SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 5855, 6 January 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, January 4. £ (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) The usual quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court commenced at ten o’clock yea- I terday morning, when the following gentlemen i were empannelled on the Grand Jury : —Joe Uransfield (foreman), A. A. Barnett, W. H. t Churton, Joseph Ames, J. M. Cleland, W. Xi. t Hirst, H. Mace, H. F. Logan, F. A. Krull, S. i S. 'Downes, John Blundell, J. McManaway, Thomas Power* R. Gardner, J. R. George, I. s PJimmer, John Taylor, J. S. M. Thompson, C. ] Tringham, J. Watt, C. J. Torward, and W. 1 B. Yaldwyn. 1 THE JUDGE’S CHARGE. ' 1 His Honor the Judge addressed the Grand t Jury as follows :—Mr. Foreman and Gentle- i men of the Grand Jury,—On the present occa- < aion there are an unusually large number of charges upon the calendar before me, but the i number oli prisoners implicated is fourteen i only. I think that this probably is the aver- i age number, and I am happy to say that with a siagle exception the cases which will be brought before you are for the most part not ( of the most serious character. The calendar is chiefly made up of larcenies—what we may call petty larceny. There are a great many , charges of obtaining money by false pretences, by the utterance, as the police always call it, i of valueless cheques. But there is one very grave exception. In that case I wish to say as little , as possible. In the case to which I allude a t considerable number of bills of indictment will be preferred against the same man. You will ( find that out of the offences alleged against , him, that two were committed on the same day. j The Crown Prosecutor prefers against these j distinct charges because the evidence is differ- ( . enfc. I daresay in the exercise of his dis- -j cretion it is right for him to increase the j number of distinct indictments. No doubt, •] in law, there are in this case two distinct , offences, and probably it will be found that } the evidence is different also, and that while it j might fall in one case it might succeed in j another. Of course, if you don’t find a prma { facie case you will throw out the bill, but | don’t throw it out simply because the two , offences were committed on the same day. Then there ia a charge of larceny against au , alleged adulterer. The law in this class of cases is, that one man, if he runs away with , another man's wife, and that'wPe takes with her some of her husband’s property, if tho , adulterer is present and cognisant of the fact then he ;Is guilty of larceny. In general . a woman cannot steal her husband’s property, ( but if she elopes with another man, and that other man knows at the time that she has that property about her, then the law holds him criminally responsible. You may think that no act of larceny can be committed except at the time of the elopement, but .this is not so.. . There ia some evidence that a charge will be brought before you. to show that after the • r elopement the alleged adulterer got possession of, and converted to his own use, a 'watch which was,the property of the husband or tbe wife—Jt does not matter which, as the law holds everything to : belong to the husband. This may involve the question of larceny, and there may bo some little technicalities in your way on this occasion, but you will not of course go into the general question. There may have been an act of larceny if the adulterer.was present at the time of the wife leaving her husband’s house, or there may have been au act of larceny subsequently if the property ' belonging to the wife or her husband was feloniously taken possession of or converted to the use of the accused. Then there is a charge against' the electoral’ laws of the country of double voting; The case induces me to ob* serve that, in spite of all the talk about the abolition of the Grand Jury, I am still talking . tq one, ,and this class of cases may suggest to us that the Grand Jury has its uses after all I don’t- say no improvement *could be made in •that system, which is perhaps somewhat cumbrous, but I do say thia most emphatically, that it will never do to entrust the whole duty . and power of prosecutions to the Executive Government of the country, and to take away . the power which now exists with Grand Juries would be a very great mistake. It is obvious that if this power were solely in the hands of the Government, wo should run a considerable danger under a political form of Government. . As the law stands, any person may bring . a bill before you, and I say it is of vital importance that the law should stand as it does, so that a Grand Jury may stop any vexatious ‘proceedings'on the'part of a political Government. A magistrate, as you know, holds his office at the will of the Government. These gentlemen have always acted, so far as I know, in an absolutely laudable and in dependent manner.; and yet you must recollect ' that their bread and butter depends upon the • Minister of the dav. Therefore, it wants , watching that this entire power should not be / country, ’ This, electoral case has suggested '■..these few observations, which I make freely, because nobody can suppose that in speaking In .-■rrr .ilus way I am making reference to any one, to either this or that person who may be in • » power. lam speaking simply on the broad */• ; principle. With the power which you now have, if >"-u should find a committing magistrate act r :.;f under a certain process in sending ~.,v a certain man for trial, you have the power of "Baying, whether that man shall or shall not stand as a crim nal in the dock of the Supreme

