Supreme Court.

Otago Witness, Issue 1585, 8 April 1882, Page 13

Supreme Court.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

Tuesday, 4th April Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a [[Common Jury.) '

SENTENCES,

His Honor : I< shall take into consideration the fact, prisoner, that nothing seems to have been known about you either for goodor evil, but for my own part I cannot but_ think that you have been in trouble before, as it is not the kind of crime that a person starts with. However, as I say, I shall give you the benefit of nothing being known about you, but at the same time I shall pass a sentence of a more severe kind than I ordinarily do in the case of a first offence, because the ofFence of which you have been convicted is of a heinous character. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for the term of two years, and that you be kept at hard labour. . , , .. Gilbert M'Coll (42), convicted of stealing a purse and money .from a hut at Blaokstone HUI, had nothing to say. His Honor : Your record, prisoner, is a very bad one indeed. It seems you have been convicted four times of larceny, besides one or two occasions of other offences. I shall therefore pass an exemplary sentence. The sentence, however, will not be so severe as it would had tho crime of which you havo been now convicted been of a more serious character. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept to penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the term of seven years.

LAROKNY. Frank Oliver was indicted for having on February 15th stolen one gold chain and locket, the goods of Archibald Dalgleish, of Papakaio, Oamaru. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr D. M. Stuart. Detective Ede stated that he arrested the prisoner on the Kennedy at Port Nelson on the 2nd ult. Witness said, " I believe your name is Frank Oliver; is it not?" He said, "No; my name is Kerr." Witness informed him that he had received a telegram describing a man named Frank Oliver answering to his description, and detained him pending inquiries. Prisoner again denied that he was the person. Witness told him that the man was charged with the larceny as a bailee of a gold watch, chain, and locket. He was conveyed to the Nelson police-station, and there said, "I v ia

useless 1 denying it any longer, I am the person you want: 1 sold the watch and chain to Frank Woods, in Wellington, the day before I left." He gave witness a ring off his finger, stating that it was the ring which he borrowed with the chain and watch from Mr Dalgliesh. At Wellington, on the 15th of the same month, witness received the watch, chain, and locket produced, from the police. Prisoner, saw them, and said they were the same as he had sold to Woods. — Cross-ex-amined: Prisoner said he had sold the goods, and that he had borrowed the ring. Francis Woods, cabinetmaker, Wellington, stated that at the end! of February. he saw the prisoner in Wellington^ He said he was introuble,- and wanted to borrow £10. Witness j refused to lend it to him, and then he offered to sell the watch and chain. Witness said he would give him £10 for them, and a sale was made, the receipt producedthenbeingwrittenby Oliver. ■ The following day a constable came up and said the watch had been stolen, and got possession of it. — Cross-examined : Witness was a professional pedestrian. He had not worked at his trade for six months, but had served his time at, it. ,',He, had not served his time aj^any thing else. He knew the prisoner to be i a .professional runner. Archibald Dalgleish, farmer, Papakaio, had known the prisoner since the New Year. Pris'difer' had stayed with him for about fivo weeks. Witness lent him a chain and- locket. Thamorning before he went away witness told hinjutb leave the chain and locket at the house. Thje> prisoner had no authority, from him to selp the chain and locket. He gave £10 for them. 1 ' • • ' " • , , • >j Cross-examined,: Witness, ran* at -public sport's in and near Oamaru, but was not a pro : fessipnal.ped.. By invitation prisoner stayed at witness' house and trained there fe'r a match with Hill; run" at Dunedin. Prisoner, was a professional runner. Witness housed him, and found £10 of the stakes for Hill'g match: He swore that he never gave the chain and locket to prisoner. He did not regard it as a j " crooked" match." : This was the 'first time he had taken part in making up a match., John , I)algleish was called, and in crossexamination stated that he , advanced money, for the -racer .with.jJEill because he .thought Oliver could win. The race was not considered a " certainty" 'by him 1 . The ■ riinning was not regarded as a "swindle." ' ' , This closed the^case for the Crown. Bfjjr D^'M..£sf;;uar£ addressed the Jury on behaliofitheiprisoner, and for the defenceiriain-; tained'^that ..the' prisoner's l statement 1 was credible; that the 'property "had been given absolutely to him, the consideration being that the prosecutor.should sKare in the "plunder," which was expected from a race the prosecutor arranged fon " ' ... n , j, ' „)'•• The Jury, after retiring for some time, re-turn'ed-with(a>rdict of" Guilty." , „ Irfreply^tb'sie j usual question prisoner had notnip'g^o'say'." 1 ,.) ,' . Mr. Haggitt, in .answer to his Honor, said nobhingj was -known against the prisoner, who r bad been in the Colony, six.months. , |(J „- », His^Hdnor , As- nothing 1 '< appears to be known ! ' J alga l inst ? yoji hitherto, the sentence of the' Courtjs'thatjyou.be kept to hard labour in the common gaol at Dunedin for six mdnth£. Lranother indictment for. the same, offence Mr>Haggitt entered a nolle -pr'osequi, I > <■.''.•<"'■ BbfcBERY'WITH VIOLENCE.' , < William ,D. Walker ' and James- H. Ad&ms were charged with' having assaulted and robbed Joljn Dicfison at Dunedin on the 19th March;' haying> taken' from -him. the sum of £2 7b and one'sifver watch. •" '

