SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3114, 19 November 1913, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, November 11. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat at 10.30 a.m. GRAND JURY. The following was the Grand Jury empanelled: John Dick (foreman), A. T. Blythe, T. A. Maitland, William Gregg, R. F. Foster. J L. De Beer, W. A. Grieve, Charles Richard Gooch, J. S. Howison, Thomas Lambourne, Frederick Freeman, L. H. Frapwcll, J. A. Hopcraft, Richard M'Cormack, W. A. Scott, Andrew Todd, P. D. Garside, E. D. Clowes, and James Armstrong his honor’s address. His Honor said he was glad to state that the calender was light, and that none of the offences was of a serious character. In none of the cases did he (h:s Honor) think the jury would have any difficulty, and if the evidence came up to the depositions the jury would find a true bill. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills in all the cases submitted to it. PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. Alexander Buchanan, 19 yearn of age, was placed in the dock for sentence on a -charge of breaking and entering anti theft at Chatton on September 21. Mr Fraser appeared for the Crown, and Mr Wilkinson for prisoner. Mr Wilkinson said ho would urge that the offence was a minor one, and that it was entirely without premeditation. The young man was a farm labourer and sawmill hand. Ho had been working at Chatton, and the whole of the place was new to him, and he went out the Sunday morning and saw an unoccupied hut. and, beiim curious, he entered by the window. Ali hough there was a box there containing watches he did not touch them, but foolishly broke open a little box and purloined a pair of cashmere socks. Ho had not been away from home long—not more than nine months. There was no need for him to steal at all. He had suffered from h : s head on a good many occasions. Ho had been seven weeks in prison now. His parents were willing to receive him home again and give him the careful attention he evidently needed.

The Crown Prosecutor said prisoner's character was indifferent, and he had been convicted, of theft at Invercargill, and was ordered to come up for sentence when called on. Since he had been committed for control his conduct had been such ae to ahow criminal tendency. His conduct while under control had been outrageous. His Honor: The best thing for the public and for yourself is that .you be committed for a period of reformative treatment. You will be committed to prison for reformative purposes for any period not exceeding two years.

Robert Russell was brought up for sentence on a charge of breaking and entering and theft committed at Winton on September 27.

Prisoner, who appeared to be about 40 years of age, asked to be dealt with under the Probation Act. The Crown Prosecutor said that from inquiries made of the police prisoner was an honest, hard-working man, whose only fault was a fondness for drink. That was one report. Another was that the man’s moral character was not good, and that the cause of his downfall was drink. He was, however, a real good worker. There had been three prohibition orders granted against him. His Honor said prisoner would bo placed on probation for 12 months, a condition of probation being that during the whole time ho abstain from intoxicating liquor. If ho broke that cond'tion ho would be brought tip for sentence Ho would also have to pay the £3 stolon and £2 11s 4d for costs —making £5 11s 4d in all —by weekly payments of ss. and, concluded his Honor, “ Don’t let me see you hero any more.”

William George Lambert was brought before his Honor for sentence on a charge of failing to keep proper books of account at Dunedin during the last three years prior to his bankruntcy. ,

Mr W. Ij. Moore, who appeared for prisoner, said that at bankrupt’s meeting of creditors Mr A. A. Fairbairn had been associated with the Official Assignee as supervisor over the estate in the interests of creditors. Mr Fairbairn had been called out of town, but had left a statement which counsel read.

Mr Moore supplemented this statement by saying that Lambert, finding his bookkeeping insufficient, nut his affairs in the hands of a firm of accountants. This firm did not think suffic'ont particulars had been provided in th" books, and they started his books afresh The following month Lambert was unfortunate enough to have a fire, which put him about in his business. ■Entries were delayed. a.nd the month after he was asked to file his schedule. His books would have righted themselves in time had the delayed entries been made. So far as the firm of accountants could make out, Lambert’s books showed that at the time he was solvent. As Mr Fairbairn’s statement affirmed, at the beginning Lambert had £450, end looked to realise £SO from book debts. He knew nothing of retail business nor of book-keeping, and counsel drew attention to the fact that the man who introduced Lambert to the business (Hislon’s) sold Lambert £4OO worth of goods on bills. <. The Crown Prosecutor said he believed that the hulk of the creditors wore favourable. as Mr Moore had stated. H is Honor: What was the amount of his debts? Mr Moore: About £1350. His Honor agreed. Mr Moore proceeded to say that Lambert had suffered considerably. Ho oould - not work hero owing to the existence of a covenant, and had gone to Auckland in order to make a ving. The Official Assignee had hoard that it was his intention to leave for Suva, which was incorrect, but ho had been arrested. Learned counsel submitted that if prisoner was sentenced, that the sentence should be a light one, and that if he was fined, the fine should be small. The man had suffered. His Honor: No doubt, no doubt The Crown Prosecutor said Mr Fairbairn (who had been referred to) was largely interested in the estate, and he (learned counsel) believed that the statements mad ' with regard to prisoner were approximately correct. The Assignee had informed him (Mr Fraser) that morning that the estate had realised about 10s in the pound. Nothing was known against the character of accused. Mr MooreT The estate at the time he filed showed him to be about solvent.

