SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12445, 30 August 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Friday, August 29. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on tho bench at 10.30 a.m. THE HETRt.a Of THE rMSO.VEH lOWBT. The Crown Prosecutor intimated that he was prepared to proceed with a fresh trial of Wil<liam Frederick Lowry, indicted for assault with intent to commit rape, and in whose case the jury disagreed on the previous day. Air Hanlon: My learned friend has just handed mo a document in regard to fresh evidence lie proposed to call. 1 liavn scarcely had time to confer with the accused. His Honor agreed that if fresh evidence was fo be brought forward it was only reasonable that the accused should havo some notice of it. • ' Some discussion ensued, and it was decided to go on with another ease. Before the rising of the court in the afternoon it was decided that the rehearing' to the charge should take piuce on Monday fortnight-, and prisoner was admitted to bail, himself in £100, and a surety of £100. ASSAULT. James Piper was indicted on a charge ot assaulting Henry Coughlan, licensee of the Waverley Hotel, on June 28, causing actual bodily barm. He was charged on a second count witii common assault. Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for the Crown and Mr Hanlon for the prisoner, who pleaded " Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, stated that Coughlan was the licensee of the Waverley Hotel. On the date mentioned after closing ii knock came to the door, and as the person was making a great noiBC ho went to see what was wanted. When he opened tho door he received a heavy blow, inflicting a cut on the head, which had necessitated Coughlan being laid up for two weeks. :Thcre was no question as to the identity of the accused, or the fact that a blow was struck. Coughlan was struck by a Maori kit, containing a bottle or a tin can. F;vidence was given on behalf.of the Crown by Dr Martin, Constable Holland, Ellen Coughlan, and George Wright. Mr Hanlon, a<ldressihg the-jury on behalf of accused, said Piper was sorry Coughlan had received such a se.vero blow, but it did not follow that because a man had inflicted a severe blow upon another he must be punished for it. If they believed, Coughlan it was plainly their duty to convict accused. But they conld not believe Coughlan. He had not told the whole about the affair. He was a pnbliean, and must naturally protect himself from any idea of his haying committed an assault upon ..a person going into his hotel. It seemed preposterous to suggest that this young fellow, quite sober, should go to a publican's door, and when he was told lie could not get in should, when the man opened tho door, knock him over. Prisoner set up the defence that what-he had done he did in self-defence. He would tell tho court that lie met the other young fellOw, and they went to the hotel. One or the other knocked at he door, and they were ultimately told they could not get in. Prisoner went down the side way to the urinal, and when he came back the other young fellow had walked away, •. and Coughlan was just opening the door. Coughlan rushed at prisoner, grappled with him, and fell. He got up and was rushing at prisoner again when tho latter took the kit from under his' arm and struck him with it. Ho was entitled to repel force with force up to a certain point. The quostion was, bad he exceeded this. He had no witnesses to support his statements.

His Honor recalled Constable Holland, who on being questioned said neither prisoner nor Wright had been drinking. The accused then gave evidence, stating that he was a little over 18 years of uge, and was a junior porter in, the Railway Department. The court adjourned at 1 p.m. and resumed an hour later.

Mr Hanlon, in his final address to the jury, contended that accused had ample justification for what he had done in tho matter. He had used a weapon, not a dangerous weapon, when he was rushed upon, and was justified in using it if he honestly believed he was going to be attacked. Learned counsel suggested that Coughlan lost his temper when ho found the knocking was still kept up after his wife had said those outside could not get in. Mr Fraser intimated that he had no desire to reply, and his Honor then summed up.- In the course of doing so he referred to the law regarding self-defence. A man was justified in repelling force by force, so long as he did not use more than was necossary for his own defence. He would be justified in hitting- out with anything he had in his hand. If the assault was unprovoked they would find accuscd guilty; if there was provocation the Jaw was as he had-stated. The Jury, after being away for about 15 minutes, returned a verdict of " Not guilty, and accused was discharged. TUB SOUWI DUNEDIN ASSAULT CASES. The Crown Prosecutor, on tho South Dunedin assault cases being called on, said he proposed' to proceed with the remaining indictments against the five prisoners charged in the earlier part of tho sittings. Ho was informed by learned counsel for the defence that it was the intention of their clients, with ono exception, to plead " Guilty " to the remainder of the charges. The one' exception was tho case of tho prisoner Sparrow. Probably his Honor had read tho depositions, and he (Mr Fraser) was satisfied there -was no stronger evidence against Sparrow then was offered in the first case. Therefore the Crown was not justified in putting his case again before a jury.. _ His Honor said that, judging by the depositions, tho strongest case against Sparrow was the one that had been tried. The Crown Prolocutor: That is so your Honor, so I do not intend to offer evidence against that prisoner. Robert Phimistcr, James Sparrow, James Geddes, Alexander M'Donald, and John Willis were then indicted with having assaulted and robbed Frederick Mavnard of a gold watch, chain, and a small sum in money. A second and third count charged them with assault with intent to rob, and with Tobbery from the ■ person. They were further charged with assaulting and robbing James Douglas of a silver watch and £3 in money, there being a second and third count charging them with assault with intent to rob, and with actual robbery. Tho third charge was that they did, oil the 2Gth June, assault aoid rob Daniel M Phio of a silver watch and a small sum of money. ■ There was a second and third count, similar to the others, connected with the specific charges against the prisoners. AH tho prisoners, with the exception of Spnirow, pleaded " Guilty " to the charges. The Crown Prosecutor said tlmt, for the reasons given, ho did not propose to call evidenco against Spnrvow. His Honor then instructed the jury to find a forrnul verdict or "Not guilty" against Sparrow, and, the jury having done so, his Honor said Sparrow was discharged. The remaining accused gave "their ages as follows:-Phimistcr 23, Geddes 25, M'Donald 28, and Willis 25.

