SUPREME COURT. — CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1032, 9 September 1871, Page 11

SUPREME COURT. — CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, 4tli September.

(Before His Honour Mr Justice Chapman.) The following were sworn of THE GRAXD JURY.

Rotoer* Gillies (foreman), Colin Allan, John Darling, John Davie, F. H. Evans, James Galbraith, Henry Houghton, James Kincaid, Howard Lakemau, Richard H. Leary, Thomas C. Ifatkesou, Edward MenJove, George Miller, Darid M'Leod, David Proudfoot, Alexander Eennie, and C. H, Street. THE ATOKF.SS TO THE GRAND JURY. His Honour said : Mr Foreman and Gentiwnen of the Grand Jury — I am sorry to $*y that there has been, during the present quarter, a considerable increase of crime as compared with the two last quarters. There are nine cases which will be presented to you for consideration, and you will find that at least half of them are of an aggravated nature. The first case to which 1 shall call your attention is that of Bridget Gee, who is charged with the murder of her newly-born infant child, It appears^ that, on the 23th May, she was living at the Glasgow Arms Hotel as. servant. The landlady of the hotel had s,ome reason to suspect that the prisoner }vc,g In a state of pregnancy, but, in the first instance, that was by no means certain. On the day mentioned the prisoner was taken ill, Bhe went up stairs, but up to that time nothing imminent was apparent. She remained up stairs for some time, and at dusk, or at the commencement of the evening, when the light had faded away, the landlady went to the prisoner's room and took her a cup of tea. She was then complaining, .She was left in^her room, and nothing more was seen of her until about half-past eleven o'clock at night. She was then very ill, and at was thought necessary to send for a doctor. Blood was observed about the floor of the room, but its cause was not then ascertained. However, when the medical man arrived, he at once determined that the pri.■3ouer had been recently delivered. He exaanined her person, and found marks which left no doubt on his mind that she had been delivered of a child within a short period. Then came the question— how had the child been disposed of ? Ultimately, after enquiries had been made, the prisoner produced the child from the bedclothes, wrapped in a piece of calico. When the body was examined several Wounds were observed upon it, and you will hear from the medical witness that those wounds were sufficient to cause death. He will also give evidence, and, of course, this is a vary important matter, because it is the turning point between accident and design — that undoubtedly the child had breathed, and not only so, but that it bled freely from the wounds inflicted, They appear to be of a nature, according to his testimony, to preclude the notion of accident ; and an instrument was found — a pair of scissors — with which those wounds might have been inflicted. The prisoner was then placed in charge of the police, and the case is brought before you to-day. It will be for you to say whether, under the circumstances, there is sufficient for her to answer before a petty jury. Another case of an aggravated nature I shall not expatiate upon. Thomas Slater is charged with committing an unnatural crime. You will hear the particulars of the case, and I therefore need not offend your ears by giving you the story twice over. A Chinaman is charged with attempting to commit suicide. A man who resides in Moray-place, a miner, found the Chinaman bleeding, with a knife either lying close by him, or in his hand. The Chinaman used expressions which left no doubt that he desired to commit suicide. He said "Let me die! Let me die!" He was handed over to the police, and in order to prevent him doing further mischief, his hands were strapped behind him by means of a leather strap, and left in his cell. Somehow or other he disengaged his hands, forced the strap around his neck, and if the police had not gone into the cell at the time, he would have succeeded in hanging himself. Under those circumstances, you vill have no difficulty in finding a true bill. There are other cases of a nature usually broughtbeforeyou here. There is a case of cattle stealing, in which the criminality of the offender is sought to be established, by the identity of a hide. On the other darts of the case I believe there will be no doubt ; but as to the question of identity" you will probably discover sufficient to enable you to find a true bill, leaving that question to be further investigated when the case is before the petty jury. There are two cases of larceny on which I need not expatiate. I now come to address nvyself to perhaps the most difficult case that will be presented to you — that is the case of Frederick William Reichelt, who is charged with setting fire to his premises in Princes street. The circumstances, no doubt, are of euch a nature as to cast an immense load of suspicion upon the prisoner, but you are aware that a person cannot be convicted upon suspicion alone. The circumstances of the case are these : At about twenty minutes past two o'clock on the morning of the 13th June, Reichelt was found by the police proceeding at a pretty sharp pace up Maclaggan street. It appears that lie resides with Mrs Howard, who lives in High street. When seen in Maclaggan street he was without a coat, and in his slippers, or stockings. The police called to him, but instead of stopping he mended hia pace. H