Court—you have the stop it: i On ■ the other hand, if any'.-private.person finds _ r shat a magistrate will not commit, he has the '' power/ if he likes, to come fo you with a bill

on the subject. These observations, as I paid before, were called forth by this case under the electoral law. I don’t know that Ili tye anything more to say to you, and y»>u will therefore be good enough to retire io your room and consider the various cases which will be brought before you. If you wish for any advice on questions that may be brought before you, I shall be very glad to give it to you. The Grand Jury then retired. LARCENY FROM A DWELLING.

Francis Young was placecVat the bar on an indictment, charging 1.: * with having stolen, on the 13th of Novem v order on the Bank of New Zealand fon..j /ayraeut of a sum of £l2 10s,, and a parcel of tobacco, value one shilling. *- The prisoner, who was defended by Mr. Forwoorl, pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Bell) having opened the case, called the following evidence ; Colonel Whitmore deposed that in the mouth of November he was living in the Ministerial residence at the foot of Boweastreet. On the 13th of that month he left his house just before half-past two. He looked the outside door at that time. No one else was living in the house. He left a cheque in favor of “ house” for £l2 10s. It was pinned to some house bills on the dining table. He also left a parcel of tobacco on the mantelpiece. He left the dining room window open, although ho did not know it at the time. Shortly after six he returned, and found the tobacco was gone. He missed the cheque that night or the following morning. He knew the prisoner. He was formerly in his (witness’s) old regiment, the 62nd. He had several times called upon him at the house, and come for employment—something in the military department. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had always considered the prisoner an honest man.

Henry Moore, boarding-house keeper in Willis street, deposed that prisoner had lodged with him. He (witness) told him on the 13th November that he must pay some of his arrears or leave the place. In the evening prisoner said, “ You always thought I was hard up ; I have got plenty of money.” He then showed witness the cheque produced, and asked him to take a fortnight’s hoard and give him the balance. Witness refused to do this, saying the cheque was either forged or stolen. On the following morning prisoner paid him £2.

Samuel Gilmer, licensee of the . Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, deposed to the prisoner presenting him the cheque on the 13th November. It was then after ten o’clock. Witness declined to cash it.

