SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2647, 7 December 1904, Page 13

SUPREME COURT.

■■ .». CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, November 22. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at talf-past 10 o'clock. SHEEP-STEALING. Robert Benjamin Whitton (78) -was charged that on or about the 2nd September, at StrathTaieri, he stole a sheep belccging to Dugald Matheson. On another count he was charged ■with steeling a skin. The Accused, jurho was defended by Mr Sim, . pleaded " Not' gnilty." "=• _ The hearing of tiie evidence for the prosecution was resumed^ when the Ciown Prosecutor called. J*mes Eliot Thomson, who had failed to answer to his name on the previous evening. "~ The Crown Prosecutor said it was really not Mr Thomson's- fault that hß^was not present when called on the preyioi^evening. He had been, given to understand that 'he would not be required that day.* && " -1 James Eliot Thomson', of brands for the 'Dunedin district/ described the accused's brand and the prosecutor's, as registered. He had had between 30 and 40 years' experience among ■ sheep; He would say .that the brand in the-' ear was P u * orl after death. If the mark had been put on at the proper time it -would have" been healed. He thought the skin was that of a skin that had not been shorn; but it was^difficult to tell. - ■To 'Mr-Sim : Witness thought it /was the-skin ©f a hogget. ,-\ - . Detective Hill also gave /"evidence. . „ . This closed the case for fche- Crown. Mr- Sim said he would not call evidence. Addressing-" the jury, he said the questioriVit had to determine was whether the accused was guilty of the offence of sheep-steaJing^' or not, and in order to- convict the accused of that offence it' hmd to be eatisfied, in the nisi; place, that the sheep was, aa- alleged by the Crown, the property of the prosecutor, and if it was satisfied of that it had to consider the question of whether the accused stole the sheep or not.' "What was the evidence to prove the ownership of Like sheep? Matheson swore, without the shadow- of » doubt, that the sheep was -his, but he admitted that the only means, by which he was able to swear that the sheep -was his was the brand, on the skin. He, professed to recognise' in that brand his two crosses and a. dot, and en that point -he was corroborated by Stewart,' Thomson, and Guild. He (learned counsel) did 'not know that it required great skill to say whether a brand was distinguishable or not Could the jurymen, using their eyes, recognise traces of the marks that Matheson said he put on the sheep? If the. jury relied eimpuy on, that- test it could not hesitate to cay that Matneson arid his friends had made up their minds, in the first instance, tfaat'the - sheep was Ma-theson's, and were ihen preparedto. see the- brand- in any" black* mark . at "all. But -the case did not rest there. As, against • the- eyideßce^oi Matheson t>nd his witnesses there was the evidence of the" wool experts, - •who_had-an~opportahity of examining^ ths^skin * few days after Detective Hill got possession of it. And what did they say? Tba-t it was absolutely impossible to say what the marks ©n the' skin weje. . That was the evidence of independent men — men who had no interest in the, case; — and if it came to a question of choosing, which to believe he thought the iury - would accept the view of these independent men, confirmed, as it must ha, by their own observations with 'regard to the. skin. The evidence given' by Matheeon was not to be trusted. His anxiety to obtain a conviction Lad run away with him altogether, and made him xrecklese as to what he swore. Learned counsel did not suggest that M-atheson or his friends' would swear what they believed to be untrue, but he put it strongly to the jury that Matheson had made up his mind that the sheep was his property, and he "waa prepared to recognise in everything the evidence of his ownership. The evidence showed that at the first hearing in the Police- Court M&theson was a witness and brought Stewart with him, and when it was suggested that the evidence . did not justify a committal he thought that he. would fortify the .case in the Supreme Court by- calling Thomson and Guild to. give further evidence. When the jury found a man displaying th« anxiety that Matheson displayed, to put ah old. man of 78 in gaol it^was its duty to regard his. evidence with grave suspicion. And _ what did Mr Thomson aay that morning? That no man could say what the mark on the skin was. The whole case for the Grown "rested on the identification' of the sheep by means of the brand.' Matheson admitted that the only way in which he could identify the sheep was by the brand, and Mr Thomson, the Government official — an^entirely independent man — said that no man could say what the mark tras;' and yet, on evidence like that the jury was asked to convict the accused. So. much lor the brand. What about- the ear-mark.? "W_hose. -ear-mark,, was it ? It was .-Whittpn's. It was suggested thai the mark was put on the sheep after death, but on that point they •were contradicted, by one of their own witnesses — tTohn Cahill, — who said the mark might have been put on weeks before death. If the jury were satisfied, as it- must be, that Matheson and his friends had sworn recklessly with regard to the brand, it could not attach any weight in. their evidence about the earmark. ' fi Ma-theson and his friends were prejudiced and unreliable in one matter, their evidence on other matters must be regarded with grave doubt. The position, then, was this: A akin was produced, the brand on which not distinguishable, but there was on it an ear-mark' which -was the ear-mack of th« r accused. The only evidence before the court,' therefore, went to ghow_ that the sheep*, was not Matheson's, but that of the accused, and, that being so, the Crown had failed' to prove that the sheep was Matheson's. The strong probability waa that the sheep was the property of Whitton Eimseilf. Assuming for the moment that there was some evidence that the sheep was Matheson's, what evidence was there that Whitton stole it? The parties were neighbours, and they exchanged sheep at every mustering, so that it was perfectly easy .for sheep belonging to Matheson to have got into Whitton's place. But the' Crown relied on-the fact th&t the accused told Detective Hill- that the skin waa that of fi hogget which he had found in a dying condition, and which he had killed, and they called evidence to 'show that the fikin was not that of a hogget, but tha/b of a Sheep that had been shorn. Thomson and Dinnie, however, both swore that the skin •was that of a hogget, and all the^witnesses ■were agreed that it was most difficult to say whether it was th« skin of a hogget or of a sheep that had beeiT-ahorn. He submitted that it was impossible for the jury to come to any other conclusion tban that the Crown had failed altogether to show that the sheep •was the property of Matheson, anc? that the evidence went rather to show that instead of being Matheson's sheep it was, Whitton's own His Honor uummed up, and the jury retired at 11.45 a.m., returning into court at 12.40 p.m. with a verdict of " Not guilty." The accused was at once discharged.

Thttrsday, November 24. breaking and entering. I/ouis Frank Patterson was charged with, on or about Juna 10, 1903, breaking and entering fi .warehouse & t>e JjgSSH* Sfeffl& SBB^BI

and stealing therefrom one wicker basket, two dressing gowns, two trays, one cedar box, onepiece of silk, 10 pairs of shoes, one writing desk, six blouses, two jackets, one jewel box, one silk scarf, two pairs of stockings, one pair of gloves, four skirts, and a hat, the property ! of Helen GreensilL A' second count charged j accused with having stolen the goods, and a j third count wiih having received them, know- j ing them to have been stolen. I Mr Hanlon appeared for the accused, whose plea was " Not guilty." The Crown Pre-secutor (Mr Fraser), in opening, said the accused was charged with stealing certain articles from a Crown warehouse on the wharf under the following circiimstances: — On June 10 of last year accused waa employed as a hand on -dredge 222. In the ordinary course of events he would be off duty at 8 o'clock in the evening prior to the theft, ! and go on duty a$ 4 o'clock next morning. On June 10, in tthe warehouse mentioned, was certain passenger's luggage from the Gracchus, ' the vessel quarantined on account of smallpox. On the night of Juna 10, the warehouse was broken into and the goods disappeared, and all trace was lost of them at tha time, and nothing more was heard of the matter until comparatively recently, when Detective Cooney had occasion to arrest accused in August last on another, charge, and searched his house, and noticed in the front room a- carved tray and 'admired it, and accused said he had daryed it himself. On further search the detective found a camphor-wood box containing clothe ing. Two days later Detectives Livingstone and Cooney visited accused's house * with a- ; search, warrant, a list of the missing articles was- read to the accused, and' he was aiked .how he came m possession of the box, tray, etc. The explanation he gave was that he was going to work one morning at 4 o'clock over 12 months ago, and when he got to Morgan's Baths he saw on the foreshore this box, which was open and contained a lot of clothing, and the tray was also in it. He , left it there and went to work, and on his return picked it- up and look it home. The initials " L.P." on the brass plate of the box accused admitted having put there himself. „ Apcxissd was told that he would be charged with the theft of this property, and he -said, " Cculd you not make it having stolen property in my possession?" Considering how the locality at Morgan's Baths was overrrun "with children, etc., it waa a preposterous suggestion that the box should have lain there so long undisturbed, .and if a man fo.und articles so obviously of value it was Iris duty ' to communicate with the proper authorities. ■. -Helen Greensill depos-sd that 3/bo arrived^in Dvr.edin last year by the Gracchus on May 12, being quaraixtired nearly six weeks. All her Itiggage was placed in .Mr Ross's charge. She did not get it all back, as a hat box, a xedar box, and a big- wicker basket were missing when she got the resrt of her luggage back. The value of the articles lost would be about £50. ■ Witness identified the articles produced as hers with two or three exceptions. The articles "were not in the condition in which she had last seen them, and some had been altered into other garments. Alexander'Eoss, clerk in the, employ of the . Drainage Board, and in Juna, 1903, Harbour _ Boar-d tally clerk, said he knew that Mts , GreensilTs luggage was removed from the j Gracchus and placed in the charge of the j Customs Department. Witness last saw the box produced on June. 10 at 5.30 p.m., and on the following morning at 7.45 he found the office door at the