SUPREME COURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1856, 8 July 1887, Page 22

SUPREME COURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

. ■ '. ' ' Monday, July 4. • (Before, his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) ■-,".' The quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court commenced at 10 o'clock. [7 NO BILL " was returned on the indictment charging William Hunter with shooting with intent, and the prisoner was'accordingly discharged. BOBBERY FROM A RESTAURANT. •, > John Williams alias John Alien, a coloured -man; was convicted of stealing, on May 3, a coat, the property of William Fewins and sentenced to two years' hard labour. FORGERY. • James Henry Wilson alias C. Thornton pleaded Guilty to an indictment charging him ' with forgery and uttering at Dunedin, on May 14. He stated that ho was awaiting trial at Invercargill for a similar offence, committed there about the same date. Both offences were committed while he was on a drinking bout. > -The Crown Prosecutor, in answer to the court,

said that the prisoner, who was a clerk by occupation, only arrived, in 'the; colony last year, so that he was nob long here befote he began • career of "crime. "' ' Sentenced to two years'" hard labour. ' . '. *:. '- . ■ i«£BCEjrr. , - • -> John Edward Taylor alias ,Thomson (aged 4&) pleaded" Guilty to a, charge of stealing a coat, the property of .George "Nelson,- at Dunedin, and also to ha^g'been^previqufily convicted of felony.", 1 ' *v " „,,--'--- » ' Sentenced to four years' jienal servitude' Thomas Edwards was indicted upon a charge of unlawfully and maliciously wounding Thomas filling at Lawrence on therldth of April 1887. Remanded in , order thaj; two v «witnesses at present in gaol at Lawrenee_;nlight be brought down.';' ..*,," )•'. O *-,'*'• ' '" '• '~" \-X.-J : " ) CONCBALMENT 'OF BIBTH.' „ / ','' Mary Ann Halliday (19) pleaded Guilty to an indictment charging/her, with 'concealment of birth of, a male^ child, of ''which she was delivered on April 11 at Mount Barker," in the. Lake county^ .;>-- f* Mr Farriie appeared for the prisoner. t-Hißt -Hiß Honor : This seems to be, with one exception, the orily.casA in which the Probation Act might be, applied. The report .seems to be favourable, . unless the, Crown^has anything to say-against it. .« . -> "' • , ;The,. Crown Prosecutor: Nothing at all. MrFarnie: In that case I need not refer to the matter. . • „ -His Honor : It is not a bad case at all. Well, you will be admitted to probation, prisoner, for Sitermof, six, months'.' ,1' hope you won't get into, trouble again. There need be no special conditions. The probation officer does not recommend any, and his report is altogether favourable.', •, :.*,'< BOBBEET WITH VIOLENCB. ' ' , .Robert- ,Hpwie was -charged wij^h assaultmg Edward Stenberg,' and with stealing, from him £18 in money and an earring! ' ' , The prisoner, who was defended by Mr D. M. Stuart, pleaded Not guilty. , ; Mr.Haggitt, in opening the case for the Crown, said that the prosecutor up to, the 20th May had been employed at Otautau, and on that date came to Dunedin. On the' following Wednesday he went to the races, and in the evening the prisoner followed' him from one hotel to another, played cards with him, and drank with him. Afterwards, in company with three other men, the prisoner induced the prosecutor to go on towards South Dunedin, and after they had entered the cricket ground the men knocked the prosecutor down,. robbed him, and then ran • away, leaving him lying on the ground. Of the men who had' assaulted and robbed him. the prosecutor could only identify one — the , prisoner, and consequently, only one appeared to answer the charge. . If the jury believed the evidence of the prosecutor, there could be no doubt of the identity of 'the prisoner as one of the men who had been concerned in the assault and robbery. Evidence having been' taken, his Honor briefly summed up? and f " r ( : ' ' • 'The "Jury," after a" retirement of half-an-hour returned a^ verdict of " Not guilty.", Tuesday, Jult 5. The court 'resume.dat 10 a.m. ' ' "■"'' LABCENT 'AS" 'BAILEE.' ' Thomas Fahey was charged. with having, on June 23,' feloniously stolen certain 1 live stock, consisting' of eight "horses,' six- cows, three heifers, and one steer, the property of John 1 Carse Arbuckle. A second .count in the indict* ment laid the property of the stock in' the Colonial Bank of New Zealand. The prisoner pleaded Not guilty, and was def ended^by Mr, Finlayson, of, Lawrence; and Mr Haggitt conducted the prosecution.