CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1911, 6 July 1888, Page 21

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, July 2. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and Common Juries.) TRUE BILLS.

True bills were returned in the following cases : — Andrew Kagrinus Fredrickson, forgery and uttering at Dunedia (five charges); John Taylor, alias James Stewart, and Andrew Reid, horse stealing at Alexandra South; Elizabeth Deans, forgery at Dunedin; Isaac Charles worth, murder at Roxburgh; Francesco Lombardi, wounding at Dunedin ; James Hooper, assault with intent to kill at North-East Valley ; Thomas Medder, larceny at Wingatui; Laurence Rosenberg, false pretences (three charges) and^ forgery (one charge) at Dunediu ; and Robert H'Pherson, larceny at Dunedin.

FORGING AND TJTTJEBING.

Anirow Kagrinus Frederickson pleaded Guilty to five separate charges of forging and uttering certain cheques.

The Prisoner, when called upon, gave his age as 32, and said he wished to address a few words to the judge. He then read a somewhat lengthy statement to the effect that he was sorry beyond expression to have to appear in that high court of justice. Even a habitual criminal might shrink at having to appear there before his Honor to receive punishment for his wrong doing, much more a man who had been brought up and had associated with respectable people by whom he had always been esteemed and was the father of a young family by whom he had always been loved. He wished to explain the motive and intent of his offences to show they were not committed for the purpose of making an easy living. The first forgery was committed under the influence of liquor, as perhaps the handwriting of the cheque would show, and the other crimes were committed as the results of the first. He kept on issuing small cheques to enable him to get away to Australia and save his family the disgrace of his arrest. He could have drawn the cheques for much larger amounts if his object was to make money, but he drew them for small amounts only with the intention of sending back the money in 'bank notes when he got work in Australia. Being industriously inclined he had always disliked dishonesty, and he begged Lis Honor to show leniency so that he might again be able to hold up his head, and by God's help become a useful member of society.

His Honor : What is known of the accused ? He was convicted, I remember, at Oamaru in 1885, of obtaining money under false pretences. The modus operandi then was giving cheques on a bank where he had no account at the time. He had previously had an account there and had paid in £150 some time before, but had exhausted it. He had notice not to overdraw, but notwithstanding that gave cheques.

Mr Haggitt : Yes. He received four months on each charge. After that he left the colony, but returned in November 1887 in the Thurso from Mauritius. He is a sailmaker by occupation, and that is all that is known of him. He seems to have started at Oamaru again to commit forgeries, and to have persistently forged his way along from Oamaru to the Bluff. There is a cheque representing every place he stopped at on the way down.

His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said : You appear to have been convicted of the same sort of thing before. Had it not been that the amounts for which you have now forged are comparatively small, I should have passed a heavier sentence than lam about to. As it is, the sentence is that you be kept to penal servitude for three years on each indictment, thu seutences to be concurrent. HORSE-STEALING. John Taylor (16) and Andrew Reid (18) were charged with stealing, on May 11, one gelding, the property of Robert Latt. A second count charged the prisoners with stealing a horse cover from the same owner. '■ .

B jth prisoners pleaded Gnilty. Mr Denniston, who appeared for Taylor, said it was practically only one charge. The boys

were the sons of respectable parents, and had left home to get experience up country. Seeing the horse, they seemed to have appropriated it first to ride, and had then yielded to temptation and aold it for 255. He would call witnesses to show there was nothing at all previously against the character of the lads.

His Honor : I understand from the probation officer that there was something else stolen at the same time.

Mr Haggitt : Yes ; a saddle and bridle to ride the horse. His Honor said this might raise a difficulty to dealing with the prisoners under the First Offenders' Probation Act. His Honor asked nnder what circumstances the saddle and bridle were stolen. Mr Haggitt said they were fatolen on the following day, but from a different person and at a different place. No doubt they were practically one offence, as prisoners would not have taken the saddle and bridle if they had not taken the horse.

His Honor: If these lads had been dealt with under the First Offenders' Probation Act I should have made it a condition that each boy paid weekly or monthly instalments until the total sum of £10 each had been paid towards the expenses of the prosecution, and I think, if for a technical- reason they cannot be released under that act, and are released on their recognisances to come up for sentence when called on, some similar condition should, if possible, be imposed. If, therefore, their parents can make some arrangement of the kind, they may bs so released. < Mr Denniston asked over what period the payments were to extend.

His Honor said if the payments were to be made by the boys he should have extended them over a year, but he thought some arrangement could be made with the parents.

Mr Denniston : If the parents enter into recognisances to pay that sum to the Crown within a year, I presume the boys can be released ?

His Honor: Yes. The parents will have to join with the sons in entering into recognisances. FORGERY. Elizabeth Deans was charged on 10 counts with having on April 25 last forged and uttered a Post Office Savings Bank receipt for the sum of £2 ss.

Mr J. F. M. Fraser defended the prisoner, who pleaded Not guilty.