shed burst open, and certain articles were, missing. Evidence was also given by Robert Rutherford Douglas, engineer of dredge 222, and by Detectives - Cooney and Livingstone., which clcsed the case for the Crown. Mr. HarJon said he' proposed to raise the question as to whether accused could be called oh at this stage to account for possession of these articles. He was charged with breaking into these premises, but there was no evidence as to this to go^pefore the jury. The articles were not traced for more than 14 months. His Honor: He admits having them in his possession. ' Tho Crown Prosecutor: He admits having had them in his possession over a year. Mr Hanlon said the authorities seemed to indicate that accused could not be called on to account "for the possession of these articles unless they were recently stolen. His Honor : - He admits having had them in his possession practically from the time of the robbery, but denies having stolen them. If he .had held his tongue and said nothing you would have had a stronger case. Mr Hanlon >aid he. would call evidence. The

defence was the sania as accused made to/the 'police in the 'first instance — namely, that he found-lhese things lying on the foreshore one , morning wet and dirty, and his wife would state that her husband, after setting out for work one morning, returned shortly afterwards with some articles, which she found when she got up, and which her husband had evidently brought home. In view of the fact that the detectives had xoM him the property was

stolen accused's admission to them meant nothing. It might be that accused did not take the -necssary steps to find the owner of th'« property, but if he took the property innocently, as he explained, he was entitled' to an acquittal. He would call accused to give evidence.

Accused (sworn) said that in June of last year he was employed as a dredge hand, and

left for work before 4 o'clock one morning. On the foreshore between Morgan's Baths and the old Harbour Board sheds he noticed the

box. He jumped down to get the box, and 'noticed a bundle alongside it, and he took both home, and told his wife he had made a bit of a find.. Tie then went to work. The first visit of the detectives to his house in August last was in respect to a charge of theft of marine articles from the Harbour Board, and he was fined 40s on that charge. The bundle when picked up by him waa wet on tibe outside, and the box was lying empty, upside down with the lid opsn. Cross-examined: The statement made by the detectives that he told them that ho left the

box on the foreshore and went to work, and picked it up on returning was not true. He did not tell the dietectiye that he carved the tray. It was a clear morning when he came across the bundle. He r..-ever suspected this waa property stolen from the Gracchus, and did! not know of the theft. Emily Patterson, wife of accusScl, deposed that after setting out for work early one morn-

ing her husband came back, told her he had found a box and a bundle of " duds " and went

off to work again. On getting up she found the box and bundle containing the articles pro* duced. The outside articles were muddy and wet, and witness washed them out. Cross-examined: She did not know of the theft of Gracchus luggage. In addressing the jury, Mr Hanlon submitted that it was proved conclusively that accused did not break into the premises named, but that some one else- evidently did and cast

aside the articles, which accused found as he

explained. He submitted that the story told" by accused and his wife was a perfectly reasonable one, and was entitled to belief. There was further no evidence to indicate that accused: had been guilty of receiving the goods from those who had stolen them..