was tlieu aMesied, and, when arrested, it was found that his person was considerably burnt. There were marks about his clothing, the backs of his hands were injured, and there were other marks which left no doubt that he had been exposed to tiame in some shape. However, whilst some altercation between R,eichelt and the police was going on, the fire bell rang ; the police ran in the direction of Princes street, and it was found that Reichelt's shop was on fire. He, of course, was taken into custody. He afterwards volunteered an account of how the fire happened. He stated that he had been suffering from diarrhoea, that he got up at night, at least at two o'clock in the morning, and went to his shop for some medicine; that, while there, an accident brought his light over a tin of lucine, which immediately exploded and set the place on fire. The other hypothesis, that which is made by the case for the prosecution, is that that story is false, and that Reichelt really set the place on fire with intend to defraud the Insurance Company. The whole case therefore will turn upon the hypothesis of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner from the circumstances which will be laid before you. Now there are thirty-five witnesses for the Crown, the depositions are lengthy, and it would be almost impossible, and very inexpedient, for me to go over the minute circumstances that will be presented to you to support the hypothesis of the prosecution. If that hypothesis convinces you that there is enough to call upon the prisoner to answer, it wul be your duty to find a true bill, leaving it to the petty jury to consider and determine the other hypothesis favourable to his innocence. For that purpose he will have the opportunity of calling witnesses. He will also be defended by counsel very able in matters of this kin 1, and, of course, if he can establish a counter case of innocence sufficiently strong to over-ride, as it were, the case for the prosecution, he will have the benefit of that when the case is before the petty jury. But it will be your duty, if you should think that a sufficient case has been made out by the prosecution, to call upon the prisoner to answer it. One important circumstance connected with the case is this : Reichelt stated when arrested that lie had diarrhoea. Precautions were taken at the lock-up to ascertain whether he had diarrhoea or not, and it was found that he had not ; at least, he had not diarrhoea after two o'clock in the morning, when taken to the police-station ; and medical evidence will be submitted to shew that the stoppage of diarrhoea under the circumstances mentioned is improbable. One of the medical witnesses states that fright would not stop it, and another that fright would tend to aggravate it. He also said that the circumstance of a man being in the damp |streets without shoes, or at all events, with only slippers ou, would tend to increase diarrhoea. This goes therefore to invalidate a part of the prisoner's story. There is another remarkable circumstance. The prisoner states that the fire was an accident, and that he left his shop by the front door ; but it appears that the door was found locked, and that the window was open. If his story be true, he must have locked the door, and not have given any alarm, although he well knew that there were at least three females residing in Miss Cane's rooms, a wooden house, and who must have been burnt to death unless they had been alarmed by some other circumstances. The prisoner gave them no alarm, though one would have supposed that the first impulse of a man under such circumstances would have been to alarm those poor women. The prisoner also states that lie went to the Bell Tower, and gave the alarm to the watchman in charge. The watchman, however, states that he did not receive the alarm in that way, but that he heard a voice call out "fire" from about the situation of the premises where the fire occurred, and that he then rang the bell. Now, calling out from the premises where the fire occurred is a very different matter from going to the Bell Tower, as stated by Reiehelt, and giving the alarm. There are many other little circumstances that tend to favour the hypothesis of the prisoner's guilt, and if these lead to the result 1 have indicated, you will find a true bill. There are no other facts I need expatiate upon. I have already stated that there are a vast number of witnesses to be examined. It is not necessary that you should hear them all ; it is not even necessary that they should all be here in Court, that is left to the discretion of the prosecuting counsel. When the case is before the Magistrate all those witnesses are examined who are supposed to be able to throw any light upon it, but when the case is before the petty jury, it is left to the discretion of the counsel for the prosecution to say what witnesses he will call. Those witnesses, however, having been called, he ought to tender them for cross-examination by the prisoner's counsel ; but your duty, gentlemen, is done when you have found a true bill. There is alsothisimportantcircumstance: Soinedays before the fire occurred a large quantity of goods were removed from the prisoner's premises to the house of a man named Goldainmer, who was at that time before the Court in its bankruptcy jurisdiction. According to the evidence of Goldannner, he does not appear to know Avhat they were nor what was their value. He valued them at .-£l5O. The police took possession of the goods ; they were carefully examined and valued by an experienced person connected with the establishment of Messrs Sargood and Co. ; and it turned out that they were worth £400. That circumstance is capable of three hypotheses by way of explanation. First, it might be that Goldammer and lleichelt were friends, that they were intimate

