CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2678, 6 September 1870, Page 2

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

The Court then took up the criminal business. The following gentlemen were empaneUed as a Grand Jury : —James Murison (foreman), Colin Allan, Percival Barker, Peter Grant, sen., William H. Hassall, Charles R. Howden, William Martin, Edward Quick, James Robin, David Ross, Edward J. Saunders* Donald M. Spedding, Carl Steinhoff, William. D. Sutherland, Henry Tewsley, Joseph T. Watson, William Wright, Charles Flexman* and James Forrester. His Honour delivered the following ~ CHARGE. Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—Had it not been for the occurrence o£ one gigantic crime, I should have been able to congratulate you upon the lightness of the calender. So far as numbers are concerned there is nothing to complain of ; there being only nine prisoners altogether for trial. As to the crime to which I have just alluded, it appears that on the night of the 31st Jnly last, that being a Sunday, the police authorities at Clyde had placed in one of the eel's of the lock-up at the Camp a very large amount of gold and notes, received from, two of the banks in the neighbourhood for safe keeping until the foUowing morning, that being the appointed time for the departure of the escort to Dunedin. When the constable, in the morning, unlocked the door and visited the cell in. which the gold had been deposited, the two boxes, containing between L 13,000 and L 14,000 worth of gold and notes, were gone. Investigations then took place, and for a considerable time —untU the 13^h August-— scarcely any clue was obtained leading xtr any way to the discovery of the delinquents. Gradually circumstances arose which cast* suspicion upon one man, and upon being arrested he made a full and perfect disclosure of the whole circumstances of the robbery. One peculiar requirement in the case when it comes before the Courfc and petty jury, will be to determine what credit is to be given to his testimony, but that is not a circumstance which you need consider. It is a practice ofthe Criminal Courts in England, and in aU those colonies following their practice, for the Judgoto warn the petty jury that, unless the evidence given by an approver is confirmed in. some material circumstance connecting the prisoner or prisoners with the offence, they ought to rejecfc his testimony. As you are aware, under ordinary circumstances,, the i testimony of one witness is sufficient to convict of most crimes. There are one or twa notable exceptions, but, as a general rule, one witness is sufficient. The question thea is usually put to the petty jury in such a shape as to lead them to consider carefully the circumstances of confirmation or otherwise ; and if no such confirmation is madeout to their satisfaction, they are usually directed thit they ought to acquit the prisoner. I need not go into the fine shades into which those decisions have led; it is sufficient for me to remind you that your duty is not to consider those little circumstances or even. greater circumstances which may be set up as matter of defence; your function is simply to enquire whether a sufficient case is made out by the Crown to induce you to call upon the prisoner to answer it, and if you are satisfied to that extent, you ought to find a true bUI. Now, so far as your function is concerned, the evidence of the approver Rennie will no doubt be sufficient fco justify you in leaving it to the pefc^y jury and the Court to consider whatever circumstances of confirmation or otherwise can be alleged in the prisoner's favour. This robbery seems to have been planned for* very considerable time, and according to the evidence of Rennie it originated with, the prisoner. It was effected in this manner. It appears there were two doers to the ceU, an outer and an inner one. Th* inner door was fastened with a padlock, or something that answered the same purpose* and it had a metalled door plate, fastened r.y four screws. The outer door was fastened by an ordinary lock, and whoever committed the offence must have gained access through this door by a key, because, when the police visited the placo in the morning, they found fche door locked. Fron* the metalled plate three screws had been, taken out, one screw being left in ; bufc that seems to have been enough to allow an entrance to be effected and the two boxes to be removed. Shortly afterward the two boxes, emptied of their contents, were found in a. water hole hard by; and the greater part o£ the property has since been recovered through the instrumentality of the witness Rennie, who, in making the disclosures, took.

