SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13837, 26 February 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Februaiiy 25. (Before his Honor Mr Justice "SVilliixias and a Jury of Twolvc.) His Honor took his seat on tile bench at half-past 10. CHARGE OF THEFT. June Dunsnniir, a young girl, was charged with,.on or about the 2-Ut December, 1906, at Dimedin, stealing a diamond and sapphire brooch, valued at £40, the property of Constance Alien, of Mosgiol. ■ On a. second count the accused was charged with, on the 27th December, illegally pawning the brooch. Mr A. C. Hiuilon appeared for tho accused, who pleaded "Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor "(Mr J. P. M. Fraser) eaid the oase presented some paiuful features. Thorp was tho youth of tfoo Render, who was between 1C and 17 years of age, but he would ask the jury not to be unduly swayed by that aspect of tte case, booausc if the oft'enco was such that they could conscientiously give a vordict of guilty it was undoubtedly in the interests of tho accused that that verdict should bo {riven. Tho circumstances wore these; On the 21st December the girl picked up a vahiablo broooh in Prin«3 street, Bear Stowart Dawson's premises. She took it to her hoice and lcopt it for a few days. Then sho took it to a watchmaker in South Dunedin, who told her its value was £25. On the 27th December she wont to * young man named Sinclair with the brooch. Sinclair had already been cha-rgod jointly with the girl for this offence, and had pleaded guilty. She showed him the broooh, and on, tho same day they went to George street. Sinoladr tcok the brooch into a pawnbroker's shop, and on mooting the girl on the street shortly afterwards he gavo her £2, nitaining £3 for himself. With this money the girl bought a hat, a blouse, and a pair of boots. When charged with the offence at the Police Station the girl said, " I did not eteal it. He would not givo it back to me. I told aim I wanted to take, it to tho Times office." Although she did not actually pawn the article, if she was accessory to tha pawning sho was equally as guilty as tho person who pawned tho article. Evidence for tho prosecution was given by Mrs Constance Aislon (of Mosgiel), Robert M. Marks (pawnbroker), Daniel Joseph Falconer, a-nd Detective Hunt.

Tiho accused giving evidence, said sl)« found the broooh in Princes street. Sho took it hAme, and si few days later showed it to a jeiroller, who said its value was £25. She still retained it. On the following Wednesday night she went to Fuller's entertainment, ■where sho met tho accused Sinclair, who was known to her as Lindon. Next morning sha showed it to Sinclair. She-4old him she was going to take it to the Times office. Sinclair said, "Don't do that. Yon won't get anything for it." Witness had not tip to this tinre seen either of tlio daily papers. Sinclair would not give her the brooch back. Later ia tho day witness and Sinclair went into Georgo street. Sinclair said he was going into a shop for matches, and left her. Witness waited for him. He was away about a quarter of an lour. On returning, he said to her not to walk with him, as someone might seethem. Sinclair went into the Oban Hotel, and on coining out he gave her £2. Witnosß asked him whero he got the money, and ho said ho had pawned the brooch. Up to that time nothing had been said to her about pawning it. She spent the £2 on clothes. On the 2Dth Deceinbsr witness rang up tbo Times office from the honso where she was serving, and asked if they knew of anyone who had lost a gold crescent brooch. Tho reply she got was that it was a and to bring the brooch down to the office in tiro morning. Before the morning, however, eha mot Sinclair, and showed him the brooch. Sho was between 16 and 17 years of ago. Her father lived on tho West Coast; her mother was d-ead.

By the Crown Prosecutor: 'A few days after finding the brooch she told her mistress she had found it. Sho did not tako it to the police, as that course did not occur to her. She kept it in the hope that a reward would bo offered. She did not look in tho newspapers to Eeo if a reward was being offered. She left her plate of service on the 26t>b; December without giving notice to her mistress. She rang up the Times office about half-past 4 o'clock in the afternoon on ihe 26th December. Sho went to Fuller's entertainment by herself. Sho often u?ed to go there alone. She" met Lindon, or Sinclair, at half-paßt 10, when the entertainment was over. She went to a boarding-house in Stuart street that night, and next morning went to Lindon's rooms. The man was to blame for the whole tiling. Mr Hanlon, addressing the jury, said the Grown Prosecutor was not justified in asking tho jury on the evidence to convict the accused. There was nothing against the accused. Could the jury say that tho girl meant to keep the brooch after finding it? Where was there a tittle of evidence that the girl intended to appropriate (he brooch to her own use? She said herself that she did not even wear it, because it did not belong to her. Was not that the strongest evidence of the girl's bona fides? Then tho man pawned the brooch without the girl's knowlodge, and gave her £1. The girl could not give any explanation of why she tcok. tlio £2. She could not be expected to give nn explanation. She could not find an owner for the brooch. The man walked off with it and pawned it, <md gave her .-£2. The girl henself said she had no explanation to offer. What explanation could she give? She knew the article had slipped through her fingors, and when she was offered £2 she took it, and, girllike, spent the money on clothe?. Would the jury brand this girl as a criminal merely hecnuso.sha had taken this £% from the man. There was no evidence that the gir! had got the man to pawn the brooch for her benefit. The Crown Prosecutor said that the girl's story was not a probable one, and the jury as sensible men could not accept it. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired (it 12.23 p.m. nnd returned at 12.3G with 1 verdict of "Not guilty." The accused was discharged, and left the court, accompanied by a female officer of the Salvation Army. THE PAK-A-POO MSB. Leo Sun was indicted on a charge of having, about tho 61U September, 190G, at Duncdiu, sold a ticket iu n lottery to John Fox. On ii'second count he was charged with selling a ticket iu a lottery to Basil Jnnies Stokes, and on a third count with assisting to conduct p. Jottery scheme. The accused," who was defended by Mr lliulon, pleaded " Not guilty."' The Crown Prosecutor said that ptik-a-poo waa purely a game of chance. No skill entered into it. It was an ordinary gambling lottery. Constable Fox and Constablo Stokes gave evidence as to purchasing ticket 1 !. Evidence was' also given by Detective Herbert and Peter Ah Choo.