Sandhurst England, .late teller at of New Zealand, deposed to cashing the cheque produced, i It was presented by the prisoner, Sergeant-Major Fair deposed to arresting the prisoner, ■ Counsel having addressed the jury, and the learned Judge summed up, The jurybrought in a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was sentenced to six months* imprisonment. HORSE-STEALItfG. Toko Mace, a Maori boy 13 years of age, was charged with horse stealing. He was defended by Mr. Fitz Gerald, who, on his behalf, pleaded guilty, Mr. Fitz Gerald hoped that the Court would send the prisoner to a reformatory, and not to gaol. The Judge said he would be prepared to give effect to the suggestion, but it would be better that the Court should first hear the other case. Prisoner was then arraigned on a second charge of horse-stealing, and in this case likewise pleaded guilty. - He further pleaded' guilty to stealing a saddle and bridle. In answer to a question from the Judge, Mr. Read, the chief gaoler, said he should be able to keep the boy from the other criminals for a few days. The Judge said he had power to commit to the Burnham Reformatory. He would take time to consider, and would remand the boy for sentence until "Wednesday morning next.; \ Mr. Green, manager of the National Bank, said he was minding , the boy . for his tribe. He had had him for about twelve months, having brought him down from; Rotorua. His uncle was a chief up there. He sent the boy to school. He was a very good boy. He 1 did not think- he wanted to steal the horses, but to go back to Rotorua to show off his new clothes and his learning. . His Honor said he was sorry to see the lad in such a position. He would think over the matter, and give his decision on Wednesday 1 morning.. 1 LARGEST. Thomas Wisdom, alias Ramsay, was indicted for stealing £7 75., the moneys of Thomas Richardson. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Forwood, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecutor deposed he was cook on board the Aretbusa. From the evidence given by several witnesses it appeared that the prisoner had been a shilling a month man on board the ship Arethuaa, of which vessel the prosecutor was cook. It seems that when the vessel came • alongside prisoner and prosecutor slept together in the forecastle, and on waking up ia the morning the latter missed hi* purse, containing the sum named in the indictment. Prisoner denied all knowledge of the money, but he was seen by one of the inmates of the Immigration Barracks to go and hide something which she afterwards found to be the missing money (there being, however, 20s. in lieu of the £1 notes) tied up in a piece of a handkerchief, and placed under a board. On search being afterwards made in the prisoner's bunk the remaining part of the handkerchief was found there, and was found to correspond with the piece in which the money had been wrapped up. He was then apprehended, Mr. Forwood addressed the jury, and contended that the case was only one of suspicion. After the Judge had summed up the jury retired, but soon returned into Court with a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was ordered to be brought up for sentence at 10 o’clock next morning. FORGERY. Mark B. Ryott was placed at the bar'on an indictment charging him with forgery. Prisoner pleaded guilty to this, and also to a further similar charge. Mr. Pharazyn informed the Court that the prisoner had been in his family as tutor for eighteen months. Lately he had thought he was verging on insanity, and had, since leaving his (witness’s) place, taken to drink. He could only speak of him as long as he had known him in the highest possible manner. No one who knew his (witness’s) signature could possibly take the signature on the cheques for his, Mr. Bell informed the Court that prisoner was still undergoing a sentence of sixr months for false pretences. The Court said it could not treat the k case as one of insanity. Perhaps it was moral insanity. Had he anythin® to say why the sentence of the Court not be passed upon him ? Prisoner said he was scarcely conscious when he committed the forgeries. His Honor said ho would defer sentence untibMonday morning, so that he might have time to look into the depositions. FALSE PRETENCES. J. G. Lee, alias Smith, alias Webb, was indicted for obtaining money under false pretences by means of a valueless cheque, i Prisoner, who pleaded not, guilty, was defended by Mr. Forwood, ; Jacob Frankel, general dealer, of Lambton- • quay,-deposed that prisoner came to his shop on November 3. He had been there before but looked different then in consequence of having changed his whiskers. He said he was mate of the Stormbird. He then bought a watch and chain for 355. Prisoner gave him a cheque for £3 10s. Witness said be had only £1 change in the place. Prisoner said that would do, as he would be back again on Friday, and could then get the other 16s. The cheque was on the Union Bank, Greytown. Witness did not know there was no such branch there. He then signed his name on the back of the cheque. Would not have given him the £1 or the watch if he had not believed the cheque to be a good one. Had never received anything for the cheque—it was perfectly useless paper. Found out that prisoner was a “tout” for the “Pinafore” Company, He looked like a gentleman, but he .was not. He had a blue cloth cap on with a gold band, and gqod sergo clothes with gold buttons, His Honor : I hardly fancy they dress like that in the Stormbird. You had far better have looked at his hands, to; see if they smelt of the tar bucket. ■ Witness: Well, he looked like a mate then. Witness was cross-examined at some length 1 by Mr, Forwood, and some of the answers 1 givens caused a good deal of , amusement, 1 One of hia statements was that prisoner told him he could telegraph to Greytown and get I the money down in two or. three hours. It

was that statement which induced him to take the cheque. . Alfred Godfred MartelH, clerk in the Union Bank at Wellington, .gave evidence to the effect tint that bank had never had a branch at Greytown, and that prisoner had no account F. G. Pnppens deposed he was a at the Theatre Royal Hotel. About the beginning of November he saw prisoner at their place writing a cheque on the Union Bank of Australia. He had been living at the hotel. The constable who apprehended the prisoner gave evidence to that effect. The jury found him guilty. ; He was then charged with passing a second valueless cheque on the same bank, and obtaining a quantity of clothes and £2 ss. 6d. by false pretences. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was remanded for sentence, TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned by the Grand Jury in all the cases that went before them, except that of Thos. W. Henley, for larceny, who was at once discharged, and the bill against Webb alias Lee alias Smith, for forgery, but true bills were returned in two other cases against the same prisoner. The Court adjourned at J 5 o’clock until 10 o'clock next morning.