SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Volume 23, Issue 2684, 23 August 1905, Page 49

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, August 21. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat at 10.30. THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury was constituted as follows : James C. Thomson (foreman), Alexander Crow, James Dick, William F. Edmond, Leslie W. Harris, John A. Hopcraft, David S. Jolly, John Lethbridge, Frederick W. Lyders, John C. M'George, Walter O. Millar, James H. Nimmo, Frank Oalcden, James L. Passmore, Thomas Ross, Arthur Sidey, Charles R. Smith, Allan Steven, and John Sinclair Thomson. his honor's charge. His Honor addressed the Grand Jury in the following terms: — Mr Foreman and Gentlemen, — You will not, If 'am glad to say, be detained very long this morning, as the calendar is a light one. There is, however, one offence of very serious character: a man is charged with shooting, with intent to murder. The facts of the case are simple. The accused was manager of Sargood's clothing factory. On the afternoon of July 27, between 4 and 5 o'clock; Mr William Sargood had an interview with accused at his office, at which there was some discussion between them. They, however, parted apparently good friends. Then, shortly afterwards, about a quarter to 6, accused went to Briscoe and Co.' s and bought a revolver and cartridges. Then about 20 minutes past 6 he took a cab and drove up to Mr William Sargood's residence at Bishops-court, knocked at the door, asked for admittance, and was admitted. Mr Saxgood went into the drawing room to see accused, and there accused puJed out a revolver and shot Mr Sargood. Fortunately the injury was not a fatal one. In suoh circuifistances. if the evidence before you comes up to the depositions, there can be no doubt it will be your duty to find a, true bill. The question of the mental condition of accused is not one for your consideration. The only other cases you will have to consider are charges of theft against two persons. There are two charges of theft against a woman. As to them, you will have no difficulty. There are two remaining charges of theft against a young man fro* Roxburgh. The evidence against the accused is that shortly before the theft took place the aocused had no money, and that shortly after it he was found with money corresponding to some extent with the money stolen. The theft was effected by breaking and entering a hut or tent during the absence of the inmates. It appears that accused was seen somewhere in the neighbourhood of tho hut. Your duty is simply to ascertain whether evidence is brought before you which in your opinion the accused should bs called on to answer. If there is you should find a true bill. TEXTE BILLS. In less than an hour the Grand Jury returned true bills in all the case 3 set before them — namely, against Albert Pyle, charged with breaking and entering and theft at Roxburgh; Elizabeth Ward, charged with theit, from a dwelling; and against Alan Garth Macgregor, charged with attempted murder. TKKPT FBOlt A. TENT. Albert Pyle was charged with, on Juns 13 last, at Roxburgh, breaking and entering by day the dwelling of Robert Brookes, and stealing therefrom a leather purse, £16 3s iv money, two watch-keys, three penny stamps, and four midget photographs. On a second count accused was charged with stealing the abovementioned articles. Mr Irwin appeared for the accused, whose plea was " Not guilty.' The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Fraser), in detailing the facts, said that Brookes was a blacksmith and lived in a. tent across the riveT from Roxburgh. The evidence against the accused" was of a circumstantial nature. On the day in question Brookes left his tent, or hut, early in the morning, locking the door as usual. He returned about 4 o'clock and found a hole about 2ft square in the side of the tent, whioh had evidently been cut. Entering the tent Brookes found the money and other things mentioned missing. That morning the accused was seen going up the race (the Teviot Creek) immediately aibove Brookes's hut. He was^carrying a small parcel, and was noticed to be eating something. The tent had been ripped open to effect an entry, and curiously enough accused had a knife, and had been seen to sharpen it a short time previously. The thief plainly went up the race, for he left a clear trail behind him of articles that had been in Brookes's purse when he left it in the tent. Some biscuits were stolen from the tent also, and accused was, as mentioned, seen eating as he went up the race. The theft happened on a Tuesday. It would be proved that on the preceding Saturday the aocused had no money. The next thing seen of accused was when he turned up 10 miles away at Miller's Flat, and there he had money in his possession and cashed a £5-note corresponding to part of the money stolen. A photograph of the locality would be produced. Robert Brookes, blacksmith, ot Roxburgh, identified the articles produced as having been in the purse he left in a trunk in his tent. He had picked up the articles (two watch keys, receipts, newspaper clippings, and photographs) iying, close together along the race above his t&nt. He also picked up some coppers and stamps, and he had left some coppers in his purse. Evidence for the Crown was also given by John Kitto (miner), Robert Solomon, (tinsmith), Timothy Sheehy (hotelkeeper), Andrew Wilkinson (laboiiT-er at Roxburgh), William Peterson (store manager at Miller's Flat), who said that accused on June 13 spent over £3 in purchasing goods and tendered a £snote; Constable Leeoe, of Roxburgh, who said he had had to threaten to charge accused with vagrancy if ho did not leave the township, and whom accused had told that he had only Is a few clays before the theft ; and by S«geant Bowman, of Lawrence, who arrested accused at the Beaumont, when he denied that his name was Pyle, though subsequently admitting it was. Mr Irwin, :n opening the case for tho defence, said that there was no dioubt that the theft was committed, and that was practically all the evidence of Brookes and Kitto amounted to. The only evidence that the accused was seen in the vicinity was that of Kittio, who sn.id he -saw him on the Teviot Cresk on the morning the theft was committed. That tho accused absolutely denied. The evidence given by Kitto differed at some points materially from the evidence he gave in the lower court at Roxburgh. Kitto did not even speak to the accused. The accused would swear £h.at lie was not in thai vicinity at all, but went to Miller's Flat by the public road. The Crown Prosecutor admitted that the evidence was purely circumstantial The money found an this accused was not identified m any way.. There was no evidence that tho note's found on accused were even drawn on the same bank as those lost by Brookes. Accused would account for every penny found in his possession. The man had £11 m his possession when he went to the Roxburgh distiict, and supported himself, and saved more money, while he was there. As a matte: of fact accused changed one £5-note for a man at a theatrical entertainment at Miller's Flat, the niglit befcire he was arrested. Cton- [ stable Leece had a bias against the accused.