The Crown Prosecutor submitted that accused's story was not to be credited 1 , that his behaviour was not of an innocent man, and that he wag contradicted on every important point.

tired at 1.5 p.m., and after 40 minutes brought m a. verdict o-f " Guilty " on the third count, that of receiving property knowing the same to have been stolen. Prisoner gave hi 3 age as 28 years, and had nothing to say. The Crcwn Prosecutor said the prisoner waa 2S years of age, a native of England, and a seaman and labourer, having arrived in Auckland as a youth. On August 18, 1904, at Dunedin, he was fined -10s, or, in default, a month's imprisonment for theft of copper piping and rope. A sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labour, was- imposed. INCENDIARISM. Thomas Beresford Matthews was charged with, on September 29, 1904, at Dunedin, wilfully and without justification or excuse setting fire to the bottling" store of Messrs Powley and Keast, in Stafford street, and on a second count with wilfully setting fire to the same building on September 22, 1904. Mr Hanlon apeared for the accused, who pleaded " Not guilty/ The Crown Prosecutor said accused was charged with having on two occasions set fire to the property of Messrs Powley and Keast. The evidence that would be led would show in the first place that accused was the only person of whom it was at all probable that had set fire to the premises, and, apart from that, accused made sr statement or confession in writing which would be given in evidence, and in which he admitted not only that he did fire this building on two separate occasions, but that he also caused fires at M'Callum and Co.'s premises and at Macfie's stables — one of them an extensive fire. The case would present some peculiar features. In the first place there was the youth of the accused, who must be regarded as of a somewhat rare type, though a type by no -means unknown in the criminal courts, and probably there was no more dangerous class of criminal in the community. The type was generally that of a young person, who, utterly regardless of consequences and out. of a spirit of mischief, wantonly set fire to a building yielding to an impulse not necessarily absolutely irresistible. From such a type the cornpunity must be protected, and if the facts were as alleged, the only possible hope that this lad should be restored to his normal state, and that this tendency he' had developed should be checked, lay in his having some healthy employment, under restraint, for a lengthened period. Charle* Edward Keast deposed that accused had been in the employ of his firm for about two years. On September 22 a fire took place on the premises in the ceiling at the far end of the bin room. On the 29th witness, work having been knocked off at 12 o'clock, was informed that there was a fire, and went across to the store and found a fire in the bin room i at about 12.30. Straw waa burning on both j occasions. The damage from the two fires : would be. about je2ooo. . ■

John Bradley, .foreman ,at Powley and Keast's, said that on September 22, about 12.30, accused passed from the packing room to the bin room, but witness didj not see hica come out. 'Five minutes later witness went into" the bin room with Mr Keast and anobher man, but did, not see accused there. Shortly afterwards a fire was discovered in the ceiling over the bin room. On September 29 witness saw accused about 12.20 pass from the packing room into the bin room. There was no one else in the bin room, and after about two minutes accused came out of the bin room rather hurriedly. A few minutes later fire was discovered amoEg 60 or 70 bales of straw in the bin room.

