SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8821, 3 June 1890, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

OHIMItriL SESSIONS. Monday, Juhk 2. (Before liit Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The minimal sessions of tho Supremo Court coranv.'ncsd at 10 a.m. THE OttiNl) JUSY. 1 he} following gentlemen were empanelled as Uia Giand Jiuy:-Me<sra A. J. Burnß (foreman), H. Oast, P. J. Eesther, J. L. Gillies, lE. F. Hardy, W. Hlslup, J. Ligglns, A. Livingstone, A. W. Loric, J. M'heozle, X: Malland, M. Meenaii, N. Borth, A. E. M. Itoach, A. B. Sidford, W. Elder, W. Snow, and D. Stronaeh. Ms HONOII'S CHANGE. Hm Honor, in charging tho Graud Jury, taid; Gentlemen, tlie calendar ou the present occasion Is lather heavier lliau muni. There are 16 persons charged with various offences. Ido i;ot think that you will find any difficulty In the cases that will come before you, and it is not, therefore, necessary for me to go at all into details. rJhe ca«c« you have tn consider are of tbe ordinary kind, and with one or two exceptions are not of a serious character. TIWK BILLS. Tho Grand Jury returned true bills In the following cases :-Hobert Goudie, forgery and uttering, two indictments; Jamea Turner, James Smith, John Turner, and James Kearney, larceny; b'elina CalliKhan, forgery; Amy Hock, falße pretences (two charges) and forgery and utterirjg; Michael Murphy and John Chapman, robbery with violence; Edward Addiaon, arson; Emma l'arnell, larceny: Jamea M'Laren and Archibald Anderson, larceny; Thomas Barrett, attempted murder; Alexander Uozers (four counts), embezzlement; George Cowan, attempted raps. The Grand Jury having dealt with all the bills, and having no presentment to make, were thanked and discharged. rOROEBY. Robert Goudle (36) pleaded Guilty to two indictments, charging him with forging and uttering two cheques at Dunedlu with intent to delraud. Mr W. A. Stout applied to have the prisoner released under the First Offeudtra' Probation Act Although there were two charges thii was really a casa that came within tbe| spirit of the act, for they were really part of one transaction, the outcome of a drunken spree. Tho prisoner was unfortunately adicted to drink, and the circumstances showed that ho did nofc know what lie was about when lie committod the offenco. Another circumstance the lcarned'couneel would nßl(;hißJHonor to tuke into consideration was the fact that the accused had been in prison awaiting trial since his commitment early in March last. The following wilnessea'to character were called r— The Eev. Dr Stuart deposed that ho had known the prisoner from childhood, and took him to bo a well-doing lad excepting when ho got on tho spree, to which habit hehadbeen addicted for eight or niuo years. Sir B. Stout gave evidence that ho had known the prisoner from Infancy. Ho did not know that the accused had frequently gone on the spree, but he had done so occasionally. The accused had been in his employ as a clerk, [and excepting his habits of intemperance witness knew nothing against him. Jamea Mollison aleo gave evidence. In his opinion if the acoußed kept away from drink he was all right. Mr W. A. Stout eaid that other evidence could be called, but it would be to the same effect—that accused was a man of good habits apart from drunkenMr B. 0. Haggitt (Crown Prosecutor), in reply to his Honor, said there wore no previous convictions against the. prisoner, whote crime, a» had been stated, was the result of drunkennesß. The amounts actually received by tbe prisoner were £7 and £119s. His Honor caid he did not think tbe act applied where, as bore, there were in law two distinct offences which could not by any possibility bo included in the same Indictment. Mr Haggitt anid the act did not apply, bat practically it was but one offence.

