SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14380, 25 November 1908, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before JJis Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Tuesday, November 24. His Honor took his seal, on the bench at half-past 10 o'clock. tfOUGING A CERTIFICATE. Henry Blair (ia and Daniel .M'Corkindaje (16), who had, pleaded " Guilty" at Milton 'to a charge of committing forgery' at Lawrence on July 15 by making a false document—to wit, a-school certificate,— were brought up for sentence, Mr Donald Reid, who appeared for the boys, pointed out that the la<k' unfortunate action was the outcomo.of a laudable desire on. the part of Blair to obtain employment in. the Government railway sorviee. The l boys must have considered that the signing of tho certificate was a formal matter. They had no ulterior or bad motives. As ' for M'Corkindale, lie had nothing' to gain by signing tho certificate. The lads were the sons o( respectable settler*:."They had hitherto borne an unblemished character. His Honor asked for the probation officer's report. i The Crown Prosecutor said tlie probation officer had no report, as no papers had Iffen sent to him from Milton. The police reports, however, were available. \ Sergeant Higgins, ' of Lawrence, reported that, the i youths were hard-working and respectable, and the sons of respectable people.'The constable at.' Waitahuna also sent in a j favourable.report. , Both boys, indeed,')got as high a-character as possible from the police. The irony of the thing was that the certificate was not necessary to get the position. In their ignorance , ,thc boys thought it was' necessary, but the. position niight have been obtained without it. His, Honor said that, in the circumstances, ho would be justified in'allowing tho boys out on probation, looking at their good character. The offence was not a serious one, but he was afraid it was exceedingly, common throughout the Dominion. His own opinion was that where the offence was committed by a person, of full ago punishment ought to follow, in order to prevent other people committing a like offence. But in the present case the accused were mere boys, and their character seemed to bo.as high as possible, and that being so dio would bo sorry to send them to gaol. Both accused would be admitted to probation for a period of six months, and orderod to pay tho costs of the prosccuton ('£s 2s in,all). 1 - ' The boys were then taken away, his Honor remarking, '' Don't come back again, Wy boys." ~' ROGUE AND VAGABOND. The charge against William Luby of being a rogue and a vagabond, having failed to satify a justice of the, peace .that he had sufficient lawful meaJis of support, was resumed. The accused > was undefended. Peter Thomson, residing, at St. Kilda, said lie had known the accused for five or six years. He had had business dealings-with him, and always found him honest. .He know that, accused, made money at certain; race meetings, and repaid witness £50 that had been borrowed. Ho could not sayl that ho had ever seen accused . without money. He had never'known accused, do anything to justify his being classed as a rogue and a vagabond. He had no reason to be afraid to trust accused with money. To the Crown Prosecutor: Luby had been laying the odds, and witness financed lira. On one occasion, quite; apart from racing, witness gave accused an order on his employer, and the settling up, was to the last .farthing. .The accused,, in addressing the jury, said that the charge, was not only not supported by full evidence, but it was not supported by any evidence at all. There never was a case so strongly pressed and so weakly supported. Not ono criminal act, not one criminal word, had , boon sheeted home to him. . The prosecution was the outcome' of the malice of Constable M'Holm, because of (the assault for''which ho (accused) had been punished. M'Holiu's evidence on an important ,point was directly contradicted by Mrs (Mender. M'Holm hid-that, ho told her it did not look well, to have this mail coming to the house at; all hoursof the night, whereas what tho constable really did say, as sworn by Mrs Callender, was that sho was harbouring one of the worst criminals iii the Dominion. Evidently the jury could not place any reliance on M'Holm's evidence, and without it there was no eira Thomson's ovldenco clearly showed that he (accused) had lawful- means of support. That, witness showed receipts amounting to an average ,ot 25s a week for the.six months prior to arrest. It was no crime—it was. not''illegal —to make a living by backing ltyrses 'if. the money to do so was come by honestly. Tho Crown Prosecutor, addressing the jury, emphasised tho fact that although tho accused had proved himself to be a man of more than ordinary, intelligence, and physically competent to iworkj. he had not followed honest- .work. He had been in 'flic hands of the police for. an offence, and after coming out of gaol