SUPREME COURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4021, 7 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. -CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, 6th January (Before His Honour Mr Justice Chapmaa.> CHARGE OF ARSON.

arSf \lAssZ ot P}e charge against George Jones, otr rit^eKf^Z™??' WaS resi™ed. The* hearing oS w^ A th, e was continued. m^T^ < Re?dmaill. fanner, Tokomairiro, _z_id ft* hf !Sf £« *? °? th? it,Jas burned do^- **«» nniv «,»*,, Dt * the rema»n» were smoking, an* ? ,wt„ w¥ stauding- X was a windy (&•<££ wftn^'ltf m fi«-Pl^ were still blo^-tag^o^ Witness had seen the tent previously-it wasadirt^ teut- it was almost Mask from smokl - * Jonn Butler, Milt .n, deposed he examined the iemams of the tent after th^re. OneofTe tentrob^, seemed to have taken fire through a hole £u2E5r chimney causing tiie tent to take fire. He c^n^to this conclusion, as while this rope near the hole in the chimney was burned quite short, the ends of the others: were unbunted for same inches. Evidence of character was given, and the accuse* was highly spoken of. Mv Taylor addrcs,el the Jury for the defence.' He dwelt on the absence of motive on the part of Useprisoner, and also commented oa the evidence as t» identification, which he contended was not sufficients Aor was there any proof that if it was the prisoner that was seen goiu^ towards the tent, thaVhe'avtered it, or that hecaused the fire. With absence oE motive, the description of evidence: as to identification, and the want of proof that the accused caused, the fire, he confidently expected an acquittal. Ifc was not likely that a man who it was proved had borne an excellent character for mauv years who had his own property, and a family,, would commits*

prosecuttlf harfa S the Juiyfor the His Honour summed up. The Jury, after an absence of a few minutes, brought in a verdict of Not Guilty. Prisoner was discharged. SEXTESCES.

Four prisoners who had pleaded Guilty were broue&fc up for sentence. «"sf«r

Charles Fowier (24), stealing from the Commereol Hotel, Lawrence. His Honour said it was fortunate for prisoner that there was nothing previously atntißst. iiim. ITie sentence of the Court was thafc he &im^ .prisoned aud kept tn hard labour for a period of two

J-mes M'Cormick (27), stealing from a dwelffiwhouse, saia: I rely on your Honour's mercy being my first time, that you will deal leniently wie* "^."l™ 1 be a warning to me all the days of mvlife. _ His Honour: In this case there is a breach of trust involved ; you having been employed as a waiter went acquainted of course with eveiy part of the houst. and took advantage of that fact to steal the cash-hoi with all the money in it. A considerable portion has been restored, however, and I hope that your pleaS guilty shows contrition, and that it will, Is yousaifc be the last time. The sentence of the Court is tSfc you be imprisoned for two years, with hard labour. I£ you come here again, the sentence will be mudt higher. »■«»-«.

Cornelius Carey (33), stealing a watch, said: rthrow myself on the mercy of the Court. It is myfinL offence, and lam sorry for it. - . ■ His Honour: A labouring man took off his coat audi waistcoat his watch being in them when he deposited them, and you stole it while he was working H<w£ ever, there is this in your favour-that it is yomfirst offence, and that wheu pursued you gave uatiie watch. The sentence of the Court IsWjw»t£f£L Eh! Pt W hardlal> o"r for nine cafeLdir James Frasar (37) forgery, aud- I hone vontHonour will take into consideration that I have a wife andyoungfamdy totaUy dependent on me for st^

_ His Honour: But you should have taken that, into consideration before you committed the offenceIt very often happens that it is the paiuful dutvof*. judge to pass sentence in cases in which the won* rf the pumshmeut falls upon the unfortunate and inn«£ cent wife and family. It can never be permittcit© be pleaded in mitigation of sentence that aTman hasi wife and children. This offence of forging cheques 5 becoming very frequent of late, and is often doieini. very clumsy manner, and the wonder is how mend* j \ wll e!l the£ know that 'm a OTt time they must St detected. Detection is sure to follow Of all th^ offences in which it is most difficult to escane detV*C tion this is the one. If you come .taStHJSLfSt similar offence it may place you.on the roads for a long period. The sentence of the Court is that to» be imprisoned for two years, with hard labour. ItUtCEKT. John Levy was charged with havinir on the KtK October, stolen a pocket-book containing notes silw and nuggets, from the coat pocket of John Miller* Cromwell. Prisoner was not defended. Prosecutor was at work at Marsh's Hotel, his coat bSKS a chair near him, and in his sight. He went into the hotel with some friends to have a drin?^ losmg sight of the coat, and in the course of dx«? seven minutes on returning, found someone had beea 1*1?*1 the P<«ket.b^k £3 contents. Nothing that could be identified was fomw* on the prisoner at the time; but the prisoner be££ still suspected, was arrested a fortnight Tatter as he^S leaving the toivu He waspereeived tod^cS* bag when aJrrested. This, on being opened, WMta£* to contain two nuggets. Prisoner claimed them »X? own. Prosecutor could not identify any of the notes or money he lost. He believed the chamois Wdropped by prisoner was his (prosecutor's! and wS &°„ Sh!. Vf^, the1 wo uu^ets 5t stained wereSfc* He had had them for more than six years. Prisoner it appeared^ was an "under and over " player on raS courses. Prisoner, in his defence, said he must W dropped the nuggets by accident, and that they waL i his. His Honour summed up, printing outtt£ttte case rested on the legal presumption which aris^tai the possession of property recently stolen 1!*5"on» prisoner G&lfy ter * ""*"**. absence- fo™*«« The prisoner, who gave his age as 24, had Eothinj?to say why sentence should not be passedChtau8 *^ His Honour sentenced him to eighteen months'imprisonment, with hard labour monms u&o'cteck.COUlt ad]" oumed m "O* morning, at tea