Cornelius Bowie, employed at Powley and Keast's, said that on September 22," at about 12.40, he saw accused go into the bin room, but did not see him return. On September 29, at about 12.30, when witness got back, a fir© waa in progress. He saw accused at this time, and he was laughing. Percy Ibbotson, office boy at Powley and Kea-st's, and Joseph M'Cluskey, also employed by that firm, gave evidence, the latter stating that accused was away about fovir minutes just before the alarm was given for the second fire. Captain Mitchell (City Fire Brigade superintendent) also gave evidence. Detective Livingstone stated that on September 22 he made investigations relative to a fire at Powley and Keast's, and was still investigating the matter on the 29th, when an- 1 other fire occurred. From information received he saw accused at the fire, and called him into an office. Accused admitted that he went into the bin room a few minutes before the fire, 1 and witness told him he was not satisfied with his conduct, and he would have to gO with him to the police station. Accused said he struck a match and threw it down before he came out, but put his foot on it. Hs said that might have set the place on fire, but h« said before that that he did not set the place on fire. Witness" took accused under arrest. At the police station accused made a statement to the chief detective, and. made a second statement next morning.. To Mr Hanlon: Questions were put the accused and- the answers were written down, and accused was asked to sign the papers. Chief Detective Herbert deposed that on September 29 accused made the statement produced, at the police station, and signed it. Next morning accused made a second statement in which he admitted setting fire- to Powley and Keast's premises twdce, to M'Callum's building, Macfie's stables, and twice to the house of his parents. No threat was made to accused to make him make these statements.

Cross-examined : Accused was questioned, his answers written down, and -he was asked to sign them. Witness and Detectives Cooney and I/ivingtone were present when the first statement was made. Interrogated by Mr Hanlon as to the questioning of accused and the talcing of his statements, witness said he would_ like to explain to the court the reason for his action in this matter. He was not aware that Detective Livingstone had arrested accused at first, though, if he had" known it would nob have influenced his action.

His Honor: I suppose you thought it rdgh.t in the yublio interest, though it is a practice always considered to be wrong. The point is this, that you were doing what I could not do here, or a magistrate do in the lower court. To question an accused person after his arrest, though in a much lesser degree, is something the same as putting a person to the torture. Detective Herbert: I quite understood all that at the time, your Honor.

His Honor: I don't think you were right in doing it, although your motives were gootf. Asking L person under arrest questions with respect to the subject of the charge is completely wrong in principle, and it is hot for police officers to make exceptions on their own responsibility. However, I quite understand your position. You thought it your duty to do it, and did it. Detective Herbert said he had not done it particlarly dn the interests of the present case. He considered the- accused a maniac on the subject of fire, who must, in the publio interest, be prevented from further action.

His Honor said he reoognised there was something exceptional about the circumstances. However, if the -witness hone-stly thought it was his duty- there was an end to the matter. Witness (continuing) said he was satisfied: that the first statement was untrue and the second true. The boy was not, in his opinion, a bit frightened, and did not seem to' realise the seriousness of his position. It was impressed on him tnat the truth was wanted, but he was not told that if he made a clean breast of it lie would get off much moye

