SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2803, 4 December 1907, Page 38

SUPREME COURT.

CBIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, November 26. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The charge against Alexander Ramsay of the {heft of certain sums of money belonging t) Wilson, Fraser, and Co. was continued, Mx Macassey appearing for the Crown, and Mr Thomson for accused. Mr Thomson, addressing the jury, said they had heard that Wilson knew Ramsay was absolutely ignorant of bookkeeping. He would point out that such books as were kept were sent periodically to Invercargill, during which time accused had no place where he might keep an account of the firm's business. The evidence of M*Ahan and of Wilson was to the effect that there was a rough cash or counter book kept, wherein an account was kept during these intervals. If that was so why was n>t that book produced. He assumed it aad been destroyed, and regarded it as a mining link in the caee for the defence. He next commented on Wilson's going into the office and burning papers during the absence of accused, and asked the jury how could it be said that Wilson had entered all the money he had taken in the books. He (counsel) said it was a most improper thing for Wilson to interfere with that money. Then -they had no official of the bank called, nor had they had the bank book produced. Ramsay banked this money, and in the absence of proof that ho lrttd not banked it, the assumption was that he had Could it b» said there was evidence of fraudulent or wilful intention on the part of this young fellow. Did it look like fraudulent intention on the part of accused when he did not take all the money that was owing to him? Then he had not entered all the money he had paid the boy, while every item of work done and goods sold had been entered up against him. Would any man be so mad as to enter \ip all the work and goods if he intended to make away withjmoney. Referring to the missing leaves in the block of the receipt book, eouneel pointed out that there was one missing that had no connection with Ramsay Was it likely, counsel asked, that a man who had stolen money from his employers would start up in opposition to them in the same town., as accused had done. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 11.10, returning in a little less than an hour with a verdict of " Guilty " on the second count the jury being unable to agree on the others The second ocunt was the theft of £7 paid by John C*rr on the 2nd February. Prisoner gave hia ago as 22 years. Mr Thomson submitted that prisoner was entitled to be admitted to prol>ation. He had previously borne an excellent character in the district, and nothing was known against him. The young man's affairs had evidently got into a, muddle. He had no vices aaicL was not addicted to drink. His Honor eaid he considered he •would be justified in admitting prisoner to probation. There did not seem to be any evidence of a system of fraud, and the probation officer's report was an exceedingly good one. Prisoner was accordingly admitted to probation for 12 > months and ordered to pay the amount of the defalcation, with costs of the prosecution by weekly instalments of 10s each. KIOTO ITS BEHAVIOUR. Tames Nicholson, Albert Churnßide, and George Wilson pleaded " Xot guilty " to having, about the 7th September last, at Evan s Flat, at night, injured the dwelling-house of John Jfunro. with intent to annoy him. They were charged on a second count with -wilfully damaging the house to the extent of £9. Mr Maoassey appeared for the Crown, Mr

Hanlon for Nicholson, and Ift D. D. Macdonald for the other two accused. Mr Macassey, in opening the case, said the three accused -were fiaxmili hands, and in September were working for Ward Bros at Evan's Flat. A-Jnan named John Munro was the hotelkeeper at Evan's Fiat, and Nicholson had been a boarder at his hotel from the Ist to the 7th September. On the night of September 7, Churnside and Wilson left the hotel about 10 minutes past 10. Nicholson was not on the premises, when the hotel was closed. Shortly after Wilson and Churnside left Mr Munro heard aomeone at the back door, and on going there found several persons outside. One of these persons was Nicholson. The men then went away, and Mr Munro locked the door. About 15 minutes afterwards Nicholson returned and asked for a bottle of beer, which Mr Munro refused to supply Nicholson thereupon used some offensive expressions, and Munro retired inside. Stones were then thrown upon the roof, and windows were broken, three panes being broken in one and two in another. Mr Munro went out and told those outside to "give the boarders a chance' A bottle was then tnfown and stones followed Twenty minutes later Mr" Munro saw Nicholson, who repeated the offensive expression. Mr Munro could not recognise the others, but he distinctly recognised Nicholson. This stonethrowing went on for some time, and in the morning it was found that 26 panes of glass had been broken, and a piece of drain pipe had found its way behind the bar. The windows were repaired at the cost of £9. On the Sunday morning Nicholson came to the hotel and said to Mr Munro : "Do you accuse me of breaking the windows?" and Mr Munro replied, " I know who broke the windows. I know you were on the road." Nicholson said : " I can stop on the road as long as I like, and Mr Munro answered, " You can go and stop on the road now." Nicholson asked for a drink, which Mr Munro refused. Mr Munro spoke to Wilson on the Saturday night — several men were in the