Mr Hanlon, addressing the jury for the defence, said the only evidence of sale was that of the two constables. It wan for the jury to say whether there had been a sale. He Biibniittod that there was nothing in the nature of a sale at all. A person might go to a shop in Georue street or elsewhere and toko a ticket, or a dozen tickets—any number were lying in Chinese places—mark off figures, and hand it over to a Chinaman in another part of tho town, at the name time handing over sixpence. How could it be suggested that a sale of a ticket hail token place? A. person invested hia money in a lottery, and in order that he might remember tho nnmbers he had backed, he took ft certain ticket from the Chinaman. But tho taking away of tho ticket could Hot bo said to l>2 buying a ticket The jury, therefore, could not say that Lee Sun had sold a ticket to the constables. His Honor said this was a case' in winch tho jury must exercise their common-sense. After briefly describing the game to the jury, his Honor went on to say- they had tins before them:' These tickets wore used for playing the "ante of pak-a-poo, which wp.s a game in which' tliero was no skill—everything was chance. The object of the game was to give prizes which were the result of chance. JE mk-a-poo was the game played in the present cape, he would direct the jury as a matter of law that it was a scheme whereby prizes of money were gained by a mode of chance. As to the sale of the tickets, it appeared that they could be obtained anywhere, but (hey had no efficacy until they were taken to tho agent. So long sib the ticket was blank it was nothing, and it was for the jury to say whsther a ticket was so'tl which gave the constable nn interest in the scheme. The jury retired at 2.55 p.m., and returned at i 20 p.m. with a verdict of " Guilty on the third count. They could not agree the foreman said, on the first two counts 'J. hey thought there had been an indirect sale, though not a direct one. The accused gave liis a?e as 50 years. Mr Honloii n?kcd his Honor to take into consideration the circumstances involved m the case. Originally the.accused was fined *100 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which he served a part before the c nv dion was quashed by the Supreme Court. He was put to considerable expense iu "otling this redress. Ho had also been considerably mulcted in having to defend him«"if on two occasions in consequence of the iurv'fi disagreement in the first instance. The Crown Prosecutor said His accuseds character was reported by the police to be indifferent. It was only fair to the accused to say that he wan not the banker. He was merely ft commission ogent for the banker. Mr Hanlon: He gels id in the Is for any liM-Gls «old. , , . His Honor said that the accused having been before the court in 1904 for a similar offence, when lie was fined £100, he knew, the consequence of doing this sort of thing. Ho did not sue why the accused should not bo fined £100 again. The maximum was £200, and apparently ho could not be imprisoned. The object of the act in providing a heavy fine whs to stop these lotteries. If they were confined to Chinamen one might treat them lightly, but tho Chinamen took Europeans in with them. The accused would bo fined £100. THEFT. Frederick Si. Clair Sinolair. who had been, charged jointly with Jane Dunsmuir with stealing a brooch, the property of Constance i

Allen, of Mosgiel, and who had pleaded ' 'Guilty," wns brought up for sentence. The accused said his age was 20 years. The Crown Prosecutor said that tho police report showed that the man did not keep very good company, though nothing was knowu against him. Ho was given to drink. His Honor remarked tlnit tho probation officer's report was doubtful.

Mr Cuming, agent of tho Patients and Prisoners' Aid Society, said there wns work waiting tor tho accused in the south at a flaxmill.

His Honor said this being the accused'., first offence he would be given another chance. Ho would bo admitted to probation for 12 months on condition that lie paid £10, expenses of tho prosecution, by weekly instalments ot 10s, and -abstained from drinking during that time. JDRKMiIXQ AND INTERIXQ. Nicholas Tressider (22), William Heury Raynor (21), and Henry Foote (25) wero brought up for sentence, having pleaded! " Guilty " in tho lower court to a chargo o£ breaking and entering a store on the Viotoriai wharf, and stealing therefrom a quantity of spirits of tho value of £7 10s.

Mr Hanlon, who appeared for tho three ncoused, said tho men ware all first offenders, Footo was a married man, with four children.

Tho Crown Prosecutor naid the accused were not known to tlio police.

His Honor said he had some hesitation in allowing probation in this case, because the accuwd had nmdo uso of knowledge obtained in tbo course of thoir employment to crtect ■the tboft. If other offenders in this -respect came beforo him in the future ho would not bo so ready to extend to them the benefits of tho Probation Aot. Theeo three men,-how-ever, seemed to have borne good characters hidhorto. They were not known to the police, and he had hopes that this would bo s. lesson to them. They would be released on probation for 12 months, conditional on their each paying, during the first month o£ probation, the sum ot £3 7s Gd towarde tho cost of the prosecution and tho value of the goods stolon. It would also be a condition o5 probation (hat they must abstain from taking) intoxicating drink during the whole term o£ probation. It was love of drink that had lod them into crimp, and it would bo the best thing in tho world for them if thoy were to knock off drink altogether. Ho meimt to give them tho strongest inducement to do bo. On Mr Hanlon's application, Foote, being a married man, was allowed two months in which to pay the money. The court' rose at 135 p.m.