f The Crown Prosecutor said he proposed to tender rebutting evidence as to the contention that the statements made by accused re other fires wag incorrect, and to tender evidence connecting accused with these other offences. j His Honor ruled that this was permissible. I James Macfie, coal dealer, deposed that his stable was on fire on Augixst 12, and accused J came to him the next day and said he had given the alarm, and he spoke about, and received, a reward of 5s from vJitness. William John M'lntyre, grocer, gave evsI dence as to having on the night of August 17 noticed a fire at M'Caluum's mill in Crawford street, and hearing the sound of some one running away. He ran and gave the alarm himself, and after so doing met accused, who 1 was in a very excited state, and asked if the fire was not at M'Callurn's. I Captain Mitchell and Constable Quill also ' gave evidence. ! Constable Osborne deposed that he was j watch-house keeper on the night of accused's arrest, and duning the night, and in consej quence of something accused said, witness sent j for the chief detective as Matthews was making a statement, but the chief detective did not take the statement then. Cross-exaininied : He did not interrogate accused in the watch-house under instructions from a superior officer : he was merely requested to pay particular attention to any admission the accused might make. This closed the case for the Crown, and at this stage the court adjourned till 10.30 next morning. Fkedat, Novejibeb 25. | INCENiJIAEISM. Hearing of the charge against Thomas Beresford Matthews of having, on September 29 and on September 22 (second count) wilfully act fire to the bottling store of Messrs Powley and Keast in Hope street was resumed. Mr Hanlon apptared for the accused, who pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Hanlon, addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, said the onus of proof lay with the, Crown, who had to prove that the accused wilfully set fire to Powley and Keast's premises. The fact that accused was present atJ;hese two fires waa just as consistent with his innocence as with his guilt, for he was an employee of the firm, and it was nis duty to be there, so nothing could be gathered from that fact. The only other evidence adduced" against accused directly bearing on the Powley and Keast fires was that attached to the boy's confession; but the jury had heard the manner in which that confession was obtained, and it was his duty to indicate what reliance he considered should be placed on that confession. His Honor had the previous day pointed out' that it was looked on as reprehensible that the police sliould interrogate anyone in their custody on such a charge. They could judge for" themselves of the character and mental capacity of the accused and .form an idea how much the police could prevail on him to make any statement they wanted. Detective Livingstone, before the boy's arrest, made inquiries from. Rim ait the fire, as he was quite justified in' doing, and, as he suspected .him, then took him under arrest, and after that, as he had . indicated, it was a bad and improper principle that accused should' be questioned. However, shortly afterwards the boy and three detectives were found in the detective office, and the boy waa interrogated, and the only object of the action of' the police could be that they wanted, if possible, to wring from from, accused a confession of guilt — there could be no disguising that. The first statement made by me boy was not good enough, and that same nighty at 11 o'clock, a constable went to the boy, oonversed with him in his cell, found he was willing to make a statement, and thought it would be more comfortable to lake him to the watchhouse, where he could no doubt wheedle from him a confession. The constable said he was specifically asked by the chief detective to take particular notice of any admission accused might make. In the watchhouse, hewever, this weakling of a boy was induced by the constable to make a statement, and the latter immediately went for Detective Herbert, go that there might be corroborative evidence. The chief detective came in, and, in conversation, the boy made admissions something similar to those in the second confession read. Next morning Detective Herbert-got the boy into his private room, and a statement was written out and signed by accused, in which he admitted connection with all tho fires. He. need not say that it was a most unusual thing for a prisfcmer to be entertained by a constable in ' the police station watch-house at 11 o'clock at night with tea and a cigarette. Tho circumstances therefore surrounding this confession must be very carefully considered, and if the jury came to the conclusion that the statement was so obtained »s to cause any doubt as to its truth, and were not satisfied thab the other evidence was sufficient upon which to convict accused, then he was entitled to a discharge. In order that the possibility of accident in respect to Powley and Keast's. fires might be rebutted, evidence had been put in by the Crown as to other fires accused was alleged to have caused, but the Crown Prosecutor's argument in this connection he considered the most extravagant ever put to a jury. As to motive, the only suggestion the Crown oould make was that the fires were caused in pure wantonness, and the absence of any motive whatever should weigh &trong i ly in accused's favoitr. His Honor, in the course of his summing up, said, his observations in regard to the lad's confession would apply not only to the questions asked by the detectives but also to the questions asked accused by the _ constable during the night. According to the Continental systems of law, it was a regular part of procedure that a person arrested should be examined by some officer authorised to do so. That was, however, wholly alien to the spirit of Eng'li&h criminal procedure, where neither police officer nor anyone else, after the accused person had 1 been arrested, had any right to put that person to the question. If the person arrested wished to make or volunteered a confession, the duty of the police officer was to take it, and give him every facility for making a confession. That was, however, a very different thing from administering interrogations to the accused person. NeitJher the judge before whom the accused was tried nor the magistrate who committed him for trial had any right to ask him' questions connected with his offence and much, less had a police officer in private such a right, The fact that the crime with which tie accused happened to be charged was a Serious one, or that the accused was proba-bly a person dangerous to society, was no reason why an exception should' be made froni the general rule. Every criminal was more or less dangierous to society, and it was certainly not in the discretion of the police officer, because he considered a particular criminal was a dangerous person, and thought it important" to get a confession of guilt from him, to obtain that confession b; means authorised neither by law vox by 6ustom, and whicih were completely contrary to all the notions of English criminal procedure." He said this not with a- view of censuring tlje officers in the present case. He had not the slightest doubt that they acted in accordance wiih what they believed to be their duty and in the furtherance of the public interest. He would be very loth to censure any man who acted under a mistaken idea of duty, and his observations were made not with a, view of censuring, but -with a view of I .EjeveatiDg anything of the kiad happening in,

