SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3254, 11 July 1872, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL

SITTING'S.

Wednksday, 10th July,

(Before His Honour Mr Justice Chapman.)

FIMSONKIUi SKNTKX'CKD.

The following prisoners were brought up for sentence :—

Peter Kobcrtson, 27, who had been charged with stealing a watch at Alexandra, said he had nothing to urge in mitigation of punishment, except that he was drunk when lie committed the offence.

His Honour: That was your own fault Nobody compelled you to get drunk, neither is it any excuse for an offence of this description. The sentence, of the Court is that you bo imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar mouths.

Hyman Cohen, 54. The prisoner's counsel, Mr Stout, called the followiug witnesses, most of whom had known the prisoner for seventeen years, and they all testified to his previous good character:—Messrs H. S. Pish,* jtmr.. Mayor of Duncdin, H. S. Fish, senr., Wolf- Isaacs, Thomas Johnson, plumber, Thomas Keogh, and William Barnett, auctioneer. The prisoner handed iii a writ* ten statement.

His Honour: Hyman Cohen,, you have pleaded guilty to the second count in four indictmcuts, for forgery aud uttering. Several witnesses have given you a very good character, aud you urge that in your statement made to mo in mitigation of punishment. Now the circumstance that you. have borne a good character for a considerable i number of years ought' to have impressed j upon your mind the value of that good ' character, and you are old enough to know i the value of it. Unfortunately mcii are sometimes addicted to entering into crimes of this description upon the express ground suited by yourself, namely, intending to take up tno bills. Possibly, you intended to do so, but the wrongful act was in committing forgery, or, as you have pleaded, guilty to the second count, uttering these bills knowing them to have been forged. The number of offences with which, you are charged, and to which you pleaded guilty, shows that yon mutt have reduced this uttering of forged bills to n system, possiMjr, as you state, intending to take them up beforcthey became due. But you must have been aware that if funds fell Bhort, or detection took place before the bills became due, you would como within the perils of the law. The sentence, of the Court is that you be imprisoned on the first indictment for two years, on the second for one year, and on eacli of the other indictments for sue months, making four years in all, with hard labour. Henry Stewart M'Coll, 30. Prisoner's counsel, Mr Taylor, called Allan Eoyd, William Barry, and William Knox, farmers, who gave evidence as to tlie previous good

character of the prisoner, the two first mentioned stating that in monetary transactions with .the prisoner he had had many opportunities of becoming dishonest, had he chosen to do so.

His Honour: Henry Stewart M'Coll, the Jury, have recommended yon to mercy in finding yon guilty, on grounds which. I approve of. I think there haa teen some laxity on the part of the Road Board, owing, perhaps, to the circumstance of their not being men of strict business habits. They have allowed you to go on for many months without looking sharply after yonr collections, and requiring you to render accounts from vreek to week, or at the different meetings of the Board. Had they done so, a considerable part, at all events, of what has taken place would have been avoided. :> You have received a good character, but that and your education taken together, show that you ought to have known better. The sentence of the Court is that, on the first indictment, you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years. On the other two indictments I shalJl pass only a nominal sentence, namely, that you be imprisoned until the rising of the Court.

CirARKB OF CATTJ.E BTKAMNO AT WAIKOL'AITI.

David Jones and Henry Francis were indicted for stealing a bullock on the Ist June, the property of .lames Hay, farmer. Mr B. C. Hnggitt prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr .Stout defended the prisoners. One of the jurymen named Thompson was challenged by the Crown Prosecutor. Hi* Honour: Why, the man in drunk. (To Thompson, interogativcly)—You have been drinking? . Thompson: Yctifg— a little. His ' Honour ; i era have drunk a good deal, I should think, You were drunk yesterday. Thompson : I've had no din nor. His Honour : Dinner ! No, I should think not. People do ivoi usually take dinner at ten o'clock in the-morning. Mr C'aldwell, take this man into your custody for twenty - four hours; that'will teach him that he must not come to Court drunk as a juryman. The case for the Crown, as against the, prisoners, was that the bullock which they were charged with stealing was branded AE, an uncommon brand, and very distinguishable. They had told different stories as to the ownership of the .bullock. Firat that it was a ship bullock of the Jate Mr Jones, and afterwards that it was Hastie'a bullock, in which they had purchased a chance. They iold a witness named Downes that it was a ship bullock, being aware, Rt the time, that Downes could identify, HastieV bullock, but they told Sergeant Cobden that the bullock was the property of ffastie. In driving the beast into WaikouaUi the prisoners were Been to leave the main road on the Dunedin side of the toll gate, and to cross the swamp, which gave them considerable trouble, the swamp being almost impassable. Their excuse was, that the beast being frightened by a flock of sheep, left the main road, and they had consequently to follow it across the swamp ; but one of. the witnesses, called by the Crown, denied the truth of this, and eaid he saw Francis turn the bullock off the road after he passed. The prisoner Jones afterwards asked Sergeant Cobden what he thought of the case, whereupon the officer replied that the fact of their having crossed the river looked very HUfpicious. "Yes," replied Jones, " I'm afraid that's a corker." The witnesses, examined were Alexander Doddfl, William Downes, and James Hay, fanners; .Sergeant Cobden; William Stewart, stockman ; and Thomas Fraeer. Mr Stout addressed the jury for the prisoners, stating that about the time it was alleged the bullock was stolen, the prisoners were on the Waikouaiti Hundred looking for two bullocks in which they had bought a chance. If the prisoners had stolen Hay's bullock, knowing it to be his property, was it likely that they would have gone to Downes s place with it, seeing that Downes could identify the bullock, which course, consequently, would result in'their detection. Ilegardinpf/;thc statement that the prisoners, when driving Hay'a bullock, left the main road, and went across a swamp, with the view of avoiding detection, he pointed out that if they feared detection they would not have driven the bullock along a main road in daylight; for all the jury knew, the prisoners left the-main, road-to avoid paying the toll. The reply made by one of the prisoners to Serjeant Cobden, when the latter stated that the circumstance of their crossing the river was a suspicious one, was a vcy natural reply, and ought not to be allowed to operate to their detriment. Although they knew they had not done wrong intentionally, still, on the officer making that statement, the prisoners, on finding that the bullock which they had been driving was the property of another man, would naturally consider the circumstance of their being seen leaving the main road a auspicious one, Or, as one of the prisoners had expressed it, "a corker.'' If, too, the prisoners were conscious of stealing a bullock, it wa« hardly likely that they would have kept asking the officer questions as to whether this or that circumstance looked suspicious. If guilty, they would have been more likely to remain silent. The jury found the prisoners "JtfotGuilty," and they were discharged. The Court then adjourned.