SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2762, 20 February 1907, Page 49

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, February 18. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at talf-past 10 o'clock. THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen constituted the Grand Jury: — Peter Miller (foreman), Joseph Archibald Ainge, John Hugh Befchune, William Junes Canning, George Ecbinson Cheesemian, Alexander Cowie, James Dick, John Duthie, Robert Cassels Glendining. Chaa. Grater, Jas. Richardson, Percy Wil'-iam Laing, David liarnach, Edwin Henry Longh, Henry Lyders, William Strachan Neil, Robert Rutherford, Henry Donald" Stronach, Patrick Young .Wales, Andrew Thomson. bis honor's charge. His Honor charged the Grand Jury in the following terms: — Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, — You will have before you this morning charges *g*inst eight persons. The majority of these charges are not of a serious nature. There are several cases of theft. There is one charge of breaking and entering a house and stealing a small sum of money. There is a charge where the accused could have been, dealt with summarily by the magistrate, only under a recent act ha elected to bo tried by a jury. The charge is that he used indecent language in a public place. I think it is * pity thait the law allows an accused person in a case of that kind to go beyond the magistrate. However, there it is. The evidence in the case is clear enough that the man did use this indecent language. Then there is an attempt to carnally know a girl under nine years of age. T3»e evidence in that case is clear enough. The other case is where a woman is charged ■with the murder of a newly-born child. In order to constitute the crime of murder it must appear (1) that the child was born alive, and (2) that the accused, by some wilful act of hers, put *n end to its life. There is evidence enough that the child was born alive, tut whether it came to its death by the wilful act of the prisoner is not shown so clearly. In order to find a true bill you must see at anyrate that there is evidence that the accused did wilfully put an end to its life. In order to find a true bill you ought to find that that is the natural conclusion from the evidence before you. If it is not the natural conclusion it will be your duty to say so. There is also a bill presented against the same accused for concealment of the birth of the child. That she did conceal the birth of the child there is ample evidence to show. If you will retire to your room, gentlemen, the bills will be laid before you. NO BILL. The Grand Jury returned " no bill " in the case of Mary Kearney, charged with murder. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills in the following charges: — Mary* Kearney, concealment of birth; William I/üby, indecent assault; William Booth, theft from" the person ; Daniel Smith, theft from the person; Frederick St. Clair Sinclair and Jane Dunsmuir, theft and illegally pawning; Joseph Michael Davidson, breaking and entering and theft ; Andrew Scutter, assault on a child. THEFT FROM THE PERSON. Margaret M'Oarthy (16) was brought up for sentence on a charge of stealing from the person of Mrs Isabella Grant, at Dunedin, the sum of 2s 9d and a purse. Mr A. C. Hanlon eaid this case was unfortunately not one for probation, the girl having been before the court when she was 12 years of age. On that occasion she was committed to the Industrial School, and afterwards sent to the Bom an Catholic home at South Dunedin. Later on she went to serve under Miss Finch, a milliner doing business for a large warehouse, and had been about two years in her employ. She seemed to have behaved during that time, until recently she. fell into temptation and committed the offence for which she was now charged. In reply to his Honor, Mr Hanlon said the girl's father was employed on the Rotomahana, running between Wellington and Lyttelton. The mother, unfortunately, had a delicate son to attend to, and she had not a great deal of time to devote to the rest of the family. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Fraser) said that on the 3rd January, 1903, the accused was convicted of theft, and ordered to come up for sentence when called on, and on the 24th April, 1903, she was found guilty of theft and committed to the Industrial School. The police report stated that the girl was a i somewhat expert thief. He thought that if the girl was convicted and ordered to come for sentence when called upon, on the understanding that she had before her an extended term of imprisonment unless she reformed, it might have an effect upon her. His Honor: With whom does she life? The Crown Prosecutor : She lives with her mother. So far as the police know her moral character is good, but she has this particular vice, which will eventually land her in a long term of imprisonment. His Honor: I shall not pass sentence upon you now, and will give you another chance. You will be discharged on entering into a recognisance