CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, November 26.

Otago Witness, Issue 2437, 28 November 1900, Page 30

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, November 26.

'(BeforeJEis Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at half-" past 10 o'clock. 1 *" GSAND TORY. The following gentlemen composed the Grand! JuTy: — William Henderson '(foreman), Georga Blyth, Joseph 'Braithwaite, k George Graham * Cripp's, Frederick Alfred, Cutten, Edward HuimaHart, John' Hopkins, Alexander Xirkland/jun.,, Robert Lochhead, Walter John Meek, LouisMendelsohn, William Alexander Moore, Oc-o^ge Boberts, Charles Speight, Bernard Robert Stock, William Taylor, Norman Melville Kixkealdy, John Sinclair Thomson, Henry Sdwardt Williams, Leslie Robert Wilson, Charles George Ziele. ■ ' ' his hoicob's chaege. His Honor addressed the Grand Jury in th<s following terms: — Mi Foreman and gentleman, of the Grand Jury, — You will have to consider; this morning charges of various kinds again sfe 17 persons. I do not think that any of the* cases present any special difficulty. There is one case of a very serious nature, a, very sadl case — a, case of murder of a husband by ai* wife. If the evidence adduced brought beforet you corresponds, as I presume it will, with tha depositions that I have" perused it will be your duty to find a true bill. The other cases arei very much of the same kind as those which: generally come before a grand jury here. Thera are two cases of assault, and there are two cases of forgery. There is a case where a clerk is charged with making false entries in a book 'of account. That is made an offence by section; 236 of the Code, which provides that everyona who is a clerk who with intent to defraud, makes any false entry in any material particular: in any book of account is guilty of an ofience.. There is a case of receiving stolen goods. Thereis 'a case of -false pretences. All the rest o£ the cases are charges of theft of various iinds.. " Amongst them are two charges where clerksi are accused of liaving appropriated money, tha. property of their employers, having received it^ and having failed -to account for it. You will 1 , remember, gentlemen, your duty is not to decide ultimately as to the guilt or innocence of th» accused, but simply to ascertain whether tha , evidence brought before you makes out a case which, in your opinion, the accused is called? upon to answer. If that is so, you will find su true bill. If you think in any case there is notr sufficient evidence for the accused to be called! upon ta answer, the bill should be ignored. .Gentlemen, if you will retire to your room 'the bills will be laid before you. TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned by the Grand Jury; in the following cases : — Sarah Jones, theft ;, Charles Hendrick, theft; Con O'Brien, forgery* and uttering; James Palatchie, theft; Edwardi Horton, receiving stolen property (two charges) ;, Eeginald Findlay Haskell; theft; James Johnston, assault ; Sarah Fogo, murder ; John! Norris, false pretences ; Percy Henry Day, theft '■(three charges); George "Knight Noble and! Henrietta Noble, theft; William Nicholls, assault; Robert Cameron M'l^enzie, alias Robert Cameron, alias Robert Fraser, forgery and: uttering ; James M'Laren, theft ; William Tyront Ferrar, falsifying accounts. THE CROWN' PROiSECUTOB. All the cases were conducted by the Crowtt Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Fraser). THEFT OF HARNESS. Sarah Jones was charged with, on the 15tK August, at Bannockburn, stealing* set of springcart harness, the property of David Hurley. The accused, who pleaded Not guilty, was defended by Mr S. Solomon. , The Crown Prosecutor said the accused re sided between Cromwell and Bannockburnv The harness belonged to a farmed named David Murley, of Cromwell Flat. The prisoner wa3 charged with stealing the harness, and alsoi with having received it, knowing it to have been stolen. The facts of the case were these :F On the 15th August last Mr Murley had a seff of spring-cart harness in liis stable. He sawv it on the evening of the 15th August, and!