Everything he had has gone. He has lost more than any individual creditor. His Honor said no doubt the bankrupt had committed a merely technical offence, but he was liable under the statute to punishment on what he had before him (his Honor). It seemed that there were a great deal of extenuating circumstances. Hooking at the position of the estate and at the account ot whar. had happened prior to bankruptcy it seemed to him (his Honor) that the case would be justly met by a suspension of bankrupt’s discharge when the matter came on for hearing instead of inflicting any substantial punishment. it was, however, important that the criminal provisions in the Bankruptcy Act should be maintained, but looking at the whole circumstances of the case the sijsponsion of the discharge would, he thought, bo a sufficient punishment. He thought it was needless to inflict any further punishment, although bankrupt might have been guilty of a technical offence. In the present case no dishonesty was suggested, and the estate had realised a substantial dividend, and the majority of the creditors were opposed to criminal proceedings. The sentence of the court was that prisoner enter into his own recognisance of £2O to come up for judgment when called upon.

CASES FOR TRIAL. Sarah Ann Fricker was charged with committing forgery at Oamaru on October 10. Accused was represented by Mr Irwin, and pleaded guilty. Mr Irwin said that nothing was pioviously known against accused. Her conduct in connection with this transaction seemed to have been stupid. She had taken a cheque form out oi her employer s cheque book and filled it in for £lO, and had gone into Oamaru, taken the cheque to a shop and got the money for it. The Crown Prosecutor said that the police report was that accused’s character was not too good, principally in connection with moral lapses. The £lO she had spent. She was a domestic servant. Mr Irwin said that of the two children accused had one was adopted, but the other, a year old, she had to support. She was not in any employment at present. His Honor asked what the costs of the prosecution were, and was informed that they were £l4 4s. His Honor then said that the ccsts of the prosecution were heavy, and he did not feel inclined to call upon the woman to pay more than a small portion of them. She would have to pay the £lO and a portion of the ccsts. She would be admitted to probation for 12 months, and during that time would pay 5s a week —first towards the £lO to bo paid to James Rodman, and the rest towards part payment of the costa of the prosecution. David Carnahan was then placed in the dock to answer charges of indecent assault and common assault on a little girl.

Mr Hay appeared for accused, a young man about 25 years old, of very respectable appearance, who pleaded not guilty. After the hearing of evidence his Honor summed up, and the jury at 3 p.m. Aftcb an absence of 55 minutes it returned with x a verdict of guilty on the second count (common assault). Sentence was deferred.

Charles Ran well was charged that, on or about August 9, he did assault one Robert Duncan so as to cause him actual bodily harm, and that, further, he did assault the said Robert Duncan Kvirlence was given by Percy Peter James Stewart (senior house surgeon at Dunedin Hospital), Robert Duncan (complainant), and Hugh Kirkpatrick Murray, Adam Crow, William M’Donnell, and David M'Lonnan (permanent members of the Fire Brigade). The court then adjourned till this morning at 10.30 o’clock. Tuesday, November 11. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) maxwell’s case. The criminal sittings were resumed at 10.30 a.rn., when the charge against Charles Banwell of assaulting and causing Robert Duncan actual bodily harm, was continued. Mr Irwin, addressing the jury, said there was no doubt that there had been a challenge to fight on the part of Duncan. There had been an invitation to go down the street and fight; the jury knew with what result. If Banwell had committed such a brutal assault why did not the members of the Fire Brigade ring up the police, or arrest Banwell? ’llicrc were enough there “to • eat him.” They did not think this man had committed any offence or they would have arrested him. He contended that the whole truth hud not been told by the nrosecution.

His Honor then summed up; the jury retired at 12.15, And returned half an hour later with a verdict of guilty of assault. His Honor; That means a verdict of guilty. Later the Crown Prosecutor said Banwell had a very bad record. He was a wharf labourer, and very fond of drink. He was an amateur boxer, and as soon as he got liquor he seemed to be ‘ looking for fight.” It was ho who had made an unprovoked assault upon Mr G. Callaway, the solicitor, some time ago. He associated with bad characters, and ho was a leader of hoodlums, and looked upon as a Dully. There were two previous convictions ag-a£jast him, one for assault and the other for breach of the peace. In the first case his victim was in bed for three days.

