The Courts.

Otago Witness, Issue 1324, 14 April 1877, Page 5

The Courts.

SUPREME OOURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Thobsdat, Apbil sth. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Williams.) SENTENCES. Alice Lavin (18 years), who pleaded Guilty on the previous day to a charge of stealing from a dwelling-house at Kakanui, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Walter Rogers (24 years), who pleaded Guilty on the previous day to a charge of horse-stealing at Dunedin, was brought up for sentence. Prisoner said he hoped His Honour would deal with him as lightly as possible. When ha committed the act he was not in a sound state of mind, as he had been under the influence of drink for two or three weeks. — His Honour pointed out that the offence to which prisoner had pleaded Guilty was punished not many years ago with death, and at any rate the law regarded the offence as something more ssrious than <rfmple larceny. The sentence of the Courf waa that prisoner be imprisoned in the common gaol of Dunedin for two years, and be kept to hard labour. Prisoner was also sentenced for stealing a saddle and bridle wuh the horse to six months' imprisonment, the sentences to take effect concurrently. Charles Brodie Cooper (32 years), who was found guilty on the previous day on a charge of forgery, was brought up for sentence. He asked His Honour to deal leniently with him. It was stated that there were a number of previous conviction* recorded against prisoner, and at the present time he was undergoing penal •ervitude. His Honour sentenced the prisoner to five years' penal servitude ; the sentence to take effect from this date. William Brown (29 years), who wa3 found gtlilty on the previous day of having committed mi unnatural offence, was brought up for sentence. JTis Honour said he quite concurred in the verdict of the Jury. Had prisoner been defended, and had he escaped through the ability of bis advocate, His Honour thought there would have been a miscarriage of justice. He saw that prisoner had been previously con* victed for obscene conduct. The sentence of the Court was that prisoner be kept to penal servitude for five years. Walter Ulmer (21 years), who was convicted on the previous day of having stolen a watch from the person at Oamaru, was brought up for sentence. Prisoner had been previously convicted of larceny. Hi« Honour sentenced him to two years' imprisonment in Dunedin Common Gaol, with hard labour. BDBGLABT. Letitia Reid, alias Burke, was indicted for having, on the 3rd January; 1877, feloniously broken^ and entered the dwelling house of Catherine Gardiner, at Oamaru, with intent to steal, take, and carry away the goods and chattels of the said Catherine Gardiner, and for having feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away Us in money, two bottles of whisky, and a bottle cf brandy. From the evidence it appeared that prosecutrix is a widow living in Oamaru. On the Ist January there were Caledonian Games at Oamaru, to which the prosscatrix went, leaving her house unprotected. In the house were left two bottles of whisky and a bottle of brandy^and also a sum of money amounting to lla. when she came home she found that her house had been entered and the money and spiritß taken. She gave information to the Police, and Sub-Inspector M'Chwkey made enquiries into the matter. From information he received, he went to the house of prisoner, whom he found lying in bed very drunk. On searching her house, he found the bottles of spirits, and money corresponding exactly to that stolen. The Jury brought in a verdict of Guilty, and prisoner was remanded for sentence. STBAUHG HONE? *HOM THE PEBSON. „ J«neß Leslie was indicted for having, on the 11th "December, 1876, stolen the sum of jS from the person of William Farley. Prisoner pleaded Not guilty. The prosecutor, in this case was a sheep■hearer, and the offence was alleged to have been committed while prosecutor was lying drank in the kitchen of a hotel at Maen£ whenoa. The Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty. LABCENZBS. Bernard Gray was charged upon three counta— lst, with stealing a deposit receipt of the National Bank for Ll4 ; 2ad, with stealing » deposit receipt of the Bank of New Zealand for L 25;2 5; and 3rd, with stealing three receipts, a pocket book, and LI in money, the property of Timothy Moriarty. Mr B. Cook appeared for the prisoner. The evidence showed that on the 21at March the prosecutor left his pocket-book in his teoosere' pocket, in the Alliance Hotel, Oamara ; that shortly after it was missed, information was given to the Police, and that toe property was found in the possession of the prisoner. Mr Cook cross-examined the witnesses, but prisoner found fault with him for not putting •erfcain questions of an indelicate nature to one °f the witnesses. The learned counsel considered the questions improper, and not maAfter some altercation, Mr Cook retired from f the case. _ The Prisoner submitted to the Judge some of the questions he desired put to the witnesses, but His Honour-decided that they were notproper questions. When addressing the Jury the prisoner made a statement affecting the moral* character of one of the witnesses, and asserted that she had stolen the property and given it to him. The Jury retired, and after an interval of ten minutes they brought in a verdict of Gmlty. His Honour said he would para sentence the following day. The Court rose at 5 p.m.