Hia Honor said: Yes, practically; but legally there are two offences, and they could not bo made one offence by being included in the same indictment. However, although technically the Probation Act does not apply, yet. as has been admitted by the Orown, these two offences, though in law separate and distinct, are practically and morally really one offence. Jf the accused had forged only one cheque in the course of this spree, then from tl>e evidence and from the report of the probation officer it would undoubtedly have been a proper case for the Probation Act; but he happens to have forged two cheques, and therefore the Probation Act does not apply. However, I think lam justified in taking into considsration the fact that there is a Probation Act on the Statute Book, and in paßsing sentence applying the spirit of the Act, although one cannot apply; the terms of the act itaelf. The same result will really be arrived at in r different way. I shall take Into consideration the fact that the accused has been in gaol sluco the 27th of March, that his character ha» been previously good, and that drunkenness has been the cause of his offence. Looking at the evidence and at the report of the probation officer, and at the imprisonment he has received, I think I am justified in not passing sentence at present, but in ordering accused .to enter into his own recognisances to come up for sentence when called upon; the effect of which will be to give the court a hald ocer the accused, bo that if ho misconducts himself by getting drunk, or misbehaves liimEslf in any other way, ha can be called up for sentence and dealt with; whereaß, if he behaves himself, and gets his living as a respectable member of society, he will not be called upon. Therefore, prisoner, I shall not pass sentence at present, but you will be discharged upon entering into your own recognisances to comeupforsentencewhen called upon. If you behave yourself and keep sober you will not be called up for sentence. If you do not, you are liable at any time to be called up for sentence and to be imprisoned for the offences of which you have pleaded guilty. In dealing with you in thin way I may add further that I look forward to your doing your best to recoup the persons the money of which you have defrauded them. On entering into your own reeognlsauce for the sum of £50 to come up for judgment when, called upon, you will bo for the present discharged. LABCKKY. James Turner (24), John Tnrner(2o), James Smith (25;, and James Kearney (39) were charged with stealing 4 bags and 2002 rabhitskins, the property of Eobert Feltou. • - . Accused ail pleaded Guilty. Mr Solomon appeared for the two former prisoners, and Mr Qallaway for the latter two. Mr Solomon applied that the prisoners for whom he appeared should be released under the Probation Act. They were both very young men. This was their first offence, and the probation officer at Cromwell gave them both the highest character. Apart from this offence everything was in their favonr, and he submitted that this was a typical case for the application of the actMr Qallaway made a similar application on behalf of the other two prisoners. The report of the probation officer in these eases »leo was favourable, and the prisoners had already been in gaol for two months. Employment could be found for both prisoners, subject to his Honor's approval. The drown- Prosecutor stated Mint there were no previous convictions against any of the prisoners, against whose character nothiug was previously known. His Honor said that as nothing was known against the character of any of the prisoners, and as the report of the probation officer was exceedingly favour-.. able in each caße, and as the stolen property had been returned, the case was one distinctly within the scope of the Probation Act. Each of the prisoners would therefore be admitted to probation for the term of 12 months, subject to the condition that each of them paid 10s a month during that term towards the cost of prosecution. TOEGEBY. Selina Callaghan (17) was charged with forging and uttering a cheque. Prisoner pleaded Guilty. Mr W. Macgregor appeared for the prisoner, and submitted th*t this was pre-eminently a case for the exercise of the Probation Act. She was extremely young, and this was her first offence, and hounderBtood that the report of the probation officer at Queeustown was extremely favourable. Itappeared, moreover, from the inartificial and barefaced manner j-in which she had gone tlwut the crime that she was not aware of the enormity of the offence. His Honor said that this aleo was certainly a caße for the exercise of the Probation Act, and priioner would be admitted to probation for a term of 12 monthß on paying 10s a mouth during that term towards the cost of prosecution. FALSE PBETENOBS. Amy Bock (28) was charged on two counts with obtaining money by false protenceß, and a further count charged the prisoner with forging and uttering a promissory note.

Prisoner pleadedXJuilty to nil the charges, and on being asked if she had anything to say in her defence asked the leniency of the court. She taid she hoped that those whom she had wronged would try to forgive her, and that God would also forgive her, and would guide his Honor in the judgment he v-a3 about to pass on her, and that He would not only forgive her, but all those who Btood in tho came disgraceful position. The Crown Prosecutor stated, in reply to hiß Honor, that prisoner had been a school teacher ia Victoria. She had arrived in the coleny in ISB4. She had been convicted in Victoria on sevetal charges of a similar character; odd in this colony,'within the last four years, had been convicted several tiroes, and served sentences for obtaining goods and money by false pretences and for larceny. His Honor, in passing sentence, said: Looking at your previous record, prisoner, I think it my duty to pass a substantial sentence—the maximum sentence allowed by the law for obtaining goods by falße pretences. You will bo sentenced to penal servitude for three years on each charge; the sentences to be concurrent. ASSiVLT AND EOBBKEY. Slichael Murphy and John Chapman were charged with having, on the ltith of April last, assaulted John Turner and robbed him of 6s in money, and of a purso valued at 2s 6d. The accusedjpleaded Not guilty, and wore defended by Mr Hanlon. MrHaggitt, in opening the case for the Crown, Btated the facts alleged, which were that prosecutor, who was a farm labourer at Cattle Flat, came to Danedin for a holiday. Having spaufc the 9th April in the company of a friend named Harper, during the day they were jolnedby the prisoner Chapman —a 6tranger to both of them. In the course of the evening prosecutor and Chapman went out together, and were subsequently joined by the prisoner Murphy, who was a mate of Chapman's. The three had visited a brothel off Filleul etreet, and afterwards, in Filleul street, prosecutor, had felt one of their hands in his pocket. He remoustrated, and was immediately knocked down and hia purse and money taken from him. The two prisoners then ran away, and prosecutor subsequently gave information to the police. Tho Crown called and examined John Turner (the prosecutor), William Harpar (a labourer), James Barclay (licenEee of the Panama Hotel). Eobert Allen (licensee of the British Hotel), Blltn Finch, Jaineß Sandeman (a draper), and Detective M'Grath.

Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury, submitted that a B«riou3 offence Euoh as tills should always ba supported by strong and conclusive evidence. The evidenoa was not euch in this case: it simply amounted to that of tho prosecutor-a drunken man—totally uncorroborated in any particular us to the actual alleged assault and robbery, There were, he pointed out, discrepancies in tho wholo evidence, not only of the prosecutor, but of other witnesses, both in that and in the lower court. He emphasised particularly discrepancies in evidence as to the amount of money in prosecutor's possession at the tima. Ho thought the Jury should hesitate on Biioh evidence as was beforo them to blast the future of two young men, and that their only course was to acquit thci prisoners. His Honor reviewed the evidence, and in charging tho jury pointed out, that it waß evident that the prosecutor iiad had too much to drink on the cccnslon, and that his memory wais not to ba relied on a3 to what took place when there was any difference between his evidence and that of olherß as to what occurred. Tho jury, after retiring for 20 minutes,, returned a verdict of " Not guilty." 'Jbe prisoners were therefore discharged. B.MBKZZLKMEICT. Alexander Rogers (41) was ulinrgeil-with embracing in February last £12 10a 30d, tlia propery of James Cola Ul'.is; a second count charged the prisoner wilh embezjling in March «nd April last a further nisount of £13 10s 9d ; on a third count the prisoner was charged with embezzling ou tho 3rd April a sum Of£lslßßlod. Prisoner pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr F. 0. Calvert. Tho Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, stated that the prisoner was a clerk aud bookkeeper in the employment of the proprietor of the Ellis line of steamers. Ho had tho whole management of the financial part of this branch of the business, all the cash passing through hiß hands, and his business being to fill up cheques, &c. He was engaged about R year ago at £2 15s a week, and In January last

his salary was raised to £3. Tha manager, Captain Vox, had found something wronj; with the books, and prisoner had admitted a deficiency, and on belnp; questioned stated that the mnormt of !.ho deficiency waa from £15 to £20, tho amounts having been taken by £1 or J32 at a time. Tho learned Crown prosecutor, having referred to tho books kept bvthe prisoner, said: The law only allowed throe offences committed within six months to bo put in any one iudictment. In this easo the defalcations commenced 12 months ago, and hud i;ono on from month to month, so that the indictment on which the prisoner waa now being tried contained two items for tho montliß of Februiiry and March, and also charged tha general dsiieienoy covering the whole of the dufalcatiousfortlio month of Jnno. Tho prisoner wm in the employment of J. O. Kills as accountant; his duty was to account periodically for the amount reosived and expended by him, "aud the clmrßO against him was that, tilling his books, he should have had in hand tho sum of £151 8a 10il, in addition to tho £27 found in his cash box. Tho prisoner admitted having embezzled some £15 or £20, but statod that ho did not know what had becomo of the rest. Tho Grown Prosecutor then called: Edwin Fox, J). D. Macdonald (solioitor), Thomas Hufllan and John I. Carter (accountants). Mr Calvert, in addressing the jury for the prisoner, commented! upon the" fact that the books had buen accurately kept, that tliero had been no attempt to make misleading entries. The admissions of the prisoner applied to small amounts drawn in nntieinr.tion of salary, aud tha lonrned counsel asked the jury to consider whether tho deficiency shown might noli havo arisen in oonsequenco of tho loose system adopted, it being admitted that Captain Fox had n duplicate key of tho cash box, and occasionally paid accounts and dealt with the cash, merely tawing word with tho office boy regarding what h« had done. Counsel wished to 'state emphatically that he did not Insinuate in tho least degree that Captain Fox had dealt improperly with tho cash, but he submitted that the careless system followed might havo led to tha loss discovered in balancing tho books. The conduot of the acouaed was, ho submitted, consistent only with a conviotion of his own innocence. His Honor hwing summed up, tha jury retired at 6.30 p.m., and in half an hour returned n verdict of "Guilty" with a strong recommendation to morcy. On the ofher Indictments no evidence wasoffered. On tho prisoner being called, Mr Culvert asked his Honor to consider nn application to have tho accused dealt with under the Probation Act, and tho matter was postponed until this (Tuesday) morning.; Tho court rose at 7.5 p.m.

[Pan Umitko Pbess association.)

Auckland, Juno 2. The orlminal asssions of tho Supromo Court were opened today. In bis charge to tho grand jury, Mr Justice Conolly said the cises wero not very numerous, but some of them Voro of a graver character than ordinary. An old offender, George Clewnoss, was sentenced to throe years'penal servitude. His Honor strongly commented on the conduct of a man named Knight, who purchased a saddle from prisoner ior !is, and said it was conduct like this which mado thieves. David D. Russell was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for breaking and entering.

Wellihgton. June 2. Tho Supremo Court opened this morning before Chief Justice Prendergast. tn Ills address to the graud jury hla Honor rornarkod on the length of the calendar, which, however, did not contain any eases of unusual character, except perhaps ono which •nross out of a recent enactment by which a person charged with a criminal offence might give evidence in. hia own favour. In thia case the porson cliargod with permitting gambling on his promises was said to havo given fabe evidence on his own behalf. Tho Rraud jury found true bills in all cases. John Perjjuison, alias Alex. Menztes, pleaded guilty to the larceny of a watch, and was sontoaced to six months' Imprisonment. Richard Hicks pleaded Ruilty to forging a promissory note, and sentence was deferred pending the receipt of the probation officer's report. George Smith, charged with burglary, after a trial la3tlog well into the evening, was acquitted.