about four or' five months ago he made no effort to obtain honest , work. Nothing would probably give tko police more satisfaction than to know that accused ' was honestly earning his living. He did not choose to do so. It was to his , credit that since coming out of gaol ho apparently behaved / himself. . His Honor, in summing up, remarked that the witnesses for the defence were obviously respectable. As to having no lawful visible moans of support, that did. not necessarily mean that' a' man mustwork, bemuse a man might do no work land yet, have lawful and visible means. What* was meant was either, that he had no means, or that, if ho had means, those, means were not lawfully acquired. It did-' not follow that a man who got his living by betting got his money dishonestly. It might not bo regarded as a proper means from the moral point of view, but if a nun bet- fairly and got paid his money he was not deriving his money in an unlawful, way, unless ho bet, in. 6omo way which the law prohibited or unless, of course, he accompanied betting with dishonesty. At 2.42 p.m. the Foreman of the jury came into court and asked, "If the accused comes by his money honestly, can we bring in a verdict adverse to him?" His Honor replied that in order to make the accused guilty the jury must bo satisfied that ho had' no lawful means, or insufficient lawful means,- of support.. If a man had money to keep him going and did no work, it did not follow that he came within _ tho section. _ In order to bring him within the section the .jury must bo satisfied the man was- not earning his living honestly. At 4 p.m. the jury returned with' a verdict of' " Guilty." , , Sentence was deferred until tho following morning. • , ILL-TREATING A GIRL. George Edward Smith and Charlotte Elizabeth Smith, husband and wife, were indicted with, between November ,10, 1907, and February 9, 1908, at Green Island, having then tho custody of a' girl Under (he age of 16 years, wilfully ill-treated her in a manner likely to cause her unnecessary suffering. There wore seven other counts of having indecently assaulted tho girl. Both accused pleaded " Not guilty," and were undefended. The hearing of the case was resumed at a quarter to 12. $hc male accused continued his cross-examination of the girl until 20 minutes , to 3 (with an hour's adjournment for 1 lunch). Evidence was, also given by Karl August Pagcl. (fisherman at Moera'ki and father of the girl and of the female accused) Elizabeth Pagcl, Dr Liddoll (Herbert) and Detective Ward. ' The two accused, on being cautioned in the usual way, said they did not wish to give evidence. They had no witnesses to call. The Crown Prosecutor said ho did not desire to address the jury. Ho was.sure the jury understood the caso thoroughly. The male accused addressed the court. He denied that he and his wife ill-treated the child. As a matter of fact, they had

tried to lead her to become an upright and noble woman. ' The girl was given several opportunities to go home, but she elected to stay. Sho did not want to go home. She came into Dunedin several linies, staying sometimes for a few days, and although she had money in her possession she did not. go home. He admitted tho girl had been chastised for telling lies. Subsequently, her mother came to see her, but she never mentioned to her mother that bin; had been chastised, If there had been crucltv, 'why did she not.go homo with her mother on (hat occasion? Witness had no influence over the child. He was at work when tho girl's mother was at his place. Later on the girl had another opportunity to go away with her mother, but she did not take it. As a matter of fact, the. girl did not want to go liomo under any circumstances. Tito girl had also'said on oath that a lady friend had offered her her train fare to go home, but she had refused • it. The whole thing was , a family squabble accentuated bv tho fact that the girl had told falsehoods. ■• Sometimes the girl was away from homo on horseback for a.couple of haul's after tho cows. She had the chance on those, occasions to" clear _ away, but she did not do so. When asked .in court why she did not go home, her only reply was that, she,,did not think of it. Besides, she wrote-, letters to different people, but if sho was being ill-treated,' why did' slie .not write to ber parents to that 'effect? The fact Was.that the girl did not-iv-ant to go ; home. She was treated kindly by • him and his' wife, though with a firm hand. Subsequently, the girl did not write to her mother to 'come and take her away,'.but she wrote to a man 'in'iTimarii' to come.and take her away—a man whom ho (accused) had forbidden her to,'write to. ' The-'girl herself had admitted-that she was only punished when she deserved it, and that she was not .punished more than She deserved', and it was-only when she wont home'that certain ideas were nut into her head:. The accused's address was unfinished when the court roso at 6.45 p.m.