missed it on the following morning. It was spring-oart harness with a draught collar. A few days before the harness was missed the ■accused came 'to Mr Murley's for the purpose of •buying potatoes. The next heard of the harness was in November, when a search warant was ■executed by Constable Dale, stationed at Cromwell. He then found hanging up in a back -room of the prisoner's house a number of pieces of harness. The constable asked her where she got them, and she said she got them some years' ago from a man who was known as " threefingered Bill." The harness subsequently - ,iurned out to belong to Mr Murley. Mi Solomon: Well, is that so? That is the •whole question. The Crown Prosecutor said: Well, Mr Murley claimed that the harness was his, with the exception of the collar. Then, afterwards, the draught collar was found in the possession of Mr John Taylor, mail contractor, of Bannock"burn, who said that in September or November he exchanged a collar with accused. He gave" 1 iher a buggy collar and she gave him a draught collar, which was alleged" by Mr Murley to belong to him. There were certain peculiarities in the harness that various witness would swear to. , Evidence was given for" the prosecution "by David Murley (farmer, Cromwell Flat), JMatthew. Henry Dawsoih (ho'telkeeper, Cromwell), Thomas Waddell (saddler, Cromwell), Robert Wishart '(blacksmith,, Cromwell), John Taylor {mail contractor, Bannockburn), and Constable Dale: Mr, Solomon, addressing the jury for the defence, said it was a pure question of identification of the harness. The woman, who had lived in Cromwell' and its neighbourhood for over 20 yearS, was employed in the ordinary way. Amongst other things she kept a boarding house, and her children were at work, and she also carried water for household purposes. She had been using the harness, which Mr Murley said belonged to him,' for 16 years. It was •given to her, or to her husband (who was now dead) in payment for a debt by a man named " three-finger-ed Bill." It -was used in the ordinary way, with no concealment whatever, as was shown by the fact that part of it was lent to the mailman 'of the district, in whose possession it -would be seen by very many people. If the woman had wished the harness to be seen she could not have given it to a person ■who would show it off better. Frederick Jones, son of the prisoner, said the breeching and reins belonged to a man named Crow, and the rest of it had been in Ms mother's possession for 16 years. It was given "to her by a man witness knew when he was a little fellow — a man known as William Jones, Inown as " Three-fingered Bill." Crow had lent the breeching and reins to his (witness's) another. Mr Solomon said he hardly thought it was necessary to ask for an adjournment *to produce Crow. Peihaps the Crown Prosecutor would admit that Crow, if called, would say the breeching and reins were his. The Crown Prosecutor said his information -was that, Crow was a man of repute, and he -would assent tg the Course suggested by his learned friend. The prisoner also gave evidence, Mr Solomon said he would have liked to call "the prisoner's daughter, ■ only she was too ill to attend. -Addressing the jury, learned counsel submitted that there was no reason to doubt the prisoner's word. Her actions were inconsistent with guilt and consistent with innocence, and when it came to be a question of identifying 'this " old harness there must be a grave doubt. *■ s, , The Crown Prosecutor replied that his learned Iriend's argtiment would have force in it if the case were confined to ,the breeching; but there were the collar, -the saddle, and, the hames, all carrying marks of wear and mending, and if these did not belong to Mr Murley the resemblances were extraordinary. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 12.57. At 1.20 the jury returned with a verdict , of "Not guilty," and the prisoner was discharged. THEFT FROM THE PEBSON. Charles Hendrick (25) was charged with, on the 12th November, at Cromwell, stealing from the person of Thomas Hodges the sxun of £20 in money. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said this was one of the somewhat common cases of robbing a man while he was under the influence of liquor. In the court below two men were charged ; Bryant "being discharged, and accused committed for trial. All that the jury had to-be satisfied of was that the accused participated either in the robbery or in receiving the proceeds. If he did, it was immaterial that the other man •was not present to answer for his share. The jury would have very little difficulty in coming to a. speedy decision. Hodges, a rabbiter on the Kawarau station, went into Cromwell with nine .El-notes and a cheque for £13 6s 7d in his pocket. He visited various hotels, and at one he had a drink or two. Going oxitside he -was overcome by the night air and laid down. Accused and the other man helped him inside, and while there the money*was taken from him. Accused's own account of-the matter was that Bryant handed him the pocketbook, that he (accxised) had it in the stable, and that they arranged to divide the money at the Arrow laces. Accused, Tiowever, got locked up, and while in custody he secreted .-fill in a mattress in his cell. This amounted' practically to a ■ confession. Evidence for the prosecution was given by 'Thomas Hodges (rabbiter), Edward Joseph M"Nulty (carrier), Susan Stuart (hotelkeeper), Chun Dun (farmer), Constable Dale, Constable Tracey, and Sergeant M'Kenzie.' Accused, who elected to give evidence on his ■own behalf, deposed that when Bryant and he were putting the rugs on Hodges 'on the sofa, Bryant slipped his hand behind Hodge's back and handed him a pocketbook, saying " Here you are. Away you get with this and "hide it." Accused took the pocketbook and hid it in the stable. His Honor, in summing up, said putting the "best construction they could upon the accused's story, he was guilty of receiving the stolen property. The Jury, without retiring, returned a verdict -of " Guilty." The accused asked io be placed on probation as he intended to lead a better life. The Crown Prosecutor stated that in 189S the accused was convicted of obscene langitage •* and of assault and fined 20s. In May, 1899, he was fined for being drunk and disorderly. On the 26th June of this year he was fined 20s for assault, and 5s for riding in a tramcar without paying his fare. Ine police reported that he was a jockey of indifferent character. On one occasion he attempted to commit suicide, but the case was dismissed. The accused was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour, and an order ■was- made that the £12 found in the police cell shquld be restored. EBCBIVING STOI/EiT PROPERTY. Edward Horton (30) pleaded Guilty to * receiving boots stolen from Sargood, Son, and Ewen's, and to receiving ink pencils, pens, and a travelling bag stolen from Pergusson and Mitchell's. Mr Solomon, t who appeared for the prisoner, said this was a very bad case, and he felt he could do little else for the prisoner than throw him upon the mercy of the court. Prisoner ■was a man who had hitherto borne an irreproachable character. He had a young wife and family, and it was very ""difficult indeed to •sficount for how he had got into the terrible

