SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2877, 14 June 1882, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

TIMARU. OEIMINAL SESSIONS. ■ Tuesday, June 13. (Befor His Honor Mr Justice Williams). ASSAULT WITH INTENT. Mark Bishop, aged 19 years, was charged with assault with intent upon the person of Beatrice Skinner, a girl of eight years of age ; also with common assault on the same. Mr J. W. White appeared for the prosecution, Mr Reid for the defence. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. A jury was sworn in, of which Mr Slater was chosen foreman. Mr White, for the prosecution, stated that there was a double charge ; one of assault with intent, and another of common assault; and he proceeded to detail the occurrence. The facts were simply The prisoner was painting a fence at the girl’s mother’s house, and the mother discovered that an offence had been committed;; and he proceeded to call the evidence of the girl’s mother (Mrs Skinner), the girl herself, and Dr. Chilton. [The evidence is unfit for publication.] This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr Reid addressed the jury to the effect that the story for the prosecution was very unreliable. His Honor summed up, and the jury having retired for about an hour, brought in a verdict of not guilty of assault with intent, but guilty of assault. His Honor sentenced the prisoner tp 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. FORGERY AND UTTERING. John Thomas Healey was charged with the forgery of a promissory note. The prisoner pleaded guilty of uttering. Mr White expressed - his willingness to receive this plea and not to proceed upon the charge of forgery. The jury being sworn were directed by His Honor to find a verdict of not guilty of forgery. Sentence deferred. Prisoner was again indicted on three charges of forgery of orders for payment of money. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr White intimated his intention to enter a nolle prosequi , but His Honor said that a Crown solicitor so desiring must first communicate with the Minister of Justice. This the learned counsel intimated his intention do. Wednesday, June 14. His Honor took his seat at 10 o’clock.

SENTENCES. Edward Ford, being asked what he had ±o say why sentence should not be passed on him for robbery from the person, for which he was tried yester day, said : “ I was in liquor when I did it, abd 1 don’t know anything about it.” Mr Cotter, gaoler, testified that prisoner had been in the gaol previously. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years with hard labor. Charles Heatley, for horse stealing, who had nothing to say, wift sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Thomas Christie, for forgery, had nothing to say. It transpired that prisoner was at this time serving a sentence for a forgery committed at Dunedin since the present offence. He had also been convicted before for obtaining money by threats. His Honor sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor, the sentence to commence on the expiration of his present sentence. John Thomas Healey, convicted of uttering, bad nothing to say. His Honor remarked that prisoner appeared to have gone to the bad quite suddenly. Mr White observed that it was through giving way to drink. His Honor sentenced prisoner to two years imprisonment with hard labor, on each of the two indictments, the sentences to be concurrent. Prisoner asked that the four months he had already spent in gaol should be considered. His Honor replied that he had taken that fact into consideration. Mr White intimated that he was authorised by the Attorney general to enter a nolle prosequi in the matter of the three remaining charges of forgery, and uttering, against Healey. The prisoner was then formally found not guilty on those charges. LABCENY BEOSI A DWELLING. Frederick Cullamore was indicted for having taken from the house of one C. J, Lockwood, sundry articles, the goods and chattels of the said Lockwood on March 21, 1882. Mr White appeared on behalf of the Crown to prosecute, and Mr Hamer-, sley for the defence. A jury was sworn of which Mr Brewer was chosen foreman. * Mr White shortly stated the case for the Crown as follows : —The prisoner on the date specified in the indictment, engaged an express to remove the articles mentioned; and went away with the wife of the man Lockwood. He explained to the jury that it was important that they should be aware that the case for the prosecution would depend entirely on the evidence of prisoners adultry, with Mrs Lockwood, or intention to commit the same. The following evidence was called : C. ,J. Lockwood a chaff cutter, said, prisoner used to live in his house. On the date in question witness left home at 9.30 a.m., leaving his wife and prisoner there. Ho also left his goods m the house. These articles (produced) were his property and had been removed. The total value of the goods was over five pounds. Witness returned at 6 30 and found his things gone, and the house locked up. Prisoner was not there on his return: Witness’ wife’s age was about 29. _ Shewas not present now so far as witness knew. Prisoner had no authority to remove the goods. Witness had seen his wife often since her leaving him. Ho had seen her at a house in Oamaru. Their child was about three years old. There were throe rooms in the Oamaru house and one bed. The bed was on the floor, a double bed. To Mr Ilamcrslcy—The house I live in at Sandietown is ray own. Prisoner was out of work at that time. There was no bedstead at Oamaru, the bed was on the floor. William Ward, expressman, said ho remembered taking luggage for prisoner on March 21 before dinner, between 10 and 11 o’clock. Witness recognised the goods produced as those he had taken on that occasion to the railway, at prisoner’s

order. Witness saw prisoner and Mrs Lockwood in the railway carriage. To Mr Hamersley—The things were packed up so that I could not tell what what was in the box. Terence O’Brien, detective, stationed at Oamaru, said he arrested the prisoner on the date named, at Oamaru ; in a house in Torridge street. It was a 3-roomed bouse, Mrs Lockwood, prisoner, and the child were the only occupants of the house. A large double bed was on the floor. The child was asleep in the bath in one of the rooms. Witness made the arrest about 10.30 in the morning. When witness read the warrant to prisoner, prisoner said, “ The sewing machine is hers. I did not take the things in there.” Prisoner then put his arms round her neck and kissed her. Prisoner said, “ Keep yourself quiet. I’ll be back soon.” Mrs Lockwood seemed about 30 years of age ; short and stout. To Mr Hatnersley—She was living in the house as Mrs Lockwood. ' I know that prisoner had taken the house. Mrs Lockwood has been living down there ever since. She spoke to prisoner at the Railway Station, and she told me that she had taken the things not him. She said he had only put them on the express. Prisoner told me that Mrs Lockwood’s husband was bad to her. His Honor—l do not think this is evidence. Witness continued—Prisoner did not try to avoid me. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Hamorsley addressed the Court in defence of the prisoner, Ho said it had been shown that the prisoner was only acting under Mrs Lockwood’s instructions. Prisoner.'did not remove the goods for his own benefit; he took them to a house in Oamaru for Mrs Lockwood’s use, at her request. There could be no larceny of a husband’s goods by his wife ; she being part and parcel of her husband. Unless it could be shown that prisoner was an adulterer with Mrs Lockwood, there could be no larceny of Lockwood’s goods. Was there evidence before the jury, of any adultery on the part of prisoner and Mrs Lockwood ? The only evidence of adultery brought by the prosecution was the fact of a bed being in the house they were found in. The prisoner’s statement was that he had lodged in Lockwood's house. The married pair were living unhappily, and at Mrs Lockwood’s request, the prisoner took the goods down to Oamaru for her, The jury must fully understand that prisoner had acted at the instigation of the wife. The theory of the defence was at least as credible as that of the prosecution, and it must be remembered that the parties had acted openly. Unless adultery was proved prisoner must be acquitted. His Honor summed up. He observed that if the parties went away with the intention of committing adultery the prisoner bad been guilty of larceny. The alleged ill-treatment of Mrs Lockwood by her husband did not affect the case. The goods had been taken ; and the detective’s evidence was to the effect that the parties were on affectionate terms. . The jury retired for twenty minufes and on their return, gave a verdict of “ guilty." Mr White testified to the previous good character of the prisoner. His Honor sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. EMBEZZLEMENT. Frederick Welstead was charged with embezzlement from Charles Storey, his master, on January 4th, 1882. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr White prosecuted, and Mr Jameson appeared for the defence, A jury was empanelled, of which Mr Young was chosen foreman. Mr White opened the case for the Crown. The prisoner was charged with embezzlement of two cheques. Prisoner was a groom, and committed the offence when in charge of an entire horse, travelling the district. He had been specially instructed to receive no money on his employer’s account, and to work economically. He had, however, obtained eertain monies on his employer’s account, which he subsequently denied. It might be contended, for the defence, that the amounts were trivial, and that prisoner might have thought himself entitled to receive monies. He would observe, however, that the amount, whether one pound or a thousand, did not offect the case. As to a mistake, it would be shown that there was no doubt as to his having been forbidden to receive monies.

The following evidence was taken for the prosecution, Charles Storey, livery stablekeeper, said he had engaged prisoner to travel an entire horse in the Ashburton district at £2 per week and groomago. He was instructed by witness to do the best he could in travelling. Witness gave him no instructions as to money. Prisoner had not to pay away any money for stabling, as witness had* arranged that with other stablekeepers. Witness had, in fact, himself paid all the horse’s expenses. It was 9th January when witness and prisoner squared up. Witness had paid to prisoner, and on prisoner’s order, the sum of £26 6s 6d, At the settlement between witness and prisoner (he being then on the point of leaving witness’ service) prisoner had told witness that “he had never received a penny on account of the horse.” Witness asked prisoner to call on Mr Cookson.of Ashburton to ask to*receive one guicea on his account, the afnount of a prize gained at the show by the horse, Rapid Roan. To Mr Jameson I authorised prisoner to sell a hack, saddle and bridle. He sold the saddle for £3 10s and that was deducted from his wages. He and I never had money transactions beyond the payments of his wages. I paid him nothing between 26th September and 10th December. It was the usual practice to pay in one amount. Prisoner did not hide that Carton owed £2 for service of the horse. He had put it down in his book. This book was now in the same state it.was in on January 9 except the strokes. Witness made the strokes. Eeexamined—The strokes made no difference in Carton’s account. Witness used to strike out names when he received money.

To His Honor—l think prisoner asked me once for money and I gave him £5. Ho never asked for money to pay his way. George Jameson, Secretary to the Ashburton Agricultural aifd Pastoral Association said he paid prisoner the cheque for one guinea (produced.) It was in payment of a prize. The cheque was filled in by witness in favor of C. Story and handed to prisoner about 19th December. The cheque bad been duly paid. Otto Carstan said ho knew prisoner and remembered a conversation about the beginning of October last. Prisoner asked witness if he wanted the services of Eapid Eoan,. and having arranged for his services, prisoner got certain goods from witness. Witness afterwards had the services of Eapid Eoan. He was paid by witness for that service, and gave a receipt. To Mr Jameson—-The cheque was filled in in favor of “ Fred" as witness did not know his surname. This was the case for the Crown.

Mr Jameson addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner. The crimes of forgery and embezzlement were essentially different. The learned Counsel for the Crown had cited a case of forgery to show the legal aspect of this case of embezzlement. He cited a case of embezzlement, and the judgment of Judge Crosswell upon it, which was to the effect that embezzlement involved secrecy. If a person kept back certain monies in the course of a regular business transaction

and owned and showed that he had done so under some impression of his act being a customary and lawful one, he could not be' held to be guilty of embezzlement. It appeared that £3O 5s 9d was due to prisoner on January 4, and his employer paid him £27 6s 6d. The difference was just the amount prisoner was charged with embezzling. