SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2736, 22 August 1906, Page 49

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. M.OHDA.Y, ATjGXJST 20. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.)

- V ■ PHISONBRS FOH SKNTEXCE. . -\- Ray- Arthnr Haaelwood (16 years of age) and ClHrkis; Edinnd Raynor (16 years of age) were ' DTpugfit D^Bojej the court for sentence, having jjieaded gutlty--i]^ ne * ower court to charges of breaking and entering. In one case the offence was committed by both prisoners, and there were in addition three separate charges against Raynor. Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared in his capacity of Crown Prosecutor. Mi H. D. Bedford, who appeared on behalf of Hazelwood, said his client seemed' to have been a tool in the hands of Raynor. and had not been under proper control. His father was dead, and his mother, who had 10 children, found it' difficult to keep this boy under any control. Mr Arelsen had promised to take charge of the boy if his Honor would discharge him on condition that he appeared for sentence if called upon. Mr Axelsen had promised to send the lad into the country and find employment for him, and he (Mr Be^for.!) lliCTefore aek«<3 tlia.t prisoner lx» discharged and called upon to come up for sentence when called on The Crown Prosecutor, replying to his Honor, said nothing was known against Hazelwood. His Honor : Except that his character is not very satisfactory. It will be better that he should not be placed upon probation, but be called upon to come up for sentence when called on. The Crown Prosecutor said as to Raynor, his record showed he was evidently incorrigible. His Honor asked what had become of the articles that were stolen. Were they recovered ? The Crown Prosecutor said a few of the articles had been recovered His Honor said he meant the joint robbery. The Crown Prosecutor replied that he was informed the property was recovered. His Honor said, so far as Hazelwood was concerned, he would accept the suggestion made. by counsel for the prisoner, which was practically acquiesced in by the Crown solicitor and Mr Axelsen. When a boy had been convicted for the first time of an offence under circumstances which made the use of the First Offenders' Probation Act improper, he (his Honor) would give him the same chance, provided he was under proper supervision. Mr Axelsen had undertaken to look after the lad and he hoped his efforts would be successful. Hazelwood had commenced his career very badly by joining with the other prisoner in assisting him in the one burglary. For that crime he was liable to be imprisoned for a long term ; but Mr Axelsen, whose desire was that youths in Hazelwood's position should be reclaimed if possible, had kindly offered to look after him, and he (his Honor) proposed to J discharge him in the meantime, with an order requiring him to come up for sentence when 'called on. His mother was^ a widow, and there was a very large family, and his Honor hoped Hazelwood would consider the position of his mother and brothers and sisters, and would endeavour, with Mr Axelsen's assistance, and with the assistance of those interested in the reformation of youths who had made a lapse, to do his best to live an honest life. If he came before him (his Honor) or any other judge again he would bo liable to be sentenced, not only for the offence for which he was brought up, but also for the present offence. Raynor was one of those unfortunate lads who, h« was afraid, had got criminal instinct. He had pleaded guilty to four charges of breaking and entering, and the record before his Honor showed it was essential in the interests of the community that Raynnr should be prevented from committing depredations upon other person". The record showed Itaynor's offences had extended back many years. He had hr.d an opportunity of living an honest life. when, with the consent of the authorities, ho had got into respectable employment. His Honor would have to sentence Raynor to a somewhat long term of impiisonmont. in the hope that the discipline of the gaol would be more help to kirn than Burnham Home. Raynor would be sentenced to three years on each of the charges, the sentences to run concurrently. ALLEGED FORGERY. Edgar Turner, a man of respectable appearance, was charged with forging a telegram at Dunedin on or about the Ist March, 1900. Mr L. D. Burnard appeared for the defence. Mr Fraser said that accused, up till three or four years ago, was the Australasian .igent of George E. Keith and Co., an American bcot firm. He was supeiseded by Mr P. S. Brown, of the firm of Brown and Coates, of Sydney. Mr P. S. Brown was in Duncdui'in February and March of this year, and ho met the accused here s^vpral time's Accused was hard up, and asked Mr Brown for £1, suggesting that the '•mil was due to him for commission. Mr Brown did not lodge at tho Criterion Hotel, m Dunedin On the Ist March, the position being so, ac<.u=ed went into the Telegraph Office and sent a te'egrarn- "Brown p.rd Coates, S\dney — Cab'e £15 —Brown, Criterion Hotel." Accused endorsed the telegram " R S. Brown. ' The £15 came from Sydney, and iceusfd signed the receipt " Peter Brown." Tho clerk who paid the money did not remember accused. The clerk who took the telegiain knew accused as Turner, but did not weni to think there was anything curious in his signing a tclegiam a.3 Brown — m any c.i->e, he said nothing then. The signature "K. S Brown " on the endorsement, and the signature " Puter Brown" on the receipt, and a letter produced, written by accused to his wife, would be proved to be ■all in the same handwriting. Accused, as a business man. with a knowledge of the business in which Brown and Coates were engaged, knew that the money would be •,ent. and that Mr P. S. Brown w-ou'd know nothing of it until he was advised fioni Sydney of the remittance. Peter Samuel Brown, of the firm of Brown and Coatee. Sydney, said he was Australasian agent of Keith and Co.. of America. Had known the accused for the last 10 or 12 years, and took over the agency after him. Witness was in Dunedin in FeVuary and March last. Saw accused here tb or four -time?. Accused asked witness f~*- JBI, which he said 1 w*3 due him for commission [or sending customers along. Witnecs did not pay accused the pound. A cablegram addressed " Brown «nd Coates, Sydney," would go to witness's firm. Witness did r.ot send the cablegram produced, nor authorise it to be sent. The writing in the body of the telegram was the writing of accuse*^ and so was the endorsement " R S Brown." Tho receipt signed " Peter Brown " was alao in accused's handwriting Witness never stopped at the Criterion Hotel in DiUiediu.

