SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2258, 10 June 1897, Page 12

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tuesday, June 1. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a common jury.) SENTENCES. Alexander Williams, who pleaded guilty on the previous day to charges of bou--e-bi\3aking at Mosgiel and Dunedin, was brought up for sentence. Mr Hanlon, who ax>peared for the accused, called - Dr Macpherson, Avho gave evidence that he had known accused for six years and had always had the opinion that his intellectual powers were far below par. Some six year 3 ago he had attended the accused, who was than suffering from injuiy to his head, cause i by an accident. He di-i not think this injury caused the want of intellect, but it probably aggravated it. The lad was always characterised by want of " nous." The Crown Prosecutor, in reply to his Honor, said the police reported that accused had been sentenced to seven day 3! imprisonment for a small theft at Mosgiel, but nothing further was known against him. His Honor : The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for six months aud kept to hard labour. The sentence will be the same on each indictment, the sentences to be c Jiicurrant. Thomas Barrett (38), who was found guilty of breaking and entering and of disposing of stolen property, was brought up for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor said that in 1890 the accused was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for attempted murder. The prisoner served seven years, and was then released on the ground that he had gone blind. After he was out it was found that he was not blind at all, bnt had deceived the authorities. His Honor : When would he have got out in the otdinary cour.-e ? The Gaoler (Mr Phillips) replied that the accused gerved seven and a-half years, and .as he had done no hard labour he was not entitled to 'any remission of sentence. The Crown Prosecutor sai I the report of the police was that Barrett was 38 years of age, born j in Ireland, arrived iv the colony in 1881, and Ihat he was a dangerous criminal against whom there were 24 previous convictjo-s. Since he was let oat of prison iv January or Febiuary last he had foeen convicted on three charges of larceny for which he was now serving sentences that would not expire before January of next year. His Honor, in passing sentence, said : Prisoner, your present olFeuce ia not of a serious character, but jour previous career shows that to inflict a short sentence would be of no avail, and I am obliged to inflict a sentence which, for the offencff. is comparatively severe. You will be sentenced to a term of three years' imprisonment v\ ith hard labour ; the sentence to commence at the expiration of your present sentences. BURGLARI AND ASSAULT. James Blue (21) was called upon to answer an indictment containing three counts charging him with having broken and entered the dwellinghouse of Mary Ann Boyle with intent to commit a crime, and with having when in the house stolen £2, the property of Mary Ana Boyle, and 8s the property of Elizabeth Smyth. The Accused pleaded " Not guilty," and was undefended by counsel. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case for the Crown, said that the facts Bhowed that about 7 o'clock on the evening of the Sth of May the prisoner forcibly entered the house in question, lit a lamp, and going into the bedroom where the two women were in bed assaulted and robbed them. Amongat the money which was taken was a one-pound note, which was identified by some numbers on it. This vote had been Riven by prisoner to a pawnbroker from whom he had redeemed some clothes. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Elizabeth Smyth, Mary Ann Boyle, Marion JTrquhart, Robert Michael Marks, Cecilia Woodß, peorge Grant, and Plain-clothes Constable Bodham. Accused aaid, on oath, that on the night in question he was at Boyle's house in Athol place, >»nd Elizabeth gave him a pound note with which io get a couple of bottles of whisky, telling him

he could keep the change. Wrapped up in the I note was a sovereign. ] The Jury retired at 1.5 p.m., and returned in 15 1 minutes with a verdict of " Gailty." j The prisoner when challenged gave his age as I 21, and had nothing to say. The Crown Prosecutor said the report of the police was that the prisoner was a daring thief and an associate of convicted thieves and prostitutes. A large number of convictions had been recorded against him, commencing as far back as November, 1887. Accused had been 13 times convicted of larceny, several' times of vagrancy, i aud once for assaulting the police ; ho had also been charged with burglary hut acquitted. His Honor : The offence of breaking into a house and using violence to these women and taking their money is a serious one although they happen to be membars of the unfortunate class. Your previous career aleo has been of an exceedingly unsatisfactory nature. The sentence of the court is that j'ou be imprisoued for a term of four years ani kept to hard labour. STEALING FROM A DWELLING. William M'Kay, Geoige Rirbs', aud John Liddle were indicted upon a charge of stealing £7 10/ i, the property of Francis Needhani, from his dwelling house' at Jtfatakanui, on the *24th of April. A second count charged them with receiving the money knowing it to ba stolen. Mr Hanlon appeared for H'K<*y and Kirby, vshile Liddle w;s undefended. The Crown Prosecutor in openiuz the case for the Crown said that on the day in question a dance was given at ALUakanui. which was attended by the whole population of tbc district. The prosecutor, who was there, drank more than was go^d for him, and then left for his home. "When on his way thera three men jumped upon him and pulled him ab. ut. They took from hioi the silver in his pocket aud also the key of_ his house, and then accompanied him home. When they got there nue. who was identified as Liddle, sat by him while the others searched the house The meu turned out a drawer in which the prosecutor hat l £7 10s in silver, and in ruply to a questiou of how much they haa found one said " Seven." Prosecutor accused them of taking his money, but was not able to prevent it, and he was pushed back on to his seat and his boots were taken off. Ihc men then went away, and soon after the prosecutor put his boots on ;md went back to the hotel and told the people there ttiat he had been l-obbsd. It would be shown that before this night the accused had no money, being unable to pay for a bed or a meal, and that afterwards they had money, which they spent freely, and that the money was neirJy allin halforowns and floiins Evidence would also be given that the accused had been seen pulling the prosecutor about when he was goiDg to his hut, and seen again returning together shortly before the prosecutor reported that hs had been robbed j Evidence for fcheprosecution was given by l'raucis i Needham, John Pauley, George Monsur, Edward I Jflynu, John William Moore, Felix Donnelly, i Mary Gavan, Warder Glover, Warder Lacey, and Constable Gleeaon. This closed the case for the prosecution. The accused John Liddle elected to give evidence, and, having been sworn, said he had sold lOdwt of gold at the store, and with the pro- | ceeds made certain purchase?. At this time he lived by himself in his hut. Witness complained that at the examination at Blacks the policeman put the answer 3 into the mouth of the prosecutor. Cross-examined : Witness knew the prosecutor : 30 years before, and he believed he had a drink or two with him during the evening. He did not go home with the prosecutor, nor did he know where his hut was. He had not been in the company of the other peraons accused. The Accused desired to call a wituess named William Scott, and had written to the inspector of police to secifre the attendance of the witness ; but the answer wa3 that Scott had left the district and could not be got. Mr Hanlon then addressed the jury on behalf of M'Kay and Kirby, submitting that the evidence adduced against them was of an exceedingly flimsy character and would not sustain a con- ■ victioa I The accused Liddle, addressing the jury, merely I re-asserted hig innocence. Hia Honc^ having summed up, the jury re-

tired at C p.m., and in about 15 minutes returned with a verdict of '' Not guilty." The three accused weie then discharged. The emit adjourned until 10.30 next inorniug (Wednesday). Wednesday, June 2. breaking and exu bring. James Northey and Walter Anderson were indicted upon two charges! of breaking and entering, being charged with having on the 16' th February broken into aud entered the dwelling of John Norton, at Gleuavy, Wairaki, and stolen therefrom one watch, one bracelet, and one scarfpin the property of Margaret Elizabeth Norton ; aud with having on the 4th Mirch, at the NorthEast Valley, received the said jewellery, knosving it to be stolen. Mr Hanlon appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Ilaggitt, in opening the case for the frown, said that the evidence would show that Mrs NortoD, who liver) at Glenavy, left her home on Sunday, the lith Felnuary, to visit her husband, who whs working at Papakaio, some distance away. She did not return until the following Wednesday evening, and during that lime the house was unoccupied. On returning everything seemed right ; there was no sign of the place having been entered or of anything having been disturbed. The doors aud windows were in the same state that they had been left in ; but on the following Monday Mrs Norton, hawing occasion to go to the cb>st of drawers, found that the jewellery she had placed th°re hft'l been taken, and that some other things had been stolen. Information was giveu to the police, and an inquire bbiug made it was found that two Rtrangers had bedn seen in the neighbourhood of Norton's hou^e on the-10t,h February, and that their movements had been rosarded' a-s being of a suspic ous character. These men had a horss and cart, and slept in the cart. '1 wo persons would give positive ■ evidence that the accused were the men sc, j n at Glenavy on the 16th Febroaiy. It would also be proved that rhe accused had hired s. cut from Mr Scurr, in Dunediu, fora trip through thr> country ; that they hud gone to Duntroon and < th^r places, and returned to Dunedin on the ISfcli or i9th of February. The horse was sold aO Blii".skin, and a message was sent to Mr Scur. telling him wherein- could get the cart. The accused live 1 j in the North- LOast Valley after returning. Detectives M'Gratb. ,\nd O'Brien hid themselves at I night near the house, end at daybreak the | accu-ed were seen coming towards it. When they saw the detectives the accused ran away, but were &üb&pquently arre.ited, and were remanded from time to time for nearly 3 muntb. Daring this time the detectives watched the housa in which they had lived, and continued their investigation. One 11101 ning Dotective O'Oonoor noticed that the ground had been di^tmbed by some fowls, and had scratched up a watch, which : on examination was found to be part of the proceeds of a I'obbery that had boon reported to the police. The detective then dug over the grouud, and found a number of other articles which had been reported to have been stolen, amongst them j the other articles of jewellery mi=sed by Mrs Norton. The following witnesses gave evideucj for ihe (Jrown :— Margaret Elizabeth Norton, Patrick Hayes, David Geaney, Thotnns Scurr, jun., j Walter John Yardley, Charles Heath, Detective O'Connor, William Ewart Bell, Sarah Douglas Cassey, and Jlary Ann Longworth. Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury for tbe defence, said that the Crown had failed in their effort to weld together the links of a chain of strong circumstantial evidence. Theie was no doubt that suspicion hung about the accused, but the jury required more than suspicion to justify them in convicting. Mrs Norton, in her evidence, said that hhe did not miss the articles until some days after her return to the house, and that theu the case in which the bracelet aud pin had been was still there. But she admitted that previous to her departure from the house slie did not, know for certain that the jewellery was in the drawer. The case was there, but she did not look to see if the contents were in it. But the case was there after she returned. There was no evidence to negative the presumption that these things may have been taken a considerable time before the date on which the robbery was alleged to have taken place. If Mrs Norton had noticed

that the bracelet and pia were in the case on the day she went away the juiy would be ontitled to draw the infeivacd that the robbery did not t^ko place until after that date. Learned counsel contended that the case for the prosecution had altogetaer broken dowu. The Juiy retired at 10 minutes to 1, and returned shortly after 2 o'clock with a verdict of '' Guilty" agauiat both accused. The prisoners were then arra'gned upon and pleaded guilty to two indictments charging them with breaking and entering the house of William Bell, at Duntroon, and stealing therefrom n watch aud chain and 17a iv money and one 10c piece, and with breaking iuto the dwelling houie of William Cassay, at Duntroon, and stealing therefrom £11 in money and one scarf pin. Wh«;n callsd upon, Northey gave his age as 21, and Anderson as 19. Mr Haggitt, in reply to hia Honor, said there were 13 previous convictions against Northey for various offences. He hud been twice convicted for larceny, three times for breaking and entering, once for being illegally on promises, and several times for vagrancy. Anderson had oDly been convicted for vagrancy and trifling offences. Both weie reported to be the associates of bad characters, and Northey was now undergoing a sentence for vagrancy. His Honor said that Northey was the elder man and bore the worse cliai actor, and therefore he would receive the heavier sentence. Northey would be sentenc-'d to three yeara' and Anderson to two yearb' imprisonment, with hard labour, on each indictment, the sentences to be concurrent and to coinm'jnc'i at the expiration of their present terind of imprisonment. This conclude.l the business, and tbe jurors were discharged, and the court adjourned.