Mr Macdonald, speaking on behalf of Willis and Phimister, said ccich ol tbem bad a v?ifo and children, and up ic the present lime nothing had been known ngainst Phimister. There had been one or two trilling cases against Willis, bnt nothing of importance. These young men on this Coromtion night got too much (jrink, and no doubt thc-y perpetrated these offences in a very reckless and stuuid fashion. He (Mr lln.cdona.ld) would ask his Honor to remember that there was no cumuli* displayed by tbem. 'fliey had not gone about matters like n lot of criminals; tliey went at them like perfect idiots; attacking the men without any disguise at all, and they might hare been sure that they would be caught next any. They had never been in gaol before. Learned counsel asked his Honor to remember that both had made confessions, and to deal as leniently as possible with them.

Mr Hanlon, speaking on Tjplialf of Geddes, had nothing to say but. llmt his c'.icnt was u married man, and that it was his first offence, except that lip had boon fined a small sum once for breach of the p<r,cc. Ihornton said he !md anticipated that Jlr Dunne, the manager of tho .Dunedin and Suburban Coal Company, with ivliom accnsed 'At Donald had been employed, would have »«•? Present to speak as to character. Prisoner II Donald had been with the company for two years as a carter, and Mi Dunne could have «m eSEC . d Ellr l ,risc ' ,iacl I>° l>c<?n present, at 11 Donald being charged as he was. He pleaded guilty on the, advice of his counsel because he hud been found guilty on the first indictment, and it was useless 'to waste tho time of the court any further in defending the other charges Learned counsel would draw his Honor's attention to the fact that in the depositions o: Maynard and Douglas only four persons were mentioned a» being preesnt—nnfc five. M'Donald hnd always borno a .good character, and had been in constant emnlovment.

Hie Crown Prosecutor said that with the exception of Willis nothing was known against tho prisoners. Phimister was a drag driver, a married mau, and had "hitherto borno a good character. Geddes was not known to the police, save that while out on bail, he had been convicted at Ont.ram of breach of the peace,' and fined 20s. M'Donald was not known to the police, and Willis hr.d bw:i, in 1599, convictcrt of breach of the peace, and there were three snli«eoncut ca'tes of dru'ilHincss against h'Vi. His Honor, in sentencing the prisoners, said* It-is a very sad thing that men who have previously homo a good character like tho accused should nlace themselves in the position these have placed themselves in. This, unfortunately, is not the first time that persons who have borne a mod character have come before tins court, and been found guilty of very serious offences. Last sitting we had a man who had borne the highest diameter found guiitv of deliberately robbing his employers. Only three days ago there was another man who hod previously lmrno a good diameter joining with another one in entering two or three hotels and ransacking every room. I shall, of course, take into consideration, in passing sentence, that the previous characters of the accused have been good, at the same time the offence is one of a very serious nature, and it- has not been a solitary offence, because there was attempted robbery committed on four different nersons, •»d the attacks were exceedingly cowardly, iour

or five setting on to one, so that tho single man had not the slightest chance of defending himself. 1 do hot wish to pass an tindnly severe sentence, and it is my duty to take into consideration the fact that tho men have not been litre before, but it is absolutely necessity that crimes of this kind bo put down. The law empowers the court to indict the punishment of flogging in addition to imprisonment. I have no wish to do that in this, or any other, case, but if offences of this liind continue, and it is necessary in the interests of the public. X shall havo no hesitation in inflicting it. In the present case justice will be satisfied by each of tho men being imprisoned for three years with bard labour, on each indictment, tho sentences to be concurrent. The Crown Prosecutor asked for the restitution of the money stolen, bijt His Honor said he saw a difficulty in making an order as to the money. The watches and chains, however, would be returned. TITKFT pnosr THE PEIISO.V. Frederick Lund was charged with the theft of two Crimean war medals from John Mitchell, and gave his age as 23 years. Accused was brought before the court for sentence, his case having been dealt with in the lower court. Sir Hanlon said his Honor would probably have seen from the depositions that prisoner was charged with stealing some things from one of the veterans on Coronation Day. He and complainant seemed to have been drinking together, and it was suggested that the robbery was committed in some hotel, no had been also convicted, on the day he wa3 committed for sentence, of stealing a pair of blankets from Taliuna Park. Learned counsel would like to point out with regard to that, that prisoner had pleaded guilty to a technical theft, hut it had come out that not only had prisoner taken a pair of blankets, but others had taken a great number with them on leaving the camp. Dr Ogston had said some 70 blankets were taken away. Accused thought ho was committing 110 wrong in doing as others were doing. Ho belonged to respectable people living at Pleasant Point, near Tiniaru, and they were endeavouring to get him home, and to work. He had been away to South Africa, and had served in the South African Light Horse, after which lie returned to the colony. Learned counsel submitted that although there was that previous conviction against the young man, it should not disentitle him to the provisions of the Probation Act.

The Crown Prosecutor said nothing was known against accused except the larceny of the blankets.

His Honor did not think it was a case for probation. It was a case for a short term of imprisonment. The sentence of the court was two months' imprisonment with hard labour. The court then rose.