SUPREME COURT.— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2680, 8 September 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, 7th September. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Chapman, and a Petty Jury.) The Court opened at 10 o'clock, THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury found a true bill against Patrick Brown for assault with intent, and made the following presentment:—The Grand Jury, before separating, desire to express to your Honour their sense of the extreme carelessness manifested by the authorities in allowing so large an amount of. god and valuable property to be lodged for so long a period without any farther security than that provided by two common locks, the innermost one of which could at any time have been removed with a common screwdriver in a few minutes—the carelessness: being aggravated >>y the refusal of a safe when it was applied for by the Inspector ia charge, and by the further fact that not only the general public, but, what is worse, the members of the police force themselves, were exposed to great and unnecessary temptation. The jury were then discharged. THE GOLD ROBBERY AT CLYDE.

The trial of Malcolm M'Lennan was thenv proceeded with. The prisoner was indicted for having, on the Ist of August last, aided and abetted George Jfiennie in stealing from the lock-up at Clyde 200ozs of gold, ancl LIO7O in notes, the property ef the Bank of New Zealand. Another count charged the prisoner with inciting Rennie to commit the robbery.

Mr Haggitt conducted the prosecution, for the Crown j and Mr Barton defended the prisoner. The following are the names of the jary> men :—William Barnett (foreman), William. Selby, James Kukland, James Bart, John. Hunter, Edwatd Paling, John Brown, Thomas Allan, Ashworth Crawshaw, Neil Murray, Lewis Michel, David Katcliffe.

The space in the Court-house set apart for the accommodation of the public was densely crowded during the whole of tha proceedings.

Mr Barton said a statement; had been going the round of the newspapers that the prisoner had endeavoured to destroy himself while in the lock-up. He was instructed to* say that this statement was entirely without foundation, and he did so lest it might prejudice the minds of the jury. His Honour supposed it would not appear in evidence.

Mr Barton replied in the negative, bufc said the jury probably read the newspapers.

His Hononr said the jurs would ba cautioned generally not to accept any state* meats made in the newspapers. It would, he dare say, take two hours to correct every erroneous statement made in the newspapers.

The Crown Prosecutor then opened the case. The prisoner was indicted as Accessory before the fact to the robbery committed by Reanie. On. the indictment, the jury had two questions to determine; first* whether George Rennie did commit a felony, and secondly, whether prisoner did aid, counsel, or procure him to commit that felony. There would be no difficulty what' ever in convincing them that a felony was committed by Rennie, who had pleaded guilty to two indictments charging him with: it, and would no douot admit before them that he did so at the time and iv the manner described. The only difficulty would be to connect the prisoner with the robbery. The principal evidence towards that end would be the evidence of Rennie himself, who, so far as is at present known, is the only man who is aware of the facts and, circumstances of the case, and therefore that only witness available to prove those circumstances. The circumstances of the robberywere such that the jury would come to the conclusion that Rennie, unaided, could not possibly have committed it. He must have had an accomplice, and that accomplice musfe ha c been some person connected with the; police department at Clyde; and the object of the evidence that would bo adduced was to show that prisoner was that person. Tha learned gentleman having detailed the facts which he proposed to prove, went on to say s The evidence of Rennie was tainted with, this suspicion—he was an accomplice of the* prisoner. Now, it was perfectly competent; for the jury to believe Reanie's evidence if they thought, from his conduct in the wit-ness-box, that it was reliable, and to convict the prisoner on the evidence of Rennie ea« tireiy unsupported. It'had been held upon, many occasions that a conviction based upon the unsupported testimony of an informer, was perfectly sound. His Honour interjected that he should feel it his duty to advise th« jury that Rennie's evidence would require confirmation.

MrHaggitt would be very sorry to tell th© jury to do anything contrary to the learned Judge's direction; but the law being as he hadL already stated, it would be his duty to tell them that, if they had no doubt of the trattt of Rennie's testimony, they must convict 00, that alone. The jury would, however, nordoubt pay great attention to the learned, Judge's direction, and would look for corroborative evidence on some material points. Tbey would find plenty of such evidence. Thay had heard a great deal a'oout this robbery, which had been called in the newspapers "The Great Gold Robbery," but it required no more evidence to convict a man of rob» bery where the amount stolen was L 15,000, than it did where the amount was only Lls. The law made no distinction between th® punishment for the crime in the one case and. in the other. The crime was larcany, and tha punishment was so and so; and the jury must not expect to find, because the amount was L 15,000, that the evidence would be*