Accused was sober when witness saw him*. By Mr Burnard : Accused formerly repr«» sented Keith and other firms. He was then a smart business man in » fairly big way of business. At on© time witness was in his employ. Witness signed "P. S. Brown," and never " Peter Brown." Accused never called witness by his Christian nsm-e. Ac» cuseel did not tell witness he was hard-up in so many words, but witness gathered && m-uch. Knew Collie and Pullen, of Dun.edin. They were now dealing with Keith, and Co., but they were not dealing with Keith prior to his visit this year. It was not accused who introduced" Collie and Pullen. Accused was not entitled to commission. Witness did not profess to bo an. expert in handwriting. By Mr Fraser: Had had ample opportit* nities of seeing accused's hand-writing. William Edward Bolton, clerk in the Telegraph Department, and Horace Grogan, clerk in the Money Order Office, gave evidence in support of the case for the Grown. John Challis. bank clerk, considered thafi the signature to the receipt " Peter Brown," the endorsement of the telegram "R. S. Brown, ' and the letters produced were written by the same person. By Mr Burnard : There were occasional points of difference, as well as points ol similarity. Detective Cameron identified the letter produced as one sent by accused to his wife. Mr Fraser said that it was conclusively shown that the telegram was sent by accused, and if it were found that he simulated Mr Brown there must be strong evidence of his guilt. Mr Burnard said that in order to secure t conviction the case against accused must he conclusively proved. The evidence as io the similarity of handwriting was not conclusive. The case for the Crown rested entirely on the evidence of the witness Bolton. Thr offence occurred in March. nn<l aince tlien Mr Bolton had received thousands of cable messages. Mr Bolton'B attention was not particularly drawn to the fact that the telegra a was handed in by accused, and by him endorsed ' R. S. Brown." As to that, Mr Bolton might have been mistaken. The Crown hod not proved that accused was notified of th» arrival of the money cabled, nor that h« received it. The story they were asked to believe by the Crown was not credible, and ife was not complete. His Honor, summing up, aaid that the issu* th« jury had to determine was a very simple one : the question whether or not the prisoner presented this telegram at the Telegraph Office on March 1. Because if he presented the telegram it was undoubtedly a forgery, and the man who presented, the telegram waa almost undoubtedly the man who received fch» money and committed the fraud. The Crown had to prove its case to the satisfaction ot the jury as practical men. There was n: doubt that someone had committed the fraud. Wa-s it the prisoner? There w«s no evidence that Mr Brown had any animus against the accused. It had been suggested that tha accused was in a large way of business. Na doubt he was — three or four years ago. Bufi in March last he was in Dunedin, short of money. He had been agent for Keith and Co., and he was familiar with the business arrangements of Brown and Coatea, of Sydney. That was an element in the case. There was a strong inference that the body of the telegram was not written in the ordinary handwriting of the man who endorsed it. His Honor reviewed the evidence. If the evidence of the Crown's expert was strong and good, then the jury ought to be guided by th« opinion of the expert. The jury could compare the writing submitted, and juryineD cou'd form their own opinions. Whoever pie* sented this telegram certainly forged the nans* and acted with a fraudulent intention. Tha jury retired at 6 p.m.. and returned at 7.4S p.m. with a verdict of " Guilty," with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of the amalluess of the sum involved and on account of the man's large family. Hi 9 Honor: Yes, Mr Foreman, I will attend to the recommendation. I will call upon prisoner to-morrow morning I will give you an opportunity of calling evidence as to character the-n. Mr Burnard. The Crown Prosecutor: It is not very likely it will be nocesß*ry. Mr Burnard : The reason it is not likely ir because accused is so little known here. The court then adjourned until next morning at 10 o'clock.