the police to differen spots where, in their language, the gold was planted, and in four rircels aU, or nearly aU, of it was recovered. believe there was lately a small deficiency in the notes, but whether this has since been made up or not lam unaware; nor is it of importance to this investigation. I think you wiU find on ihe face of the evidence of Rennie sufficient to enable you to find a true bill. All the other cases are crimes of the usual nature brought before the Courfc, and require very little observation from me. There are four cases of larceny, on which Ido nofc intend to touch at all. There is a oase against one Paterson, for burglary, in which the facts seem very clear. This al'eged burglary was committed At a house at Kyeburn kept by a man named MaUoch, who was aroused in the middle of -fche night by a sound like that of striking a match. He caUed ont; no answer was snade; but his suspicion was excited, and lie set two men in his employ to look in one direction for the supposed burglar, while he searched in another. I am not clear whether the evidence is conclusive aboufc the breaking, but it wUI probably be sufficient to justify you in aUowing the case to go before the petty jury. However, after searching, MaUoch found the prisoner in custody of his two men. Prisoner then gave up £6 or L 7 worth of silver which was missing from the till,*two pairs socks which will.he identified, a waistcoat, and also, I think, a watch, This seems something like an admission of guilt. Prisoner Was afterwards arrested by * police sergeant, and remarked "I know all about it ? " or words to that effect. Whatever circumstances may be aUeged in favour of the prisoner, there is sufficient evidence to enable you to find a bill. There is also a ease of forgery, a man named Taylor, of Oamaru, having presented to an hotel keeper ef that district, a cheque for L 75 7s 9d, which purported to be signed by a gentleman named Fenwick, for -Charles Tesehemaker, en Dalgety, Nichols, and Co. The prisoner first went to the bank, who refused to advance upon it; then he took it to the innkeeper and got L 5 advanced upon it; the latter placed it in charge of the bank for remittance to Dunedin for coUection. Prisoner was then arrested for forgery. Fenwick wiU be called before you, and he denies the signature to be his; moreover, he says that Tesehemaker is not in the habit of drawing upon Dalgety, Nichols, and Co, but draws upon the bank. Further, this man recognises the handwriting of Tay or. There is a case of embezzlement, in which I apprehend you wiU find no difficulty. Embezzlement is not an offence at common law, bat has been made one by statute. The law requires, in order to prove a charge of embezzlement, that the person should be employed as a clerk or servant, that he should ' jreceive money in virtue of that employ, and i not hand it over to his master. In this case the prisoner was rate collector for the municipality of Lawrence. Well, I tell you that ] a rate coUector is a clerk within the meaning 1 of the Act; he took the money, and did not .1 account for it. These three elements are J sufficient. The other cases need no comment from me. I The Grand Jury then retired, and brought in true bills against aU the prisoners whose 1 names were on the calendar. The jury were then released from their duties until Wed- 1 nesday, when two fresh cases, in which the i accused have been committed since the calendar was framed, wul be brought before 1 them. 3 The foUowing cases were then heard be- 3 fore His {lonour and petty juries, Mr B. C. < Haggitt prosecuting for the Crown :— < LARCENY. David Storey was indicted for having, in ] October last, stolen a" watch, chain, and 1 ring, the property of Henry Klaarsen. ] Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. t From the evidence, it appeared that the ( accused was in the employ of prosecutor, who £ is a dairyman at Switzers, from the 3rd to x tiie • llth October. During thafc period £ prisoner lived in the same house with prose- j cutor, who kept the stolen articles in a c clothes cheat. He was seen wearing fche f chain afc this time by a man named King, s who snbseqaently saw the watch also in his c possession. Tiia—articles were mistied by * Klaarsen a fortnight or three weeks after prisoner had left, and he did not see them a again untU they were in possession of the c police. Prisoner was arrested in AprU last on two other charges, and on the constable teUing him that he suspecced him of having stolen the watch, chain, and money in question, - >tion, Storey produced a silver hunting watch i and guard as the only watch in his posses- 1 sion. A search of his house, however, brought 1 to light the articles wrapped up in a piece of 1 The defence set up by the priponer was tbat he had obtained the articles from a man named Francis as security for a loan of ( 355. ' ■ « The jury, after a short consultation, re- ? tamed a verdict of Guilty. * Sentence was deferred. £ FORGERY AND UTTERING. Samuel Taylor was indicted for having, on 1 the 13th June, at Oamaru, forged and t • uttered an order for the payment of money. 1 Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. 1 The Crown Prosecutor caUed. ( John Henry Zierk, hotelkeeper at 1 - Oamaru, who deposed that on Saturday, the J tilth June, prisoner came to his house, and, 1 in the course of conversation said he had 1 been working at Teschemaker's, and had > Uls coming to him. Oa the following Tues- < ■ day he returned and stated thafc he had got 1 -an order for the money, but ifc being on l>un- 1 -edin the banks would nofc cash it for him. 1 -Prisoner also stated that he had taken the ] order to Mr Shrimski, but the latter wanted I -5 per cent, for cashing ifc, and this he thought 1 too much. He then asked if witness would 1 •cash it. Witness offered to try and get it < cashed at the bank. The offer was accepted, ] and witness took the order fco fche Bank of 1 Ofcago, which refused to cash it wiihout en- j doraation. He thereupon brought ie back to i ..prisoner, who endorsed it in his presence. 1 Witness then advanced prisoner L 5 upon < the order ; and ifc was then taken to the i bank in order that it mighfc be forwarded to i •Dunedin for collection. A few minutes 1 afterwards fche police came and enquired 1 aboufc the cheque. 1 Cross -examined: Witness, afc prisoner's s examination in the Magistrate's Court, said 1 it was on Monday that prisoner came to his r Jhouße. He now thought it was on Tuesday, i Henry Clapcott, manager of fche Bank of £ Ofcago at Oamaru, deposed thafc he reinem- c bered prisoner coming to the bank about the 1 13th of June, and requesting him to cash the \ document produced, which he refused to do, ' Taylor then asked him to advance L2O upon 1 it; but the request was also refused. Later ( in the. afternoon, Zierk broughc the order, < bnt witness again refused to cash it. Alter- i wards Zierk left it with instructions that 1 it should be sent to Dunedin as a bill for col- J lection. The order is payable to Samuel ] Taylor. It was quite possible that the words 3 f Samuel Taylor" on the face aud the back i of the document were in the same hand- 1 writing. < j Cross-examined ; He did not know prisoner's handwriting. He was a witness in 1 the case on prisoner's examination beiore the 1 magistrate. On prisoner being arrested, he ] was brought into a private room for about < two mmutts, and witness remained with him. Prisoner acted like a madman on the occa- 1 sion.

