then directed the jury to acquit Morris, which they accordingly did ■ without leaving the box. Morris was therefore discharged. Evidence was then called in support of the charge against Driscoll, the witnesses examined being Frank Perry, barman at the Masonic Hotel, Constables McCarthy and Frank Wilson, and Thomas Morrison, night watchman at the Albert Hotel. Prisoner, addressing- the jury, said he had been employed at sea for 18 years, and had been drinking along with Morris and other men the whole of the day previous to that on which the false coin was uttered.

This coin he received in change somewhere, and he did not know it was bad; and, although cautioned about it at the Masonic 1 Hotel, he was so fuddled with drink that when he subsequently went to the Albert he had forgotten all about--the caution, '■ •* 1 - •

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended' that, under the cirdnmstances, the'prisoner should be dealt with as leniently as the law would permit. His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said the ‘offence of passing bad money was not prevalent in New and therefore he did hot think it necessary to pa^'anything like so severe a sei\t.ei\ce as 'would, be given! in England, whefie the ’ offence' was’ ipoye common. Be sentenced the prisoner to three months’ Hard, labour.

A CASE ADJOURNED. In the case of William Teversham, charged 1 with an unnatural" offence, Mr Jellicoe, who appeared for the prisoner (instructed by Mr Coates), applied for an adjournment until (ho following day,’ ’ Mr Cqatg§ had jfisft discovered the whereabouts of a witness-who was likely to throw some light on the matter. The Crown 1 Prosecutor objected. The case had been fixed for that} day with Mr Jellicoe’s consent. ; His Honor considered that an application of. this kind was always full uf. suspicion wheri it whs made at the last moment. ' My Jellicoe said that he was prepared to go on father than' create* suspicion in His Honof’s mind. 1 His HoiiOr granted the adjournment till this] (Saturday) morning. ALLEGED WOUNDING' WITH INTENT. Richard C'oyle was charged with maliciously wounding James George Woodward on the 24th September with intent to disable him and do him grievous bodily harm. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Coates, pleaded not guilty. Mr Ingram was chosen foreman of the jury. The circumstances of the case, which were of a rather peculiar nature, have already been fully reported in these columns. It was alleged that at an early hour in the morning Woodward left the

Panama Hotel and went up Taranaki street towards a man named Staples, who liad left the hotel just before him. The accused, who was standing in Vivian street, drew a bayonet, and, stepping forward, wounded Woodward in the chest:.. Woodward, immediately fan away, followed by Coyle* until the parties met a constable in Ghuznee street. Evidence was given by Dr Cahili, Jas. Geo. Woodward, Wm. Staples, Edward Keegan, Alice Herrington, Constable Lawlor and Sergeant O’Malley. For the defence Mr Coates contended that Coyle used the weapon in self-defence, and that he followed Woodward and Staples down the street for the purpose of having them arrested. , His Honor, having summed up, the jury retired, and after about two hours’ absence returned with a verdict of guilty and a strong recommendation to mercy.

His Honor reserved sentence until next morning. The Court then rose until 10 a.m. next day.

Saturday, December 2. THE LIBEL CASE. Mr Jellicoe asked leave to mention the case of J. P. Clark against E. A. Haggen for criminal libel. The Court had decided to estreat prosecutor’s recognisance of TSO unless he appeared before Thursday next. Mr Jellicoe wished to know if it was now necessary for prosecutor to appear, seeing that the case had been settled.

His Honor said that had nothing whatever to do with the Court. The prosecutor had set the criminal law in motion, and he had been bound over to appear. He had not done so yet, and unless he did appear or showed sufficient cause for non-appear-ance his recognisance would be estreated. Mr Jellicoe mentioned that affidavits had been prepared explaining the cause of the prosecutor’s absence.

His Honor said the criminal law was not to be made use of in order to obtain a civil remedy. That would be an abuse of the Court. Mr Jellicoe said that, with His Honor’s permission, he would mention the case again.

SENTENCE. , Patrick Coyle, convicted the previous day of wounding with intent, and recommended to mercy, was brought up for sentence.

His Honor had not the slightest doubt that the prisoner had received considerable injury on the night of the affair, that he had been drinking, and that excited by drink he had attacked the prosecutor, mistaking him for one of the persons Avho had been molesting him. After their attack upon him prisoner had rushed home to his lodgings, possessed himself of his bayonet, returned with it and committed the act of which he had been found guilty. The jury had considered all thefacts,and had recommended him to mercy notwithstanding. His Honor understood the prisoner was a Volunteer, and that it was the practice of Volunteers to have these weapons in their homes. It was absolutely necessary that some substantial sentence should be passed in order that persons might feel that they should not have weapons of this sort in their possession without a sense of responsibility. Bearing in mind all this, and giving due weight to the. recommendation of the jury, His Honor said the sentence of the Court would be ten months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

UNNATURAL OFFENCE. Wm. Taversham pleaded not guilty to a charge of this character. Mr Jellicoe, -instructed by Mr Coates, appeared for the defence.

The Court adjourned from 1 p.m. till 3 p.m. to enable the jury to visit the scene of the alleged offence at Newtown. The jury returned into Court at 8.20 p.m. with a verdict of guilty. •' His Honor entirely concurred, with the verdict, and, after commenting on the grossness of the offence, sentenced the prisoner ‘to five years’ penal servitude. ’ The Court adjourned till next morning at IQ a,in. 4 '

Monday, December 4. * alleged perjury, Wm. Thomas surrendered to liis bail, and was charged, with having committed perjury in the Resident Magistrate.A Cuurt, Wellington, on tlie Vtji September, by ■ swearing- in' an’ action brought against him : by My, A. Coates, for the recovery,' of : money on a dishonoured promissory note, that he could neither read nor write, and that the signature to the note was not written by him. The prisoner pleaded, not guilty. Mb. Jellicoe appeared, for.the defenca W. P, James, Clerl* w rite. Resident Magistrate’s C.cavrt, Wellington, Henry. Gordoft, Chief Bailiff, Wm. A. Coates, barrister.' and solicitor, J> O’Donovan, Wm. ! Mason and J. C. Martin, R.M., gave evi- ; dence. The evidence was to the effect that in | September, 189 i, Mr Coates was retainedby. : the accused and tjwfo other, perco&j named ; Ryan and-Shilling to dqfwd them in. the ; Supreme Court, aiid’thatj they gave him a | promissory, note for. £35, which they all | signed. This,year.Mr Coates sued accused -for £2O in the Resident Magistrate’s. Court | on the note, and accused then made the. statements on oath upon which the’ present 1 charge was founded. He. was subsequently. - confronted by the,Resident MjagisjtrajfcAwitli ;his signature,to, the.statement,’ “I reserve ! my defence. I’' 1 ’' j Mr Jellicpo, for- the defence, contended that it was the non-production of the promissory note in the Resident Magistrate’s Court which caused all the trouble. The man forgot lie had signed it, and was perfectly right in saying he, could neither read nor write. The evidence showed he could only just sign his name, and there was nothing to show that he had denied his ability to write with any intention to mislead the Court. The jury retired at 3.45 p.in., and at 9.30 p,m., as they intimated they could not agree, they were locked up for the night, . 1

The jury which tried the case of William Thomas for perjury, and which* was locked up throughout Monday night, returned in,tb Court at 9.30 next morning, when thC forenian reported that they had beeii unable to agree upon a verdict. They word therefore discharged, and the accused was remanded. Subsequently his Honor the Chief Justice granted an application by the Crown Prosecutor for a new trial during the present sessions.