B6th" prisoners' pleaded not guilty, and were defen'ded by "Mr Macdonald. Mr B. ,C. ,'Haggitt - opened the case, which was recently heard, before the Police Court.. The i prosecutor,- who was a carpenter reside ingin • Mornington, remained in town late on the,. 19th, and was - accosted by some' • young meni one of whom wanted him to " snout. The • prosecutor declined to treat, but con-, tinued to iwalk in.ihe company of the young men, and eventually was knocked down, and when iifs&islble 1 was robbed'of £2' 7s in money and his watch. The Jtiry',#fter lO'minutes', absence, returned avercjic'tpf ''guilty" against Walker, and "Not guilty" against Adams, who was discharged. The^ prisoner- begged' -his Honor to pass a lenient sentence upon him, as he was "married and'his'wife' waS in poor 'circumstances. -, In^jjlytp^ his' Honor, Mr Haggitt said 'the prisoner u was W ,cook ( and clog-dancer, that ho was. known as an associate of thieves, but had notsbeen previously convicted. - His- Honor" sentenced the prisoner to 12 months 1 imprisonment, with hard labour.

HORSE-STEALING.'.

Philip M*Barron,was charged with stealing a mare, the .(property of Luke M'Alister, at Shag Valley, on the 26th February. ' , Mr Haggitt prosecuted, and Mr Stout defended the J prisoner. Luke M'A'listef (a labourer), deposed^that in June last he bought a horse from the prisoner for £20. The receipt' produced was the receipt given- for the money paid for the horse. In February he 'had the horse running in Wilson and' M'Leod's paddock. He saw it there on February 26th, missed it the following day, and next saw it in the hands of the police at Palmerston. Cross-examined : The prisoner did not make the 'mare over- to the witness 'to' prevent the bailiff 'seizing it. He hired the horse to the prisoner at 5s per week, and worked for him as a labourer for 20s per « week. The prisoner had not paid the prosecutor his wages.- i. ■ i Jatrfes Kennedy, constable at Macraes,' deposed that on February 27th,,last he saw the prisoner riding the horse in question, and trying to sell it. '• Hearing that the ' horse was stolen,' witness followed the' prisoner to Outram and 'arrested him" there ".on the' 3rd of March. When arrested the prisoner asserted that the horse' was his, property, and that lie had made it ovetfto the prosecutor to prevent the bailiff seiz-i ing it. He added that when taking- it from the, paddock M'Alister and another man pelted nini'witli stones; '

Mr Stout said that the case was one that should i 1 never have . been brought into the Court. ■ It' was evidently! a case of disputed ownership; ' < The- accused had taken the horse to the place' "where both himself 1 and the prosecutor were living, had offered it openly for sale,' and had refused an offer of £15 for it, as he was determined to get its full value. Such conduct was entirely inconsistent with the theory that the prisoner had stolen the horse. Mr Stuart called—

Win. Hally, who deposed that the prisoner had offered to sell him the horse in question in M'Alister's presence, in January last. Patrick |M,Cafferty was called, but simply proved that he branded the horse in question for theprisoner. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up ; and the jury, after an absence df an hour and a-quarter, returned a verdict of "Not guilty," and the prisoner was discharged. The Court adjourned at 6.40 p.m., until 10 o'clock this morning.

Wednesday, sth April. FORGERY.

James Henderson was charged with having on the 2nd of December, 1881, forged an undertaking for the payment of money purporting to

be signed by Donald Stronach, and with uttering the same at Swift Creek, near Tapanui. The prisoner pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr F. Fitchett. Mr Haggitt opened the case for the Crown, and stated the facts relied on for the prosecution. The prisoner, in the beginning of last December, gave to an hotelkeeper named Manson the cheque in payment of a debt of £16. The cheque was drawn in favour of James Henderson, was for the sum of £25, and was signed " Walter Miller." The prosecutor accepted the cheque believing the endorsement to be genuine, and passed it through his banker. The cheque was returned, it being found that the signature to the endorsement was a forgery. The prisoner, when arrested, asserted that the cheque had been given him by a man named John" Hulbert, but ho ' such person could be found, and the Jury were asked to com-, pare the writing on the cheque with the prisoner's hand-writing in a letter, ;with the 'view 1 of ascertaining if they were not both written by the same person. jThe prosecutor, on cross-examination, said the prisoner had borne a good character, and had paid him accounts from time to time. He, didf not. give the prisoner a receipted account, nor did he give him' credit for it in his books,and subsequently the prisoner paid him £3 in cash on his account. ' ' •Mr Fitchett,' on behalf of the prisoner, said the prisoner admitted having uttered the cheque, but denied that he had done so with any guilty knowledge. The prisoner's' account was' that he 'lent money to" a man named Hubert, who said He was to receive a cheque from Walter Miller, which the prisoner might cash, and deduct, from the proceeds, the amount due to him. In order to make certain of the cheque being 'paid to him, 1 prisoner wrote out the body of the' cheque, making it payable to himself, and gave it to Hulberfc, who afterwards returned it to him bearing the signature and endorsement as produced; The prisoner gave the cheque to the > prosecutor for' the purpose of seeing whether it was of value or not.