Fbidat, Apbil 6th. sentences. Letitia Reid (35 years), convicted of burglary, waa sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. Bernard Gray (48 years), convicted on the previous cay of stealing valuable receipts, was .n. ng J 2 t Bp * or sentence. His Honour said tue offence of which prisoner had been convicted was partly aggravated by the unfounded and wicked defence he had set up. The sentence of the Court was that prisoner be kept to penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for five years. , BOBBEBT WITH VIOLENCE, James Williams and John Ferguson were placed in the dock indicted for the above offence. t Mr Stout stated that h<* appeared for "Williams, and asked that the prisoners be tried separately. From the evidence given in the Court below it was perfectly apparent that there were only three persons present when the alleged robbery took place— namely, Thornton (the prosecutor) and the two prisoners. He was Instructed that the evidence of Thornton was inaccurate in several respects— to put it in the mildest form— and therefore it was only

fair to the prisoner that one of them should be allowed to state bis version of the whole affair. Mr E. Cook, on behalf of the prisoner Ferguson, made a similar application. _ The Crown Prosecutor opposed the application, which he considered the most extraordinary proposition he had heard of in his experience. Two men had committed a robbery together, and it was now asked that one should be allowed to give bis version, so that thee might be some evidence on behalf of the other. He (the learned counsel) characterised the application as one unheard of, aad submitted it was only in Buch cases where it appeared that the prisoners had been improperly joined in the indictment that one of the parties could be called upon to give evidence on behalf of the other. In such cases as this, where the evidence was perfectly clear against both the prisoners, there was not the slightest ground for the application. Mr Stout submitted that the whole question for the determination ot the Court was what would be fair in order to give the prisoners a proper opportunity of bringing before the Court the whole circumstances of the case. If one of the prisoners was allowed to give evidence he would give quite a different colouring to that of Thornton, given in the Court below. The prisoners stated that all three were gambling together, when, as frequently happened in gambling transactions, a row ensued, but there was no robbery. 4 His Honour said it appeared to himthe parties were properly joined in the indictment ; and being properly joined in the indictment, . the Court would not order separate trials simply to enable one prisoner to give evidence for the other.

Mr Stout then said he would plead autivfoii convict on behalf of Williams.

In answer to the indictment, Williams accordingly said he had been formerly convicted of the offence with which he was charged. Mr Haggitt objected to counsel pleading for a prisoner. Mr Stout submitted that it was an unheard of thing that counsel should not be allowed to plead for a prisoner when there was a technical defence. According to the old form, net only could counsel plead, but the plea was not considered sufficient until signed by counsel. His Honour said he would take the prisoner's plea. After some further argument, the prisoner Ferguson was ordered to stand down, and the Jury were directed to determine whether the prisoner Williams had heretofore been lawfully convicted of the charge stated in the indictment.

Mr Stout then proceeded to address the Jury, stating that a special plea had been put in under the following circumstances: — The prisoner and Ferguson went to Thornton's Hotel — the Royal George — after twelve o'clock one night, and remained there gambling until after two o'clock in the morning. A Quarrel then arose, and Williams was charged with having stolen a dice box. For this he was brought before the Police Court, convicted, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment, which he has served. Now, he submitted that if in a case of felony — because larceny was a felony— the Crown chose to bring one charge of felony arising' out of one transaction, the person charged could not be brought up for a second felony arising out of the identically game transaction. The law was that a man could not be put on his trial twice for the same offence. .

Mr Stout then called Mr Caldwell (Governor of the Gaol) and the prosecutor, Thornton. His Honour said he did not think there was any evidence to go to the Jury in support of the plea. The conviction oi Williams before the Justices was for stealing a dice-box, and not for stealing from the person. It took place on the same night, but the prosecutor (Thornton) said it did not take place at the same time. The indictment was for robbery with violence and robbery from the person. He would take a note of the point, but in the meantime he would direct the Jury that there was no evidence in support of the plea. Tha Jury accordingly brought in a verdict that the prisoner had not heretofore been con* vietea of the offence charged in the indictment.

James Williams and John Ferguson were then indicted for that they did, on tha 22nd February, 1877, feloniously make an assault upon William Patrick Thornton, and put him in bodily fear and danger, and then feloniously and violently did steal, take, and carry away the moneys, to the amount of LB, of the said Thornton, from his person and against his will. And that at the time they so robbed him, they did feloniously wound him.

Mr Haggitt proceeded to open the case for the prosecution. The prisoners 'at the bar were indicted for a joint act of jobbery, with violence, committed on the person of W. P. Thornton. Thornton was the licensee of the Royal George Hotel, in George street, Dunedin. He held a night license, which authorised him to keep open until twelve o'clock. On the night mentioned in the indictment, he closed his house at twelve o'clock, and while he was in the act of putting out the lights, someone knocked at the door. He opened the door, and asked the persons there what they wanted. They asked if the house was full, which he understood to mean if they could get beds there. He replied that the house was not full, and they entered. They went into a small parlour, and began to shake dice for drinks between themselves, and after they had some- 1 thing to drink, asked the landlord to join them in shaking for another drink. He did so, and after they had two or three more transactions of this kind, Thornton told prisoners that it was quite late enough, and that they must either go out of the house or go to bed. The prisoners still sat in the room, and Thornton stood outside the door in the passage, with his hand on the tap of the gas jet, ready to turn it off. Whilst so standing, he received a blow on the side of his head, which knocked him down. Then the prisoners jumped upon him, one seizing him by the throat, and the other rifling his pockets. Thornton had a short time before placed the takings of the day, amounting to L 8 or L 9, which he had taken from the till in the bar, in his trowsers pocket. Mrs Thornton, who went to bed some time previously, heard the noise occasioned by her husband's tall, and cam 6 down stairs. She saw her husband lying on the ground, and the two prisoners attacking him. She went back, called a man named Chapman, the barman, and they went down stairs together. When she got down she saw the prisoners escaping from the place. She told the barman to follow them, and he did so, overtaking Ferguson, and recognising him. He did nothing more, and returned to the HoteL By that time Thornton had been assisted to his bedroom by his wife, and when there discovered that all the money he had on his person was gone. He was suffering very severely from ths treatment he had received. He was partially insensible, and his wounds were bleeding. However, no medical man waa sent for that night, but on the next night Thornton was examined by I)r Brown, and was unable to attend to his business for a considerable time. Prisoners were arrested and brought befora the Justices of the Peace Court, where they were committed for trial.

W. P. Thornton, his wife, Dr Brown, and a servant at the Hotel, were examined. Their evidence was the same in substance ns that

already published in our report of the preliminary proceedings. Mr Stout then addressed the Jury on behalf of William 3, whose explanatien of the affair he stated to be as follows :—: — Williams kept the billiard room at the Glebe Hotel, Princes street south, on the night in question. Ferguson called at his place, and when it was time to close the billiard room asked Williams if he would take a walk down the street. Williams agreed, and on Ferguson's invitation, went to the Royal George Hotel for a drink. They went into the hotel, nothingbeing said about a bed. They asked for a drink only, and one was supplied to them at a bar window near the little room. Some conversation then ensued between Thornton and the prisoners as to the business he was doing in the hotel. Thornton took them into the little parlour, and they shook the dice for drinks. After playing for drinks once or twice, Thornton supplied them with whisky, and also with a small bottle of champagne. A* ter that, Thornton went into the bar to get some money, and on coming back, instead of throwing the dice for a shilling a game, they commenced to throw for LI a game. Thornton, in the end, lost all his money, and then a quarrel arose as to whether the last throw was fair or not. In the row which eusueu, Thornton was struck. He stated in his evidence that he was struck by Ferguson, and he (Mr Stout) presumed that that was the case. It waa utterly untrue that any money was taken from Thornton.

Mr E. Cook, who appeared on behalf of the prisoner Ferguson, also addressed the Jury to the same effect as Mr Stout.

His Honour having summed up, The Jury retired, and, after some time, brought in a verdict of " Guilty of Assault," against both prisoners. Hia Honour decided that he could not take this verdict upon the indictment, and directed the Jury to reconsider their verdict. After another retirement, they brought in a verdict of "tTnla.vfully Wounding." against both prisoners. His Honour said he would pass sentence on the following morning.

Saturday, April 7th, 1877. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Williams and Common Jury.) UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. James Williams and John Ferguson, who were found Guilty on the previous day of unlawfully wounding William Patrick Thornton, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, Dunedin, were brought up for sentence. Mr Stout, counsel for Williams, submitted that upon the indictment the prisoners could not be found guilty of unlawfully wounding. After argument, His Honour said he would reserve the following points for the Appeal Court : — (L) The question as to the previous conviction of Williams for the same offence, (2.) That there was no evidence of wounding by Williams. (3.) That under the indictment, the prisoners could not be convicted of unlawfully wounding, and that if the Jury brought in a verdict of unlawfully wounding, it amounted to an acquittal Prisoners were remanded into their former custody until the decision of the Court of Appeal on the points reserved is obtained. His Honour Baid he would consider the question of bail on another occasion. LARCENY. Edmund Wild was indicted for having, on or about the 29th June, 1874, feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, one silver watch, one gold chain, six silver ringfy-20, nuggets of gold,, two gold brooches, two "pairs' of gold earrings," and one calico bag, of the goods and chattels of James Connew. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Denniston, pleaded Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor stated that Connew, the prosecutor in this case, now resided at Caversham, but two years and a half ago, he lived at Clyde. At that time he was married, and about the 28th June, 1876, Mrs Coni)ew waa taken ill, and died on the following <ky. At the time of her death, prisoner was about the house in some capacity, and previous to her death, the articles mentioned in the indictment were in the house in a box, to which Connew and anybody else connected with the family, had free access. After Mrs Connew's death, ! those things could never be found. Search was i made for them everywhere, but without the i slightest success. Connew was very anxious to find them, and amongst others, he got prisoner to assist him in making a search. Connew offered him LSO if he would find them, an<? prisoner on more than one occasion did make a pretended search. However, nothing was heard of the missing articles until some little time ago, when Connew received intelligence which induced him to lay an information. Detective Bain then arrested the prisoner, and upon making a search found upon him the articles mentioned in the indictment. But there were more nuggets missed at the time of Mrs Connew's death than were mentioned in the indictment. With regard to these, evidence would be given that prisoner told a Mrs Blue that he had been to the Bank and had sold some nuggets, and that he was going to the Bank to sell some more. He also showed her the property specified in the indictment, and told her that it belonged to Connew ; that the latter was very anxious to get hold of it, but would not. He also boasted that he had made Connew drunk with his own money. The prosecutor Connew gave evidence to the same effect as the statement of the Crown Prosecutor.

In cross-examination, he admitted that his wife had conducted extensive business transactions without his knowledge ; that he had himself been in financial difficulties, and had borrowed money from the prisoner. He also stated that he had used violence to his wife on seve ral occasions ; that he suspected her fidelity, and that the prisoner was criminally intimate with her.

Mr Denniston, in addressing the Jury for the defence, denied, onlbehalf of the prisoner, that there was any foundation for the imputations cast by prosecutor upon his deceased wife's honour. Prisoner's explanation of the circum stances waa that he bad been the friend of Connew for a^ long time ; he had been in the habit of keeping Connew in money, and had lent him money largely. Those loans and advances were made at the request of Mrs Connew, and she therefore felt herself morally bound to see that prisoner was repaid. She first informed him that she kept a private purse, and also that she possessed certain jewellery. When she was dying she told prisoner that she wished her property to be disposed of in a certain manner, and pave it into his hands for that purpose. She told him that, a man named M'Morrin was indebted to her, and that she held his watch— one of the articles mentioned in the indictment— as security. She made him a sort of trustee for the distribution of her property among her own relations, and he was also to repay himself out of what she gave him. The distribution was to take place after a settlement was effected with M'Morrin, who was to get back Ms watch when he paid what he owed. Everything was depeadent on that settlement, which'prisoner had on several occa-' sions endeavoured to bring about, but without success. Robert M'Morrin was called on his subpoena, but did not appear. His Honour, in summjflg up, pointed out to

the Jury that if a man received property from a married woman, he could not be afterwards prosecuted for larceny by the husband, unless it could be shown that the person who received the gooda had committed adultery with the woman, or that adultery was contemplated. At the request of Mr Decniston, His Honour directed the Jury that in this case there was no proof of adultery. The Jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.