Mr Irwin said that apart from his pugilistic propensities accused was a hard-work-ing young man and supported his mother. If he did not give way to drink there would bo no charges against him at all. His Honor: Tiie sentence of the court is that you bo imprisoned for 12 months and kept to hard labour. ASSAULT AND BOBBEHY. Angus Pollock was indicted that ho did at Dunedin about May 20 assault and rob William Douglas TaAnahill of £5 and a silver watch. There was a second count charging him with receiving stolen property. Mr 13. S. Irwin appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by William Douglas Tannahill. an elderly man, who said ho resided at Mosgiel, and who in cross-examina-tion said accused gave his name as Angus Pollock, and described himself as a fireman residing at. Caversham Mr Irwin then addressed the jury. Ho said the property was no doubt stolen some four and a-half months before accused wont to Rossiter’s pawn shop to dispose of the watch. There was no question that he could not be connected with the major offence. Ho (counsel) submitted that on the evidence the jury could not convict accused of receiving. Accused was a fireman in the employ of the Union Company. In order to succeed the Crown must prove that at the time he received the watch he knew that it had bc§n stolen.

His Honor summed up, and the jury, after half an hour’s retirement, returned with a verdict of guilty on the second count. Judgment was reserved. When the casei was again called on, the Crown Prosecutor said accused’s character was bad, and he gave details of several convictions in Wellington and other places for vagrancy, threatening behaviour, breach of the peace, drunkenness, etc. Accused rejoiced in three aliases. Mr Irwin pointed out that there was only one conviction against accused involving dishonesty. Accused was a fireman and supported hie widowed mother. His Honor: The best thing is to keep accused away from drink for a time. The sentence of the court is that he be imprisoned for 12 months and kept to hard labour. Accused (in a low tone of voice): It will see the strike over. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. G&orge Irvine was charged with having, on September 15, at Dunedin, received stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. Mr C. N. Scunr appeared for abused, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the articles in question belonged to an English traveller named Hudson, and were stolen from the steamer Moeraki, at Port Chalmers, by a man named Reed, who was a steward. Reed had lived in the same boardinghouse as accused, and brought the articles to Dunedin and gave them to Irvine. Mr Scurr, addressing the jury, said that accused was 21 years of ago and bore an irreproachable character. Commenting on the means by which the statement made by accused had boon obtained, counsel said chat after getting this statement the police officer had gone 3 to a typewriter and put down what he could recollect. Reed had said in the presence of accused that he had given 18s for the bag. and accused’s actions had not been the actions of a thief, or of a receiver. Counsel maintained that accused had received the goods quite innocently. The jury retired at 3.15, and 20 minutes later returned with a verdict of not guilty. Accused was therefore discharged.

THEFT. Frank Albert Reed, a prisoner awaiting sentence on a charge of thelt, committed at Dunedin on September 15, was brought before the court, and asked to be placed on probation. His Honor: I don’t think a steward on board a ship should bo admitted to probation when his offence is stealing luggage of a passenger, .although nothing whatever may bo known against him. The public has a right to be protected in such oases, but I shall pass a light sentence. You will therefore have the benefit of your previous good character. The sentence of the court is that you bo imprisoned for three months and kept to hard labour.

ASSAULTING A CHILD. David Carnahan, whose case was heard the previous day, and who had been found guiity of common assault, was brought up for sentence. He asked for mercy for the sake of his wife and child.

Mr Hay, who appeared for him, said Carnahan found..himself in his present position entirely through drink. He had been 16 or 17 years in New Zealand, and had borne an irreproachable character. He was a married man with a young wife and one child. It djd not appear that ho was a confirmed drunkard. He had stated that lie had received such a lesson that he would not touch drink again, and ho was willing to have a prohibition order taken out against himself.

The Crown Prosecutor said the accused had borne a good character up to date. He was slightly addicted to drink, but with that exception had a good character.

His Honor: I have corsidrra.blo doubt in this case as to whether I should not pass a short sentence. T)n the whole, however, I think I am justified in admitting.accused to probation. Tho jury has fount] that he was guilty of common assault only, and I am bound, of course, to accept tho verdict of tlie jury, and that being so, and tho accused having been long resident in Dunedin and having borne a good character he is entitled to the benefit of that character. Further than that the child on whom tho assault was committed has suffered no injury, physical or moral. There can bo no doubt that accused committed this offence when he was nearly irresponsible from the effects of drink. It was not shown that he is a habitual drunkard. It is 'only when ho has received his wageo that he gives way to drink. Otherwise ho has behaved well ns a husband, and tho father of a family. The accused will have to pay the expenses of the prosecution, and will also have to take out a prohibition order against himself, and it will bo a condition of probation that he will abstain from intoxicating liquor during the period of probation. He will be admitted to probation for 12 months on these terms. He will have to pay the costs of the prosecution, £lO 16s, by instalments of 4s per week. '

This concluded the criminal sittings, and tho court rose at a quarter to 4 o’clock.