Fairfax Fenwick, manager of Teschemaker'a boiling-down works at Kakanui, deposed thafc prisontr was employed afc those works for about a fortnight. Me left on the lOch June, and was paid what was due ro bim before leaving. Tne document produced purports to be signed, on behalf of Charles JJe Vere Tesehemaker by Fairfax Fenwick. Ie was not his own signature. Ho one of the same name was employed at the works, and, ao far as he was aware, resided in the diatrict. The handwriting of the document resembled prisoner's. Cross-examined: He had seen prisoner write once. On that occasion he signed bus name.

Police sergeant Lake deposed to aTresting prisoner on ihe i4ch June, in Oamaru. He $old prisoner fche charge on winch, he was

taken into custody, and duly cautioned him. After they had waited some distance, and

while they were going in the direction of Zierk's, prisoner said •' Oh, I know where you're going; the cheque's there." While being searched, prisoner commenced to cry, and made remarks about the term of imprisonment he was likely to get. lie was under fche influence of drink at the time, but knew very well what he was about.

Cross-examined : Witness never saw prisoner take a glass of liquor. He believed the Magistrate went to the gaol and hehl an examination there. The examination was not particularly private ; if any person had wished to go in he could have done so. Prisoner, in defence, called Dr Wait, who deposed that he was called in by the police to see prisoner on the 15th or 16th June. He then considered prisoner to be insane. A person ignorant of the symptoms of insanity might mistake them for the effect of drink. By Mr Haggitt: Witness had doubts at the time as to whether prisoner was not feigning madness. He attended him for about a week, during the whole of which period prisoner continued in much about the same state, r

1 Dr Hulme deposed that he saw prisoner in the Danedin gaol on the 26th June. He 1 was trembling violently, which witness took to be the effect of liquor, and prescribed accordingly. The medicine soon stopped the trembling. He believed prisoner only took ■ one bottle. Some time after prisoner had a second attack, and witness prescribed the same as before, with a like result. Thomas Goodsir, a medical man, who is now a prisoner in gaol, said he was called up to see Taylor on the night of the latter en- J tering the gaol. He at first thought Taylor was suffering from drink, but afterwards concluded ifc was temporary insanity. Subsequently, he was present when prisoner had fits in gaol; and when the fits passed off, Taylor appeared to be in a similar state to that in which he was upon entering the gaol. By the Court: After witnessing the result of the fits, he formed the opinion that the symptoms exhibited by Taylor were the result of epilepsy, not of drink. James Hume, master of the Lunatic Asylum, deposed that prisoner had been twice an inmate of fchat institution. Onthe first occasion, from the 3rd to the 15th. October, 1867 ; and on the second, from the 22nd November to the lst December, 1869. By Mr Haggitt: The medical certificates on which prisoner was confined stated that he was suffering from delirium tremens. By the prisoner r The first fit of insanity was partly caused through grief at the loss of his wife. * George D. CampbeU also gave evidence for the prisoner. Mr Haggitt recaUed Henry Clapcott, who deposed that when prisoner came to him on the 13th June and tendered the order, he did not notice anything peculiar in his manner. There was nothing to lead him to suppose that prisoner i was suffering either from drink or from temporary insanity. John. Henry Zierk gave evidence of similar tenor. The prisoner then addressed the jury, the elements of his defence being contained in the evidence of his witnesses supra. His Honour, in summing up, pointed out that the evidence as to the forgery was perfectly clear. With regard to the defence of i insanity, which had been set up, if insanity could be proved to have existed at the time of the offence being committed of such a. nature as to render the offender incapable of . estimating his own responsibility, it would : be a valid answer to the indictment; but it , was no defence to prove that the accused , had been temporarily insane at times, before j and after the deed. What the jury had to \ determine was whether the accused was insane afc the time when the offence was committed. There was no evidence whatever fco , show thafc such was the case; and he thought , thafc the jury would come to no ofcher con- , elusion than that, whatever mighfc have been fchs sfcate of prisoner's mind on former occasions or subsequent to the commission of the offence, it was, afc fche time of his offering . the cheque, in a sound condition. \ The jury, having been locked up for half , an hour, returned into Courfc wifch a verdict | of Guilty. j Sentence was deferred. EMBEZZLEMENT. i Frederick Lange pleaded Guilfcy to. two. ' indictments, charging him with embezzling \ various sums of money in his capacity of rate coUector of Lawrence, and was re--manded for sentence. . | BURGLARY. , John Paterson was charged with having, j on the night of the Ist July, burglariously ] entered the dwelling-house of John Malloch, at Kyeburn, and stolen therefrom L6 6s lid 1 in money, two pairs of socks, a waistcoat, < and a silver watch and guard. ; Prisoner pleaded Not GuUty. \ John MaUoch deposed that he was an ' hotel-keeper at Kyeburn. On the night of 1 the Ist July he went to bed between 12 and ] half-past, having previously locked up the ] house. The house had a front and back ! door; the former he locked, and secured j fche latter by bolting ifc on the inside. : He did not notice the kitchen window before : going to bed. Ifc is fastened by a wooden button. There was a light in the kitchen 1 whde he was locking up; and the window could not have been entirely open without : his noticing it. It might, however, have ■ been closed, and not fastened, without attracting his attention. There was a broken 1 pane in the sash, and its place was suppUed ' by a piece of tin tacked on to the frame. 1 During the night he was awakened by his bed room door being cautiously opened; and immediately afterwards he heard a match strike, and saw the blaze as ifc i lighted. He caUed out "Who's there ?" but 1 got no answer. He then heard steps going along the pathway, apparently from his room i towards the kitchen; and the kitchen door opened. He lighted a candle and upongoing into fche bar, found all his loose silver gone, 1 together with a watch and guard, and a . waistcoat, and some socks. He awoke his men and set them to search for the : fugitive in one direction, while he took i ano;her. While going out of doors he found j the missing socks behind the kitchen door, j The first search was fruitless; but during j the day he made a more extended one, and j sent men in the direction ofthe foot-bridge 1 over the Taieri river. On returning home aboufc four o'clock or half-past, he found the ■ prisoner in custody of two of his men. ] Witness asked if he would give up every- < thing he had taken ; and prisoner thereupon 1 did so. Prisoner also stated that when he entered the house, he did not intend to steal 1 anything, bufc only came in for a feed. Witness then locked prisoner up in an outhouse, ■, from which he managed to escape during the 1 night. Prisoner had boarded with witness \ for three months. Witness examined the : window, and found that one end of the tin had been turned up, so as to admit a man's arm.

Cross-examined : Witness did not search the house before going fco bed, and some one might have been inside without his knowing it. He was in the bar during fche whole evening, and had any one come in afc fche back door he should nofc necessarily have been them. He would nofc like fco swear thafc prisoner did not offer to return the watch before he asked for ifc.

Police Sergeant-Major Moore deposed to arresting the prisoner at Palmerston on the morning of the 6th July. Witness told prisoner the offence of which he was accused, and prisoner repUed "Iknow." This closed the case for the prosecution. Prisoner, in defence, said that being in a s ate of stupil drunkenness he went into fche hotel to get something to eafc, and with no intention to steal. Upon recovering his senses, he intended, to go back to the ho c. and restore the things which he had taken, but was arrested betore he was able to do so. Had a simple charge of larceny been preferred, hes hould have pleaded guilty fco it; but thought he was justified in pleading not guilty to an indictment for burglary.

Hia Honour, in summing up, pointed out

J that ifc was perfectly clear that fche prisoner bad'stolen, the money, but whether he had committed burglary was open to doubt. Having explained the laws relating to burglary, the learned Judge said that the indictment was so framed that the jury could, if they thought proper, find the prisoner guilty of larceny alone. After a few minutes' consultation, the Jury returned a verdict of GuUty of larceny. Sentence was deferred. T&!E CLYDE ROBBERY. George Rennie was indicted for having stolen 350 ounces of gold, and L 2528 in> money, the property of the Bank of New South Wales. Another indictment charged him with stealing 200 ounces of gold and LIO7O in . money, the property of the Bank of New Zealand. i The prisoner pleaded Guilty to both ; charges. Malcolm M'Lennan was-indicted for aiding and abetting Rennie to commit both offences, and also for inciting Rennie to commit the robbery. The chargeswere contained in two indictments. ; j

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The Court adjourned until 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning.