SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2876, 13 June 1882, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

-• r TIMARU. : CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tuesday, June 13. (Bofor His Honor Mr Justice Williams). ; His Honor took his seat at 11 a.m. GRAND JURY. , ; The following gentlemen were sworn in* as a Grand Jury;—Dr. Lovegrove, Messrs Watkins, McGuinness, Jackson, Sims, Archer, Ziesler, Stericker, Smith, Raddon, McLaren, Deltenzie, Hamlin, Gladstone, Morton, Acton, Bowker, Jno. Patterson, James Patterson, Wright, Bruce, Brownell, and Wood, Mr F. Archer was chosen foreman. ' DEFAULTING jurors. ; Mr Goodnll was absent, and Dr Lovegrove, being sworn, stated (as Mr Good - dll’s medical: attendant) that he ;W.as unable, through illness, to attend. His Honor excused MrGoodall’s attendance, i Mr Marcroft was in attendance, but being evidently ill, he mk excused by HisgHonor. Mr Brownell asked to be excused on the ground that he. was duo in Dunedin on urgent business. His Honor said there would be time for.hira to go by the mid-day train, so that lie need not bo excused. THE JUDGE’S CHARGE. His Honor delivered a brief charge to the Grand Jury. He remarked that the calendar was, ho was happy to say, extremely light, and there were no coses calling for special direction on his part. The only special remark he desired to make, was in connection with the case of Regina v. Mark Bishop, for attempting to have carnal knowledge of a girl

under 13 years of age. His Honor desired the Grand Jury to understand that.yi a case of assault with intent upon a female child it was immaterial whether the girl was proved to be a consenting party or not. It was an offence against the Statute. In the case of Regina v. F. Cullamore, the prisoner had run away with another man’s wife, and had taken away some of the husband’s property. His Honor explained that if a wife gave property belonging to her husband to another person the receiver was not guilty of any offence in the eye of the law, as a wife could not steal from her husband. In case, however, it appeared that the woman went away in adultery with another man and they took property from her husband, the adulterer would be held guilty of the offence of larceny. The otbef case.,, His Honor remarked, called for no comment. TRDIf BILLS. The Jury returned true Bills against Charles Heatly, .for horse stealing? against the same for larceny of a saddle and bridle; Edward Ford, for robbery from the person ; Thomas Christie, for forgery and uttering; John Sullivan, for placing stones on the railway line; John Thomas Healey, forgery and utter-, ing; J. T, Healey, forgery in Ross case ; J. T. Healey, forgery in McGuinness’ case: J, T. Healey, forgery in Innes’ case. HORSE STEALING. Charles Heatly, aged 15 years, was indicted for stealings horse, the property of one Michael Riordan, on the 18th day of February last. Prisoner pleaded guilty, ■ and His Honor deferred sentence. LARCENY OF A SADDLE AND BRIDLE. ■ Charles Heatly was indicted for the larceny of a saddle and bridle then in the charge of Michael Eiordan on the 18th February last. Prisoner also pleaded guilty to this charge, and His Honor deferred sentence. BOBBERY FROM THE" PERSON. Edward Ford, aged 29 years, was charged with robbery from the person of Edward Molloy. . Prisoner pleaded guilty, and sentence was deferred. ' ROHGEEY AND UTTERING. Thomas Christie, alias Cruickshanks, alias F. Gilbert, alias G. Ennis, aged 31 years, was indicted for forging and uttering an order for money on March 4,1881. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and sentence was deferred. PLACING STONES ®N THE RAILWAY LINE. John .Sullivan, aged 13 years, was indicted for placing eight stones on the railway line, on March 4, 1882. The prisoner, who is quite a little lad, pleaded guilty. His Honor deferred sentence. forgery.

John Thomas Healey, aged 32 years> was 'charged with forgery on January 11,1882, of a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand at "W annate, and uttering the same. The prisoner pleaded “ Not Guilty.’’ The following jury were sworn to try the case : —Messrs Wilkinson, hi. Connelly, J. Smith, T. Mitchell, T. Somerville, J. J. Lords, P. Power, W. ~ Hickman, A. Daley, and W. Bush. Mr-Bush was chosen Foreman. Mr J.jW. White, Crown Prosecutor,conducted the prosecution, and Mr Jameson appeared for the defence. Mr White stated the case or the prosecution. He said the prisoner had obtained cash fora cheque purportingto be signed by J. T. Prouso and C0.,-'/ from one, Mr Spillane, such firm having no account at the Bank of New Zealand, Waimate, on which Bank the cheque was drawn. The following evidence was called on behalf of the Crown : * * - Michael Spillane, hotelkeeper at Timaru, said—The accused visited him on the date mentioned and tendered him the cheque produced and asked witness, for change. Witness gave him £10 f oh ' account of it there and then. Prisoner; endorsed the cheque before witness gave him the money. He gave him more money next day. Witness had passed the cheque through the Bank, but got no money from the Bank. Prisoner had paid witness afterwards, but henever received money from the Bank.

■To Mr Jameson—l eashed the cheque on the faith of Healy, not of the signature to the cheque. I saw Healey, sdbn 1 after it was dishonored and asked him for the money. ' Re-examined—Prisoner promised to get the money as soon as he could, when witness acquainted him with the die- . honor of the cheque. Robert McOwen, manager of the Bank of New Zealand in Waimato, said he recognised the cheque produced as haying been tendered at his bank, and that no firm of that name had over had an account at his bank. , - Austin Kirby, detective, stationed at Timaru, said he knew the district well but could find no trace of any person or firm of the name of James Prouse. To Mr Jameson—l know tliere isrd person of that name in the North Island. I cannot say who laid the information, ■ This was the case for the prosecution, Mr Jameson, for the defence, said the . case of the Crown was apparently simple,, but the Crown had failed to show that the deceit necessary to constitute, forgery, had in this -case . been " practised. It would be hard if Bah innocent holder of a cheque, as was the prisoner in this case, were liable to be prosecuted for forgery. There was no evidence to show that th,e made any representation as to the signal ture, or obtained the money under any-, false pretence. A forger never disclosed ; his own name, he would rely only, on the name ho forged. Healey had disclosed himself by endorsing this cheque. • He ! (counsel) thought the jury could arrive at no other verdict than one of acquittal. His Honor summed up the evidence in the case, and explained' very deafly the law on the subjects of forgery and uttering, respectively. It would; .bo, . competent to find a person guilty of uttering without finding him to have committed forgery. The jury ought to consider (1) was the document fictitious? (2). Hid the prisoner know it was. fictitious? The cheque had been drawn on a certain bank whose manager disclaimed all knowledge of any such firm. The detective know . no person in this Island of the name of Prouso. These things would indicate the document to bo a false one.,. As to the prisoner’s knowledge of its being fictitious ; it had been represented that prisoner had - received the cheque in the ordinary way of business, without knowing it to be false. There appeared a difficulty in believing this as the body of the cheque was not filled in with the name of a stranger, but by prisoner himself. As for prisoner’s refunding the money afterwards, that did not in any way lessen his guilt, if he had committed the offence. If the jury really believed the document to be fictitious, and the prisoner to have knowledge that it was so, they would be obliged to find him 1 guilty. : The jury retired for three-quarters of an hour, and, on returning, returned a verdict of “ not guilty.”

FORGERY AND UTTERING. John T. Healey was charged with the forgery and uttering of a promissory note, with intent to defraud Ross, Sims and Co. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and a jury was empannelled, of which Mr Jacob Young was chosen foreman. Mr J. W. White conducted the prosecution ; Mr Jameson appearing for the defence. Mr White, in opening the case for the Crown, stated that on the date mentioned prisoner had gone to the house of business Qf Boss, Sims and Co., and asked Mr Ross to discount a promissory note which he produced, spying the signature was that o£ John Priest. The note 'was dishonored. The following evidence was taken : D, M. Boss, .of Boss, Sims & Co., said he saw witness on November 1 last. Prisoner asked him to discount a bill. Witness asked whose signature it bore, and prisoner replied “ It’s old John Priest, the old man, you know him.” Witness gave him a cheque for £ll 15. The only John-Priest witness knew was John Priest of Pareora, farmer, and witness had been in South Canterbury ten years. To Mr Jameson —I know prisoner well. I have always found him honorable before this. I have had bills and mortgages, and other transactions with him. John Priest, farmer, of Pareora, said he had known prisoner 13 or 14 years. The signature was not his, and was not , put there by witness’ authority. There * was no one of witness name in the district. « , , , To Mr Jameson—l have known witness and had. money transactions with him 7 or 8 years ago. Re-examined—l never had any bill transactions with prisoner. Henry Jabez Luxford, clerk in the Bank'of New Zealand, Timaru, recognised the bill (produced) as one that had not been by his bank. (Witness, at His Honor’s request, here explained the usual method of notifying dishonor by marking cheques, bills, Ac.),

D. M. Ross (recalled) deposed that the bill had been presented by him and retnrned dishonored. Detective Kirby said he could find no person in the district named John Priest, except the witness who had just been examined. • This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Jameson, for the defence, said that prisoner had not concealed himself in'the matter. .He had gone to a man with whom he had had transactionsIn this case, he was an innocent bolder. Mr Jameson then reiterated the arguments he bad brought forward in the previous case, and added: —This was not the John Priest whose name was on the bill. It was another, and every effort had been made to find him ; for, in the execution of his business as a cattle dealer, prisoner bad taken this acceptance from one John Priest. There was evidence that prisoner had been an honorable man throughout his career. No intention to defraud had been shown. Ho would ask for an acquittal. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired for about half an hour, and on returning gave a verdict of guilty of uttering ; not guilty of forgery. The trial of Mark Bishop for assault with intent was proceeding, when we went to press.