'position he was in at present. He would ask his Honor to extend to him as much leniency as he could for the sake of his wife and family. His Honor, in addressing the prisoner, said: ] " As your counsel has said, this is a very bad case. You deliberately set yourself to entice young lads to commit crime. I do not wish to pass a vindictive punishment, but my duty compels me to pass a sentence which will effectually deter other persons from doing the same thing. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned for the term of five years and kept to hard labour on each charge; the sentences to take effect concurrently.' - ' ] STEALING- A WATCH. ; James Palatchie was charged with stealing a watch from the person of James Johnston at Roxburgh on September 14. There was also a second count charging the accused with simply stealing the watch, while a third coxint charged him with receiving the stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen. 'i'he accused, who pleaded Not guilty, was undefended. The Crown Prosecutor said the prosecucor in this case was a journalist residing at Rox-, burgh. On the 14th September he was in Herron's Hotel playing billiards and drinking. His statement was that he afterwards met Eady and another man who resembled the accused. One of them asked him for a match, and he turned back and gave him one. Then there appeared to be a little horse-play, and as they were walking up the street they were jostling each other. All at once Johnston felt a hand across his body, and missed his watch. The man who resembled the accused went up the Coal Creek road. Johnston followed him, and said, " You have stolen my watch." He also took out his knife and threatened to knife the man if he did got give up the watch, but the man went on. The watch was afterwards found on the accused, who said he picked it up: Evidence was given for the prosecution by James Johnston (journalist), Alexander Eady (groom), and Constable Fouhy. The prisoner elected to give evidence. He said: I was going up the road with Mr'Johnston and found he wanted to wrestle with me. He started pulling me about. I told him to go home and go to hsd, as ho -was not fit io be •wrestling with anybody. It -then came into my mind that I had left a bridle at the G-old-fiel'ds Hotel, which I went back to get. I took 'the other side of the road to keep out of Mr •Johnston's way. On coming back from the j hotel I saw something glittering on the foolpath, next Seal's store. I struck a, match to see what it was, and to my surprise I saw it was a watch. I put it in my pocket. I went home and got into bed. In the morning I had no time to look round for an owner, as I had to feed and hat-ness my horses . and go to work, and as it was Saturday I knew 1 would find an owner at nieht. I brought the watch down on Saturday bright. I asked two or three if they had heaid of anyene looking for a watch. They said " No," and the next man I met was Neil Macdonald. I told him I had found a watch, and was looking for an owner. I took him into the light of a shop and let him look at the watch. I said, " What's the best thing to do with it, Neil — keep it or advertise for the owner?" He said it was not j worth advertising. I did not notice Johnston at the time. 'I intended to looE Eady up to I find out who was the man who was with us the night before. , I was having a yarn to one or two I knew, and while doing so Constable Fouhy came in and called me to one" side. He said he wanted to see me, and I went with him. He said, " Have you a watch on you-, Palatchie. that does not belong to you?" I told him I , had, and that I had been looking for an owner for it. I also told him where I found it. He ' thought for a while and then said, " I think I will have to lock you up. Yon had better' come along with me." He searched me at the station. In my }3ocket I had 14s 6d, a pocket knife, a mouth organ, and a few cigarettes. ' By the Crown Prosecutor: I have been three months at Roxburgh. I could not tell the names of the men I spoke to. They were strangers to me. Johnston wrestled with me in two or three places, but as far as I know he did not fall down. I heard. Eady's evidence and it is correct, except what he says about my hands being close to Johnston's clothes. Eady's hands were closer to him than mine ' were. The reason I did not take the watch to the police was that I > thought I would get i an owner at night. I am not in the habit of finding things, and it never occurred to me | to take things to the police. If I had met the constable in the morning I have no doubt I ' would have given the watch to him. I am 24 years of age. In answer t6 the Registrar, prisoner said he brought no witnesses with him; he could not afford it. Constable Foully was supposed to I see that the evidence given by his witnesses at Roxburgh came down to Dunedin. The Crown Prosecutor said the prisoner's witnesses refused to be bound over. His Honor said he did not understand why they should have refused. It was agreed that the evidence given at Roxburgh by Neil Macdonald and Robert Cockburn should be laid before the jury. His Honor srimmed up, and the jury retired at 5.10 p.m., returning at 5.15 p.m. with a verdict of " Not guilty." The prisoner was -Jien discharged. The court rose at 5.15 p.m.