future. But though, the procedure was as hi said objectionable, it did not render evidenci obtained through that procedure inadmissible and it was for the jury to weigh that evidence not only by itself but in conjunction with th<

rest of the- evidence, in estimating whether or not the evidence was trustworthy. The -jury must bs very careful, and he would be very scrry if, because of tho observations he had made, they were to reject that confession. That was certainly not his intention in making the observations he bad. It was for the jury to look at the other evidenca, and then consider j what weie the probabilities of this confes- I sion being true. Looking at the accuseds | description of the different fires it seemed difficult to suppose that Detective Herbert could have put Ihe words into his mouth or have -suggested ttie answers to him. Ihe statement was read over to him and signed, and he must have understood the meaning oi it, "and nothing in the confession appeared inconsistent with the evidence of the other witnesses m connection with any of these fires. After a retirement of about a quarter of an hour the jury returned and gave a verdict of " Guilty," the foreman stating that as they .believed it to have been an act of folly they recommended the prisoner to mercy.

Prisoner gave his ago as 20 years. I Mr Hanlon sai 1 the accused was a fatherless boy, who assisted in supporting his widowed mother. He was a delicate lad, as was apparent not omy from his physique but from his .conduct also, and had for the past two or three years been an out-patient of the Dunedin Hospital, having been attended for chest complaint. He would suggest that perhaps "something eculd be done, if he was sent to prison, to keep him apart from the ordinary criminal class. " The Crffwn Prosecutor, in reply to his Honor, said thera was nothing known previously against the prisoner. He had a stepfather. He understood that the boy would, if sentenced to im- | prisonment, be pent at once to tree-planting j m the North Island, which would probably j be the very best treatment he could get. His Honor: So far as the interest of the . public i& concerned, it is not safe for him j to bs at large at present. The case shows ; he has, to say the least, a mental twist, though ' mavba as he grows older he 'will grow out of - it. " The best thin'-j for the public woiild be I that b,3 phould be kept under restraint of some kind, and it would be the best thing , for himself also, provided he has some healthy , occupation. j The Crown Prosecutor: His case could be \ watched and representations made to the j executive if he showed signs of mental im- ( provement. . His Honor : That is so ; he might be released ; at a latee date. It is really a case where the j principles of the^ indeterminate sentence might very well apply. I have no power to apply it • however. ' The Crown Prosecutor: If he has a chest ; weakness he would be in a very good climate ', and under special supervision, and if your - Honor instructs me I will make special repre- j sentation in this case. • I His Honor: I think it would be useless to , pass a short sentence of any kind. I thing it j best to r>ass a comparatively long sentence. If he is watcfied and his mental condition im- , 'proves and it, is safe he should be let loose ! at an earlier date, that would be a matter for the executive. -, ■'■■'* L The CroWn Prosecutor : It would be in effect an indeterminat' sentence. ■ ' " i Mr Hanlon said the difficulty was to find • who was to make the representations on the i prisoner' 3 behalf; once a prisoner was safe in gaol he was forgotten. The Crown Prosecutor said that if his Honor • wculd allow or instruct him he would see to that, and would prepare a special report of the caso that would be forwarded to the proper authorities and put on record, and he would submit this first for approval to his Honor ana Mr Hanlon. . ■ The Crown Prosecutor's suggestion met wuh ■ approval. \ His Honor : There is no notion of passing a ! vindictive sentence: all one wants to do is to ( protect the public and do what is for the , best interests of the boy. The prisoner will , be sentenced to five years' imprisonment with , hard labour. It is best, to pass this sentence, , and that the Crown. Prosecutor should make | a formal reccrd setting out the facts. - Uther charges against accused of wilfully ■ setting fire to Mache's stable and M'Calium s . property were lead, but not proceeded with, accused pleading " Guilty " in each instance.