Mr Haggitt, iv opening the case for the Crown, said the regulations of the Savings Bank provided that persous withdrawing money must give a receipt in a prescribed form, and it was this form the prisoner was charged with forging. Fcr all practical purpores the jury might disregard the ten counts of the indictment and regard it as only two counts for forging and uttering a depositor's receipt. The facts were that a woman named Mary Ann Moir, wife of James Moir, a saddler, in Maclaggan street, kept an account at the bank. The prisoner was a friend of hers for many years, and on one occasion, months ago, when Mrs Moir was ill in bed, she herself filled in one of these forms and sent the prisoner to the bank with it and with her deposit book in order to withdraw money. Prisoner returned with the money and gave back the Savings Bank book, which Mrs Moir restored to a chest of drawers iv her husband's room. On April 24 the prisoner called, and during part of the time she stayed Mrs Moir went out, leaving her alone in the house with the children. That night Mr Moir went to the chest of drawers and missed the deposit book, and Mrs Moir reported its loss to the Savings Bank. Next day the prboner went to the Post Office and tendered a form which was irregularly filled up Prisoner was asked into Mr Stevens' room, and when asked if her name was Mrs Moir, said not exactly ; that her name was Mrs Stephenson and Mrs Moir both— that she was Mrs Stephenson before she became Mrs Moir. She said she was not the wife of Mr Moir, the saddler, but of his brother. She also said she was authorised by her sister-in-law tosign the receipt in the nameof Mary Ann Moir, which was not her own name. All these statements were false, although he (the Crown prosecutor) waa bound to tell them that Mrs Moir would say she had known the prisoner so long and intimately that if she had known her to be really in want of the money she would have drawn it from the bank and given it her ; so that the prisoner could really have had the money if she had gone about it honestly. Detective Henderson would say that when arrested at the post office prisoner said she did not mean to steal the money, but intended to let Mrs Moir know what she had done. Evidence having been taken, His Honor summed up, and the Jury after a short retirement returned a verdict of " Not guilty." LARCENY. Robert M'Pherson (69) pleaded Guilty to stealing, on June 21, a watch, the property of Harriet Rosannah Newsome. In reply to his Honor, Mr Haggitt said the prisoner arrived from Glasgow in 1863. He was a gardener by occupation, and was convicted and received two mouths' imprisonment in 1864 for debt, according to the records. He was fined for drunkenness in the same year, and in September 1866 got two months for debt again, it was stated ; probably it was a fraud summons. In 1867 he got two months for false pretences ; was convicted again of false pretences in 1878, and a charge of larceny in 1883 was dismissed. His Honor : Ho seems to be a very oil man — 69. What has he been doing ? Do the police know anything about him ? Mr Haggitt Raid he had a daughter married to a very respectable man, who supportpd him principally. The only work the prisoner himself did was to go iuto the bush to cut clothes props. He had a wife who also worked very hard for him. His Honor : The last conviction was 10 years ago, except one for drunkenness ? Mr Haggitt : Yes ; and there was an interval of 10 years between that and the previous one. His Honor: The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned for four months, and kept to hard labour. Of course, Mr Haggitt, in sentencing him to hard labour it means simply that he is to be kept to work, not necessarily, being an old man, that he is to do the same work as the others, but such work as he is competent for. Mr Haggitt: Mr Phillips will understand that, I suppose, your Honor. CHARGE OF MURDER. Mr Haggitt said that in the case of Charlesworth, charged with murder, his learned friend Sir Robert Stout was going to defend the prisoner, and would like the case fixed for Friday. His Honor said there was no objection to that. UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. Frank Lombardi was charged with having at Dunedin, on Ist May last, unlawfully aud maliciously wounded Norman Le.-lie. , A second couut charged the prisoner with inflicting grievous bodily harm. Prisoner pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr Denniston.

Mr Haggitr, in opening the case for the Crown, said the prosecutor was a boot finish' r, living at Oamaru, and on Ist May he was tern* porarily residing in Dunedin. On the evening of that day he was in the Panama Hotel with a Spaniard named Montelegra, and the prisoner

passed .the door of the room where they were sitting. Shortly afterwards Leslie and Montelegra went out, and, walking towards Dowling street, met two young women, and one of them spoke to Montelegra. Leslie asked who they were, and made some remark to the effect that they might speak to them. They turned round to do so, but before they had time to overtake the women, prisoner rushed across the road with his hand raised and a knife in bis hand, and proceeded to make an attack upon ' Montelegra. Leslie interfered, caught hold of the prisoner and swung him round into the road. Prisoner then attacked him, and it must have been during this time— while he and Leslie were~sparriDg at each other — that the prisoner struck him two blows with a knife. Leslie did not know he had a knife in his hund, or Feel any wound. As frequently happened, It did not cause pain at the time. Directly Monteiegra recovered himself he returned and took the quarrel on his own shoulders, and Leslie went away. The prisoner immediately afterwards made off in auother direction, and it waa only after this that Leslie discovered he was wounded. He then followed the prisoner up, intending to avenge himself, but the latter had got away. Some quarter of an hour afterwards, however, Leslie came across him iv Princes street and punched his head. Mr Denniston : Knocked him down.

Mr Haggitt said this was sometimes the effect of punching a man's head. Leslie wad satisfied with this, but the affair created some excitement and the police heard of it. After Leslie had satisfied himself he went on to Dr MartiD, and while there the prisoner was brought in by a police sergeant and identified by Leslie and Montelegra as the man who had wounded Leslie. Leslie then went away, and as far as appeared was not much the worse for his wounds. The defence the* prisoner set up apparently was that he had a wife who was separated from him, and that one of the 'women the prosecutor and Montelegra were speaking to was his wife. Apparently the offence given which caused him to attack Montelegra was that the latter was speaking to his wife on this occasion. There was some evidence to this effect in the depositions, but beyond that nothing to account for theassault having beeu committed. For the Crown, Mr Haggitt called Norman Leslie, Henry Montelegra, Dr Martin, Sergeant Mulville, and Elizabeth Trainer.

Mr Denniston called Henry Frederick Lawrence and Thomas Keats, both of whom gave the prisoner a good character.

The jury retired at 4 55 and returned to court after half an hour's deliberation.

The Foreman said they found the prisoner guilty of wounding, but in self-defence.

His Honor : Do you mean by that to return a verdict of not guilty, gentlemen ? Perhaps you will tell me that. The Foreman : Yes, your Honor. The prisoner was then discharged.

Tuesday, July 3. FORGERY.

Laurence Rosenberg was indicted for forging on 31st March a certain warrant, and order for the payment of money with intent to defraud. A second count charged the prisoner with uttering the said document. The Prisoner pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr Mao lon aid. Mr Haggitt, in opening the case for the Crown, said the facts as regarded the manner in which the offence was arranged were rather peculiar. On Saturday, 31st March — which was a bank holiday, as was also the Monday following — the prisoner took a cheque to Mr M'Lean, the agent of the Bank of Australasia at North Dunedin. The bank was closed, but the accused represented that it was of the utmost importance that he should open an account that day as he had to go. to Christchurch on the Monday. Ultimately Mr M'Lean consented to receive a deposit and hold it over till the 3rd April, when he would place it to accused's credit. . Then for the first time Mr M'Lean asked the prisoner what he had to deposit, and the latter said a cheque for £42 10s on the Bank of New Zealand, North Dunedin. Accused filled in a pay slip for that amount, and left it with the cheque in Mr M'Lean's hands to be placed to his credit on the Tuesday morning when the bank was opened. At the same time prisoner got from Mr M'Lean a cheque book on the Bank of Austra'asia. On 3rd April Mr M'Lean sent the cheque in due course to be presented at the Bank of New Zealand, and it turned out that no such person as Frederick Fall (the signature on the cheque) was known at the bank or had an account there. He (the Crown prosecutor) should prove that this cheque was in a handwriting, which in the opinion of bankers, who were of course skilled in handwriting, was very much like the writing in the pay slip filled up by prisoner and left with Mr M'Lean. He should further prove that tha very cheque form which was signed " Frederick Fall " had been obtained by the accused on the day on which he went to the bank from a Mr Stokes. The block of Mr Stokes' cheque book would be produced, and it would appear from it that the number of the cheque obtained by the accused from Mr Scokes was identical with the number of that presented at the Bank of Australasia filled in for £42 lCs, and purporting to be signed by a person named Frederick Fall, a person entirely unknown at the bank on which the cheque was drawn. Under these circumstauces, he submitted that they could have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was the duty of the accused to account for Frederick Fall. If the cheque was a genuine one, the accused could have no difficulty in accounting for Frederick Fall ; but if he did not account for him, the duty of the jury was, he submitted, perfectly plain. Evidence having been taken, His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a few minutes' retirement, returned a verdict of "Not guilty."

Mr Haggitt said he would now go on with the charge of false pretences against the prisoner. Mr Macdonald asked that th) 3 might be adjourned until after luncb, as he bad not had an opportunity of looking into the case.

Mr Haggitt intimated that he had no other case he could go on with at the moment. However, he would raise no objection to the delay if Mr Macdonald was not ready.

ASSAULT WITH INTENT.

James Hooper was charged with having, on 2nd May last, feloniousjy wounded with intent to kill Thomas Black. Other counts in the indictment charged the prisoner with having wounded with intent to disable and with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

The Prisoner, when arraigned, said: 1 am perfectly innocent of using any weapon or tomahawk of any kind, but I will plead guilty to striking the man in self-defence.

Mr Solomon defended the prisoner. Mr Haggitt, in his opening, said the evidence would show that the prisoner and Black were neighbours at Anderson's Bay district, and shortly before the occasion on which the assault was committed the prisoner's cows had trespassed on Black's' ground , and eaten two or threa lots of cabbages. The prosecutor bad made a claim- for compensation for the loss of these cabbages, and ou the day m question he went to prisoner's. place to make a formal olalm