There was nothing against the accused* pre- ' vious character, and he had only once previously been in a comt — as a Crown -witness. Constable Le-eee merely acted because he discovered that the accused had money in nis possession. According to the pouce story, the accused went to the most public places he could find to change money he had just stolon— the cno thing no criminal would do. Everything the man did v.as consistent with his innocence. The evidence for the Crown, circumstantial at the best, was absolutely unsatisfactory as evidence against the accused

Albert Pyie, the accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, said he was a groom. Had been working in the Roxburgh district since February First worked for Mr Orchard, a fruitgrower, for about six or seven weeks. After that he worked three days harvesting with Mr Woodhouse, and after that x worked about a month with Mr Bainbery, and 10 days with the Amalgamated Sluicing Company. Then went to Ma: Malcolmson's for eight days, and nine days at a local coal mine. He reached the district with £11 odd j m his possession — two £5-notes and a single £1. He won the two notes at a race meeting at Blacks on the 30th January, two dividends of £5 Ss on Messenger. In Roxburgh hie got £7 5s from Mr Orchard, and £8 odd from Mr Bainbery. While he was in the district be javed money and spent neither of his £snotes. He got another £5-note from Collins, the barter, in Roxburgh, when he cashed Mr Orchard's cheque. On leaving Roxburgh ha had £2fi altogether in his possession. After leaving Roxburgh he got another £5-note at Miller's Flat — cashing it for a man at Montgomery's ! entertainment. At Roxburgh he gave evictemca for the Crown in a case brought by Constable Leece, and Leeoe diJ not like the evidence he gave. After that Leece said he was full up of tbe way witness was going on, and told him he'd better leave the town. Leece threatened a prosecution for vagrancy, and witness pulled out Is, whereupon Leece walked away. Witness went up to Mr Gideon Smith's to see about a job. He was promised work for the next day. Went back to Mr Smith's that same night — five miles out from Roxburgh, across the Teviot — and slept there. Be did not start work next day, as he could not agree with -Mr Smith as to wages. Went straight down to a sheep station near Miller's Flat. There was no work to be had there, and he went and put up at Sheehy'a at Miller's Flat. He had previously cashed a £5-note at Roxburgh, and he cswhed a second one at Miller's Flat. He did not go to Brcokes's hut. He left Milkir's Flat the next morning, end went to. Beaumont, by coach. MJet Sergeant Bowman. Witness told Bowman -his name was not PyAe, and shortly after that Bowman arrested him. . Cross-examined by Mr Fraser: Had no ' breakfast the morning he left Mr Smith's, on declining to start work. On reaching Miller's Flat, bought a hat he owed in Clyde for the j payment of a bet, and an^overcoat, and some other tilings. The weather was co-Id, and he needed the things, because he was going down to Lawrence to find work. Cashed three J65notes in two days, although he had had two of the notes since January. Had been about three years in New Zealand. Had worked at Alexandra. Acted as secretary for a junior football club there in 1904. It was not true that he embezzled -£2, moneys of that club. He accounted- for all moneys. Never sent a boy into Cromwell to cash a cheque that he was unable to cash. He was never discharged by an employer for dishonesty. He admitted that he was diamissi>d from Bambery's under suspicion of theft. Re-e-xamined by Mr Irwin : At Bambery's he had a small sipeck of gold, which Bambery thought he had taken from the claim. As a matter of fact, he had had it six years. Mr Irwin said the onus lay on the prosecution to prove that accused was guilty of the offence alleged. The Crown had simply proved , that the accused at that time was out of work ) in Roxburgh, and had a-n altercation with Constable Leece; that a theft was committed at Brookes's tent, and that the accused had money in his possession at the time. All this the accused had explained. One witness said he saw the accused going up the Teviot Creek, and that statement the accused absolutely < denied. The accused was perfectly ca.ndid and prompt under cross-examination, and his demeanour was that of an innnocent man. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired at 4.55 p.m., and after an absence of abcrat a quarter of am hour returned with a verdict of " Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor stated that there was another charge against the same accused yet to be heard. The court adjourned at 5.15 p. mi. PRISONERS SENTENCED. James Ha.lford, who had in the lower court pleaded " Guilty" to the charge of theft of money to the amount of £16 from a dwelling, was brought up for sentence, and gave his age as 19 years. Mr A. S. Adams appeared on behalf of the prisoner, and submitted that it was a case for probation.^ All the money in question had been recovered at the time except 16s, and that was subsequently paid over. His Honor : The probation officer's report is favourable. He seems to have had a good character in former places, and to have been in a position of trust. Mr ivdams : That is so. He will be returning to his father's home, and his father will undertake to take special care of him if you see your, way to allow him probation. The Crown Prosecutor, in reply to his Honor, said there was no reason why probation shou'd not be allowed. His Honor said accused would be admitted to probation for 12 months, and would have to pay £2 14s costs of the prosecution within three months frpm dp.te. He advised accused to keep away from bad companions in future, amd make the best of the chance given him. William Preston, alias William Jones, and George Augustus Vincent, alias George Brownley, alias Robeit Palmer, who had in the lower court pleaded " Guilty" to four charges of breaking and entering and the theft of money and jewellery from private dwellings, were brought up for sentence. Vincent gave his age Ss 22 years and Preston gave his age as 19, and neither had anything to say why sentence should not be passed. The Crown Prosecutor said that Vincent was known under various aliases. On May 29, 1899, at Auckland, he was convicted of breaking and entering and theft, and sentenced &> 16 days' imprisonment; and at the same date and place was charged with theft, and admitted to probation for 12 months. He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment at Whangarei for false pretences on October 1, 1900; and in November, 1900, at Auckland, he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for housebreaking ; and in November, 1902, on a charge of breaking and entering, he received a sentence of two years' imprisonment. His general character was reported by the police to be bad. In none of the present cases was any of the money recovered, but a certain amount of jewellery recovered. As to Preston, in February, at Auckland, he was fined for doing wilful damage; in May, 1904, at Auckland, be was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for theft; he was fined for threatening behaviour in the same month; and on March 8, 1905, at Auckland, lie was sent to prison for three months on a

charge of consorting with thieves. His general character was reported by the police to be bad. The charges of wilful damage and threatening behaviour had been added to the list on receipt of a photograph from Auckland. His j-lonor : Where does he hail from ? The Crown Prosecutor: Auckland, I think. His Honor: How is it they all come down here from Auckland?

The Crown Prosecutor : As a matter of fact, I think there are other charges to be brought against the accused in the intermediate locality. They probably worked the coast. His Honor said that Vincent's record showed that he belonged to the criminal class, and it was quite out of the question to pass a short sentence. He would be sentenced to five years' imprisonment with hard labour on each charge 1 , the sentences to be concurrent. Preston's record was not so bad as Vincent's, but it was bad enough. He wculd be sentenced to threeyears 'imprisonment with hard labour on each' charge, the sentences to be concurrent.