room, — and a man named Burnside said he had been delegated to settle the matter. Mr Munro handed his bill to Burnside, and it wae agreed it should be paid. Churnside and Wilson were in the room and heard all that took place. Four men went surety for the payment of the damage. John Munro, licensee of the Thistle Hotel at Evan's Flat, gave evidence in support of counsel's opening statement His Honor said there did! not seem to be much against the two accused Churnside and Wilson. The fact that they became surety for the mill hands was an inference that they were not concerned in the offence, Mr Macassey said he did not urge there was a case to go to the jury Mr Macdonald said his contention in the lower court had been that there was no evidence to show Churnside or Wilson had been about the hotel, after 10 o'clock. The only incriminating evidence against them was the document given as security. His Honor said that cou'd not be considered as an admission. So far as these two accused were concerned, the jury would find a verdict 'of not guilty. (To the jury): Ido not think there is any evidence upon which Churnside and Wilson can be properly convicted. The F/xreiman said it© jury Quite fcgreed the two men were not guilty. His Honor: Very well, then these two are discharged. Mx Hanlon said the charge' against Nicolson was one upon which he might ssk the jury to acquit him, on the ground th«t the Crown had failed to discharge the onus of proving thai he had committed the offence. The evidence against him was of the most flimsy nature. Mr and Mrs Munro said he was at the hotel shortly after 10 o'clock^ that he called for drinks, and that 15 minutes later he called for a bottle of beer, was refused, and was afterwards out in the road. If the jury wanted to convict this man it must have evidence that he committed the offence, but where was the evidence that he did commit the damage. There was not a tittle of evidence that he threw a stone or threw a bottle. It waa more probable that he did not throw them. There was no direct . evidence-againat him at all. To his (counsel's) mind it wae absolutely preposterous to say that a man should be convicted upon testimony of the kind met with here. If a man ought to be convicted upon it no man would be safe. Though he did not consider it was nece&'s«<7', to make aure he would call two witnesses, who would tell the jury that at " the time Mr and Mrs Munro said Nicholson was at their house he was down at a place which was 40 minutes' walk from Munro' s hotel. He was at another hotel, kept by a Mr Thomson. He met Burnside at 20 minutes to 10, and they walked to this Tuapeka Fla-t Hotel, and had a drink there. Then they came outside. They stayed there, till 20 minutes past 10, and did not leave for the other hotel till then. They cou'd not have walked to Munro's hotel in less than 40 minutes. , Evidence wae given by William Taylor Thomson (landlord of the hotel at Tuapeka Flat) and Frederick Burnside (flaxmill hand). Mr Macassey called Constab'e Gorrie, who calculated it was about a mile from Lawrence to Thomson's hofel, and from there to the Thistle Hotel about a mile and a-half. It was nonsense to talk about taking 40 minutes to walk from the one hotel to the other. The witness Munro and Constable Daubney gave similar evidence. The jury after a retirement of about an hour and a-half returned a verdict of guilty on the first count, and recommended accused to mercy. They found him not guilty on the second count. The first count charged accused with injuring the hotel with intent to annoy. , , , „ , His Honor intimated that he would not pass sentence then. VA.LSB FRETEITCES. Frederick Thomas Dart, who gave hia age as 24 years, pleaded "Guilty" to a charge ot having, on fie 21st April, 1906, at Dunedin, obtained a suit of clothes, valued at £4 7s 6d, from Louis Morris by fake pretences. He also pleaded "Guilty" to a second charge, charging him with obtaining another suit of clothes, valued at £5, from Hendry and Son by false pretences. Mr Hanlon, for accused, said Dart a etatement waa that he had been about six years in the colony, and had found it difficult to get employment. He had taken up different I°™°* of employment from time to time, but had no particular trade or profession. He said he had endeavoured fo get a situation with Mr Scott, cycle dealer, and on the- strength of a promise of comiuwsion upon any cash sales he made had made the representations he 'had. He wanted to make as gocd an appearance as possible, and hoped out of his commission to be able to pay for the l>9 obtained. He had not been imre of getting the clothes from Hendry, and the same day had gone to Morris, and was apparently successful in getting both suit?. He went awa,y, but returned to the colony, though he might have stayed away. He -went to Western Australia, and wae started in business by his father as a hairdresser and tobacconist. Fail- ' ing in that Wsinesa he returned to New Zealand. His idea -was that sooner or later he would have been able to pay He did not fear to Teturn to Dunedin. Counsel asked that accused might be admitted to probation. Mr Macassey said the police report stated that accussed wm a native ot Melbourne., 1