to come up for sentence when called upon. If you behave yourself, if you turn over a new leaf and abstain from thieving, you will never be called upon, but if you a-e caught again thieving you will be brought j up for sentence for this offence, and you will receive a term of imprisonment for it. I want to keep you out of gaol if I can, and you I ought yourself to see what a fearful Ihirg j imprisonment for a young girl is. It ruins I her chances for all her life. I give jou this j further warning: if persons have been convicted a certain number of times of an offence they can under the law 33 it now stands bo j detained for the whol© of their lives, or until ! the authorities are completely satisfied that they are reformed. So you see the risks you run unless you behave yourself better. I wish to warn you carefully of those risks, and ! I sincerely hope you will never incur them — that your life will henceforth be changed. You will' enter into a recognisance in the sum of £25 to come up for judgment when called upon. A further order was made that the sum of Ss 9d be returned to Mrs Grant. ASSAULT. Frederick Thomas (30), who hrf3 pleaded guilty to assaulting Constable M'Kenzic, at Kaitangata, was called on for sentence. The Accused, who was undefended, said he was sorry for what he had done. He had taken a little drop too much, and really did not know what he was doing. He put on another man's coat, and when the constable came on the scene he hit him on the face. He had been in gaol nine weeks. He had a •wife and six children — a fact he would like fhe court to take into consideration. The Crown Prosecutor said the police report was to the effect that the general character of the accused was not good. He was given to drink, and when he took liquor he became practically uncontrollable. He was in the Nelson Asylum in 1904. In this case the constable sustained a fractured nose and had incurred expenses to the extent of four guineas. The man was a miner by trade. He had not been previously convicted, except for drunkenness. •-, The probation officer's report was handed

to his Honor, who perused it, and remarked that if: was not favourable. His Honor said the man was not a criminal in the ordinary sense. All his offences had bean committed when under the influence of liquor. The accused would be released on probation for 12 months. One of the conditions of the probation was that he must abstain totally from all intoxicating drink during that period. If he drank, and it came to the knowledge of the police, he would be brought up for sentence. It would also be a condition of probation that the accused must pay the , £4 4s costs of medical attendance which had been incurred through his action, the amount to be paid by instalments of 4s a week. " I trust," said his Honor, " we shall ace no more of you." ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. William George Baxter (42) wa3 charged with assaulting one George Robinson and robbing him of the sum of £42. The accused, who was undefended, handed in a written statement to his Honor. His Honor: What is known of the accused? The Crown Prosecutor: He is an Australian. The police have not been able to learn any particulars about him. His Honor : What is known of Mason ? He seems to have been in it, and gave evidence for the Crown. The Crown Prosecutor:" He is a New Zealander. but the police know nothing of him. His Honor imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment, with hard labour. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Mary Kearney was charged with, on or about the 11th December, 1908, at Dunedin, unlawfully concealing the birth of her child. The accused, who was defended by Mr B. S. Irwin, pleaded " Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor said it would be I proved (1) that the child was born alive and (2) that it had apparently been smothered — and (3) that the body was discovered carefully tied up in a package in her bedroom at the time she herself was preparing to leave the house. The facts' were these : The girl went to a boarding-house in Stuart street early m December, without announcing her condition, and stopped there for a little time. The landlady wanted her to get medical advice, but she said she would not. Later on, the landlady sent for a doctor, who partially examined the girl. The doctor put it plainly to the girl that she was in a certain condition, and that he must examine her more closely ; but the girl would not allow him to do so. It was subsequently found that the girl had been confined; and when the police came in they found the body of the child wrapped up in a package. Evidence was given by Miss Elizabeth Pye. Dr Watt, Dr Gordon Macdonald, and Sergeant Baskerville. Mr Irwin submitted that there was nothing to go before a jury, there being no evidence of the disposal of the body. There was serious doubt as to the intention of the accused, even if the jury found that she had wrapped up the body. The openness of the girl's actions and the fact that prior to the calling in of the police she expressed her wish and intention of seeing Dr Martin all pointed against the presumption of the prosecution that ehe was going to conceal the birth. The fact was that she had never been given an opportunity of giving to a proper person the information of the birth and death of the child. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 2.45 p.m.. returning at 3 p.m. with a verdici of " Guilty" Sentence was deferred. INDECENT LANGUAGE. William Luby pleaded " Not guilty " to a charge of having, on or about the 3rd November, 1906, at Si. Kilda, used indecent and obscene language in the bar of the St. Kilda Hotel. The accused was undefended. The Crown Prosecutor said it was rarely a jury was empanelled to try the offence of which it was alleged the accused was guilty — that of using obscene language in a public place. As, however, the offence was punishable by a certain term of imprisonment, any accused person had the option of electing to be tried in the Supreme Court. The accused had so elected. The case was a shocking one, words of the filthiest possible kind beirg used to a woman behind the bar of the hotel. The witnesses had asked that they might be allowed to write the language complained of; and he would a=k his Honor's permission to allow them to do so. His Honor allowed the request. Evidence was given by Martha Bates (who was acting as barmaid on the day in question), Florence Macartney. Robert Harprave (carpenter, South Dunedin). and Henry Macartney (licensee of St. Kilda. Hotel). The accused said he did not wish to give evidence. Addressing the jury, he contended that the words he used were not obscene, though they might have been insulting His Honor summed up. The jury retired at 3 50 p.m. and returned at 5 45 p.m. with a verdict of "Guilty," with a strong recommendation to mercy on the ground that the language was used when the man was in a state of intoxication. The accused sa:d his a?e was 27 ycais. He hoped his Honor would deal leniently with him. All bis trouble had been caused through drink, and he was willing to take out a prohibition order against himself and start afresh. The Crown Prosecutor said the police report showed that the accused was an associate of thieves. There was a long list of convictions against him for drunkenness, breach of the peace, forgery, illegally on licenced premises, breach of prohibiticn order, obscene language, resisting the police, and assaulting the police. He was a native of England. His Honor said the only real way of dealing with cases like this was tOu commit the offender to a reformatory until he had been cured of his craving for drink. Uufortunatelv, he had not been able to make any order of the kind in the present state of the law. He could only order a sentence of iruprißonment. The accused would be committed to gaol for a term of two months and kept to hard labour. CHARGE OF THEFT. William Booth was charged with, cvi or about the 9th November, 1906, at Dunedin, stealing a gold chain and a gold pendant from one Albert Kummeit. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the accused, who pleaded " Not guilty. ' Tho Crown Prosecutor paid that Kummerf was a labourer living at Morninfrton. On the 9th November he was at the Taieri rac*3. In the evening he was in the Provincial Hotel bar, Dunedin, when the accused and another man came in. The two men produced a ring and wanted drinks on the. strength of it The barman would not give the drinks Kummert shouted for the men. Later the threemen had another drink. They then went along Princes street, walking towards the south. One of the accused suggested that Kummert Bhould join them in drinking a bottle of beer, but this Kummert refused to do, saying he had had enough. Kummert then said he was going to get his supper, and as he was going off the accused grabbed his chain and made off with a portion of it and the pendant. The total value of the stolen property was about £15. Evidence was given by Albert Kummert and Detective Mitchell. Mr Irwin, addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, said the case rested entirely on the evidence of the prosecutor, except for the statement made by the accused, io the detec-

tive, when lie admitted that on the prevunw evening in the company of the prosecutor. But before the jury could convict tbis accused they must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's Story was a correct one. The evidence went to show that Kummert had had a considerable quantity of drink cm that night. Booth was in the bar and had a drink with Kummert, but it was not a fact that Booth and another accompanied .Kummert from the hotel. It might have been that the accused believed one of the men was the accused, but in that he was mistaken. Learned counsel submitted that the jury cou!d not say -on the evidence of the prosecutor that the accused had been guilty of a serious crime. The jury retired at 4.35 p.m., and returned at 6.5 p.m. with a verdict of " Not guilty. ' The accused was discharged.