! acquaintances, who had known each other for some years, and that Reichelt sent these goods to Goldammer's house in order to diminish his stock and defraud the Insurance Company. Secondly, they might be Goldammer's goods, that they had been sold to him, and that he was concealing them, without the knowledge of the prisoner, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. That hypothesis, if proved to be correct^ would be favourable to the pris£it=iT--~'The other hypothesis is that which the prisoner has himself set up. It is this. That he actually sold the goods on credit to Goldammer, and that they were simply taken away in the manner in which they were taken away and deposited in the house, in order that there might be no difficulty with Goldammer's creditors, he being at that time before the Court. That hypothesis would be favourable to the innocence of both parties, because the sale having taken place after the bankruptcy of Goldammer, the goods would not have been the property of his creditors, and he could have put them where he placed them ready to commence business with after he obtained his discharge in bankruptcy. You will have to examine that fact in connection with others, not that it determines the case, but to enable you to determine whether, upon the whole, there is sufficient to call upon the prisoner to answer. There is another case of arson, the particulars of which 1 have not yet had, but I believe it will not give you any difficulty. As, however, this eas,e of Eeichelt's will take up a considerable time, I have adjourned the other cases. There are some country cases, for instance, in which the instructions given to the witnesses to attend have been countermanded. The only case which you will have to consider now is that of Reichelt, and I regret that I shall be obliged to put you to the inconvenience of coming here on Monday next to consider the other cases. His Honour subsequently stated that the charge of libel which had been preferred against Alexander M'Leod would also be submitted for the consideration of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury then retired. OBSTRrCTIXO TKE HARBOUR. In regard to the case of Alexander Cairns, respecting the obstruction of the navigable waters of the harbour at Anderson's Bay, Mr Macas>sey stated that under the 33rd section of the Marine Act the Governor had authorised the construction of the work at Anderson's Bay. The prosecution had been instituted against His Honour the Superin tendent, and as that had fallen to the ground, it would not be gracious to continue it against Cairns, who, he understood, had acted under the instructions of the Superintendent. The case was accordingly withdrawn. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills against F. W. Reichelt for arson, and against Alexander M'Leod for libel. ARSOX. (Before a Special Jury. ) F. W. Reiehelt was then arraigned on the charge of having feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously set fire to his shop, with intent to defraud the New Zealand Insurance Company. There was a second count, containing a general charge of intent to defraud. The accused pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr James Smith prosecuted for the Crown ; and Mr Barton, with whom was Mr Stout, appeared for the accused.

Messrs A. H. Slurry (Foreman), J. Seaton, H. Calder, jun,, Murdoch Ross, Henry Green, Hugh Kirkpatrick, William Stavely, David Baxter, Thomas Cullen, Thomas G. .Johnston, Charles Abbott, and Thomas Aitkin, were the jury empanelled.

All the witnesses in this case were ordered to leave the Court, and to remain within call.

Mr Smith then opened the case for the prosecution, explaining the nature of the evidence which he intended to submit. Subsequently, Mr Barton asked that the jury should be sent to examine the premises.

Mr Smith said he did not object to the application, but thought it was premature. His Honour said he was of opinion that it would be better that the jury should examine the premises before the case was further proceeded with. No one, however, could be allowed to give any explanations. The jury, accompanied by several constables, then proceeded to the scene of the fire. When they returned the following witnesses were called by Mr Smith :—: — John Griffen, merchant, proved having let the premises in Princes street to the prisoner in July, 186 S.

James M'Leod Nicholson, of the Government Survey Office, produced a plan which he had made of the premises. He also stated the distance from the accused's shop in Princes street to the house occupied by Mrs Howard in High street by different routes, to Miller's house off Moray Place, and to the Bell Tower. The witness was afterwards cross-examined by Mr Barton as to the approaches to the premises, and regarding the appearance of various parts of them. Lachman Haymau, of the firm of Hayman and Co. , importers of fancy goods, stated that during a period of three years and a half — the time he had resided in Dunedin — the accused, to the best of his belief, had bought about £500 worth of goods from the linn. The further examination of this witness was postponed to enable him to produce the books of the linn, which show their transactions with the accused.

John Hamann, Custom House agent, repeated the evidence, given and published on a previous occasion, as to the goods for which

he had passed entries on behalf of the ac» ciised, together with tlieir value.