-- ' Mr Haggitt, in opening the case for the Crown, said that there were' two counts in the indictment, merely for.the purpose of meeting possible objections, ' which might never be raised, and the jury had merely to do with one charge. The facts of the matter were these: In the month of January of the present year the prisoner, who was desoribed as a' farmer at Evans' Flat,' Tuapeka; executed a bill of sale to the Colonial Bank of New Zealand to secure the sum of £220 over certain stock specified in the schedule of the bill of sale, and comprising the cattle mentioned in the indictment. Some time in June last negotiations took place between the bank and the prisoner with reference to this bill of sale, and the, ,bank, at the prisoner's request, agreed to accept from him £80 in cash in full payment of the moneys secured by the bill of sale. Afterwards the prisoner tendered to the bank £20 and said he would pay the balance in four or' five months. This offer the bank' refused, and Mr; Arbuckle, of Lawrence, who was one of the prisoner's creditors, hearing of the terms the bank had offered, saw the prisoner and went with him to the bank. t It was then., arranged between the prisoner, the bank, and Mr Arbuckle that Arbuckle should pay the £80 to the bank and take the assignment of the bill of sale of this stock. The money, was .paid, and a deed of assignment was executed. At the time the prisoner informed him that the whole of the stock, comprised in the bill of sale were at that time rurining upon his farm. The object of Arbuckle in taking security in this, way, as the prisoner knew at- the time, was to realise upon the stock at once, and the stock were advertised for sale. The prisoner wanted the sale to take place at his farm, but Mr Arbuckle preferred that it should take place elsewhereShortly before the date of .the sale he sent a man to the prisoner's farm for the stock, but the mad could not find a single hoof any* where. When asked where the cattle were, the prisoner declined to give ''any information, abused the man who bad been cent and ordered him off the premises. The man returned with a constable, but, they were unsuccessful, and a detective who was sent from Dunedin had also to come away again without having gained .possession of a single hoof. The prisoner, however, told the .detective that the cattle had not been stolen, but that they had been distributed in such a manner that nobody could recover them but himself, and that he would give no information about them. After this the pris* oner had the)coolness to propose that Mr Arbackle should sell his chance in the stock to one of the prisoner's friends at whatever price the friend , chose to give, saying that that was the best 1 thing Mr Arbuckle could do. The prisoner j persistently refused to give any infor-j matipn respecting the stock, 1 and ultimately hel was charged with the present offence and com-j mitted' for trial, and when committed merely! stated that he reserved his defence. The! prisoner was charged with larceny as a bailee inf virtue of the 19th section of " The 1 Chattel* Securities Act-. 1880" and the third section of "The Larceny Act 1886." The prisoner wal the bailee of these cattle, and having converted them to his own use or made away with then! he was liable to be found guilty of the chard unless he could give a satisfactory explanatiol of why he had refused to give them up to the! true owner. ■■ I , Evidence for the prosecution was given by J J. M'Eerrow, Alfred Crook'e, i. C. Arbuckle, 1 J. Ponsonby, and Detective Ede; and, for tt defence by James Drysdale and James Buchanl, who saw the stock on the prisoner's piemisep

few -days ago. Prisoner, also made 1 a statement. * Mr Finlayson submitted that though a mortgage on stock was payable on demand in writing, no demand had been made on the prisoner by the prosecutor or by the Colonial Bank. He urged that there was no evidence on- which the accused could be convicted of the offence of which he was charged. , There was no evidence that, he had sold the cattle or that he had destroyed them, and there was no proper evidence thaft he had removed them from his premises. Even if they were off the' prisoner's farm they might have strayed. The evidence might show that he had acted illegally and made himself liable to a civil action, but he (the learned counsel) submitted that there was nothing to show criminal intent on his part. He pointed out that prisoner had up to the present borne'an excellent character. His Honor said prisoner was charged with larceny as a bailee, and with larceny of a peculiar kind, because it was only by'yirtue of the 19th section of the Chattels Securities' Act that what the Crown suggested the prisoner had done had been made a criminal offence ; indeed, the law was so peculiar on this point that it only made it a criminal offence with respect to stock, and did not make it a criminal offence with respect to implements. For instance, though the bill of sale dealt with a threshing 1 machine as well as with stock, the prisoner might have done what he pleased with the threshing machine without being criminally liable. There were two questions for the jury's consideration : Was it shown to their satisfaction that the prisoner did anything inconsistent with the terms of the bailment— that was, the bill of sale or mortgage of stock? Then, if he did anything inconsistent with it, did', he do it fraudulently and with the intention of depriving Arbuckle or the Colonial Bank permanently of the property included in tt>» bailment ? The Jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict cf " Koo guilty," and the prisoner was acquitted. FORGERY. Charles Richards (23) pleaded Guilty to a charge of forging a warrant for the payment of money on May 20, and asked to be dealt with under the First Offenders Act. The Crown Prosecutor stated that prisoner, who had been a cook on Cargill and Anderson's station, came to the colony in 1883. He had been convicted at Wellington of assaulting a constable and sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. His Honor: The sentence of the" court, prisoner, is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for the term of nine months and kept to hard labour. INDECENT ASSAULT. Robert M'Cunn, a lad, was indicted for having, at Cromwell, on June 11, indecently assaulted Elizabeth Ann Gamble, aged six. The prisoner pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr J. P. M. Fraser. A portion of the evidence for the prosecution was given, but' the child, who was under examination, became hysterical and could not answer further questions, and the further hearing of the case was adjourned till the following day. The court adjourned at half-past 5 o'clock. Wednesday, July 6. indecbnt assault. Robert M'Cunn, a lad, was indicted for having, at Bannockburn, on June 11, indecently assaulted Elizabeth Ann Gamble, aged six. The prisoner pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr J. F. M. Fraser. The hearing of the case was resumed, and concluded at noon. The Jury, after an absence of an hour, returned into court with the following verdict :— "We are unanimously of opinion that Bob M'Cunn is guilty of indecent assault in a mild degree, and strongly recommend him, to mercy ; and we suggest that the Probation Act might be applied to this case." His Honor deferred sentence. UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. Ah You was indicted for that he did, at Lawrence, on May 15, unlawfully and maliciously wound Ah Kee. A second count charged him with inflicting grievous bodily harm. Sentenced to one month's imprisonment. , Thomas Edwards was indicted upon a charge of having unlawfully and maliciously wounded Thomas Pilling, of Lawrence, on the 17th of April last. A second count of the indictment charged the prisoner with inflicting grievous bodily harm. In opening the case for the' Crown, Mr Haggitt said that the facts were as follows : — The prosecutor, Mr Thomas Pilling, who was one of the proprietors of the Tuapeka Times, was returning home on Saturday night at about 10 o'clock, and heard a disturbance in the neighbourhood of his home. He hurried on as fast as he could, and found that his brother was forcibly. ejecting a man from the premises, and was asking a neighbour what was the matter, when the prisoner rushed between them with a knife in his han^, and without having been spoken to by Mr Pilling, and without any provocation at all from him, he struck at him with the knife. The blade of the knife cut through Mr Pilling's coat and waistcoat, and would have cut-him over the region of the heart had iti not ,been that Mr Pilling's -watch intercepted the blow, and received a mark which the jury could see. Mr Pilling then knocked the prisoner down, and whilst on the ground the prisoner' again struck at him with the knife and' cut him on the knee, cutting through the trousers and drawers and into the Qesh of the knee. Two other persons who were present caught hold of the prisoner and held him till the police came, and the prisoner and his two matesj who had been creating the disturbance, were taken to the police station. His Honor summed up the case, and the jury, after an hour's deliberation, returned a verdict of "Guilty," but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of theill-treatmeat he had received from the prosecutor. Sentence was deferred.