was 28 'years of age, and was s labouie; He had been at Timaru, where he was bicycle agent. He then went to sea as fireman or trimmer. He arrived from Hobai in 1901, and in 1906 left for Western Am traMa, returning again in 1907 Whe arrested he was on his " way to Hobari and was taken into custody at the Bluf His character was reported to be ind'fferen and he was reported to be fond of drinl There were no previous convictions againe him. Mr Hanlon : When it is said he was goin away he had signed on the Warrimoo ani was going away in her. His Honor said he thought he would b justified in giving accused a chance oi certain conditions. Up to the time he hai been arrested he did not seem to have bee: known to the police at all. He would hay to make restitution of the value of thes clothe", and pay the costs of the prosecution. Mt Hanlon said the police had the suits. Mr M«cass°y : They are useless. His Honor said on his making restitution the clothes would be handed over to accused Accused would be admitted to probation fo 12 months, and would have to pay 10s a wee' until the £9 7s 6d for the clothes, and £ 18s for costs had been settled. It would als be a condition that he abstain from intereating drink during the period of probatioi I hope, concluded his Honor. " this wi be a lesson to you, and that we shall not sc you here again." ABSOIT. ■ Edward Ernest Maxey was charged wti having, on September 12 last, at Kaikora: wilfully, with intent to defraud, set fire t a sofa and chaiT then being in a shop kno* ing the building was likely to take fire there from. He was charged on a second count -wit] having, on September 16 last, wilfully set fh to the building, and on a third count witl having on the same date attempted to se fire to the building. Mr Burnard appeared for iccused, wh< pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Macassey said in June of this yea accused leased a small shop in Kaikora Valley from a Mrs Wilson, a widow, for tw years, at 3s a- week. He had. a small stock v it, and was carrying on business. On Sep tember 12, between 2 and 8 o'clock in In afternoon, a neighbour Mrs Forrest, notice i smoke comingMrom underneath the eaves o t the building. She. with a man named Bush ' forced the door open, and found the sofa am <a chair in the back room on fire, there beini no fire in the fireplace. There was uothini to indicate how the fire occurred. It wa , put out and Bush meeting accused comin I back, told him what had happened. Then o: September 16. about half-past 10. a ma: named James Forrest heard something. an< on going inside the shop found some pape bags were on fire undter the shelves. Accuse* - was on the other side of the road calling •■ Mv God. my God. my~E3use is on fire. ' Hi made no attempt to put it out, and Forres did so. The same night Constable Wes called on accueed and said You have hai a fire here. I want to have a look ' Accused, who was drunk, made no reply, bu stooped down and the candle he had wen out. Then the constable ran round behim the counter, and said: "You have a candl< here." and accused replied. "The place ii tiucuitea anj I can't stop here!" The COB stable found some paper under the oountei and ran his fingers through it to find if then was a candle there. He could not find on< ' but sometime afterwards found a piece or candle on the floor. Some papers with candl< grease on them were also found. Accuse* would not say how the fire had occurred, btf said that the place was haunted and thai he wanted to get out of it When arrested, h< said it was a very serious charge, thai hi did not know how the fire occurred, and tha-i it might have been caused by a piece o: cigarette ash. It would be shown that accusec had insured the property for £30, and thai ■the value of his stock was £10 6e lid, st that the insurance was about three time* its value.. Evidence was given by Martha -Wilson Janet Forrest, Stephen Bush, James Forrest and Constable West. Wednesday, Novevbeb 27. AESON. The charge against Edward Ernest Maxey of having wilfully set fire to a shop at Kaikorai was proceeded with, Mr Macassey appearing 'or the Crown and Mr Burnard foi accused. Further evidence was given by Constable Murray, Charles EyTe, and Herbert Horton. Mr Burnard. addressing the jury, said he thought the conclusion it would come to would be that what had happened was the result of accident The jury had evidence aa to accused's character, and same of the witnesses knew him well. Forrest who knew him best, had said he was a quiet, inoffensive m«n, and tb*t he had never known him to do anything mean, dishonourable, or wrong, and it was a question whether a man like that iras likely to commit a crime. He would only have got £10 or £15 as the proceeds of such a crime. He did not require to burn his house down to get £15 because the trustees of hii mother's estate held a very much larger sum than thai, and he had only to go to them to get money. Right through his actions wex« consistent with having had nothing fco do with the fire. However the fire was caused, H could not possibly have been caused by accused, as all his actions showed he was most anxioui that his shop should be saved. Counsel pointed out that some of accused's clothing had been lying over the chair, and said eurely if he desired to burn down the place he -would not burn articles that were not insured. While the value of the goods in the place amounted only to £10, when he insured the property he had £35 worth of goods there. Of course, accused had so!d £25 worth of goods, and had noi replenished his stock to any extent On the 16th he did his very beat to get into a neighbour's in order to have the fire extinguished. He was too excited and too drunk to do .anything himself, and the next best thing was to cal) his neighbours. His calling of them showed he could not have wished his place to be burned down. It must be proved that accused committed the act wilfully: that he wm capable of making up his mind on the subject, that he made up his mind, and carried out his intention. Accused at the time was incapable of making up his mind on any point. The Crown had to prove that at the time of the fire accused was capable of an intention, that he farmed an intention, and that he carried out that intention ; and failure to prove any of these meant that the Crowa could not succeed. The Jury, after an absence of 40 minutes, found accueed guilty on the first two counte--thafc he wilfully set fire to a sofa and chair knowing a building was likely to catch fire, with intent to defraud; and that he wilfully set fire to the building, with intent to defraud. Sentence was deferred. HIOTOU9 BEBTA.VIOUB. James Nicholson, found guilty of being concerned in the damaging of tho Thistle Hotel at Evan's Flat, was brought before his Honor for sentence. Mr Burnard, instructed by Mr Hanlon, appeared for prisoner, who gave hia age as 30 years Mr Mp.'p»««y said p>-:<»oner was a native of Xew Zeal ,nd w« 3i jeors of age, and a labovuer. He .-ras rc^rt&d to be a haid-work-

ing man, but much given to drink. There was a small conviction against him, bui nothing serious. He had been fined £1 on the 24th September of this year for having been found upon iicensed premises on a Sunday His Honor said the probation officer's report was good — that accused had a good character, was a hard-working man, but was given to drink. He (the officer) suggested accused should take out a prohibition order, so that 1 he (his Honor) thought he might make that •> ' condition of probation. Accused would b» j admitted to probation for 12 months on conj dition that, within 14 days, he look out • j prohibition order against himself covering the ' period of probation; puid for the damage done to Munro'n premises — his mates could 1 help him —and also paid & third of the cost* of the prosecution. £6. by instalments of 10» a week. He would have to pay £15 in all. ALLEGED EXTXNSIVB THEFT. William Patrick Harrington w»s charged that, between the 15th December. 1906 and August last, he did steal a quantity of good* valued at £115, the property of the Mut«al ■ Stores Company (Ltd.). There was a second count charging accused wi+b receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen. Mr A. R. Barclay appeared for accuied. wh» pleaded " Not gui'tv." Mr Maeasrey said accused lived in a small uhree-roomed house in Ctmotigate street and was arrested on August 21 last for the theft of a quantity of drapery and -glassware i from the Mutual Stores. Certain of the articles would be absolutely identified an the. ; property of the Mutual Stores by reason of a private mark put upon them while in the stores, and one article would he identified by reason of a ted ink stain upon it. and another by the peculiar manner in which it had been folded. In the case of the other articles witnesses would swear they wsre similar to the fe da stocked, but some would be abao- . lute'y identified It would be proved, both . by the admission of accused himself and by 1 the evidence of witnesses from the Mutual Stores, that accueed did not purchase any of these articles from the Mutual Stores. Ii would be proved that he stated that they were purchased by his wife at the D.I.C. knd Inglis's, or were purchased by his wife and brought down from Christchurch. That was how he accounted for them being in his possession. Accused was employed at the Mutual Stores, and commenced his duties on December 16 last year, and was there up to August SI of this year. He was first employed in the maochesteT department, and then in the dress department. His hours were from 8.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and he had an hour "off for lunch Between 13 and 1 o'clock be would be in charge of his department, the other employees being away. Evidence would be led to show it was quite possible for accused to have got these goods awajr from the shop without being noticed, asd evidence would also be called to show that in June of this year, at the request of accused, a man named Hill took two parcels from him jt the Mutna Store* Evidence was given by Allan Broad (manager at the Mutual Stores). Herbert James Armstrong (employed at the stores), Harry ' SpiUer, Thomas Henry Mortimer Emmelin« Mary South, Violet Edith Robertshaw, Jessio Robertson, and Thomas Hill. The la«tnamed witness said accused asked him to , take a. p«ro»l. wlicb HI, wife t«<3 bong!** - there, from the Mutual Stores. He told r witness to go for the parcel between 19 and - | 1 o'clock, and that he would give him a parcel I of curtains to take to his (accused's) w-fe. > On another occasion — about three week; r »ar- . wards. — on a Saturday night when witness was I taking tea at his sister's, accused came to the . door and told him to go to the Mutual Stores 1 and take a parcel his wife had paid for that ; afternoon, as she could not take it- up her- , self, as she had * go-cart with her. Witness ' went to the Mutual Stores — accused told him | to get a pair of rabbits for him, and told | him to go to the Mutual Stores between ai quarter past 7 and a-quarter to 8 o'clock,—. ■ and accused handed him a parcel for his wife, and another, which he said was for witness himself. That parcel contained calico, which was sold by witness. Later accused said, " Don't you think it would be far better if you »hut your mouth on this business 7" and witness told him he would give him s> punch if he didn't go away. Acoused was intoxicated at that time. Evidence was also given by Detectives Ward and Hunt, and this closed the case fox that prosecution.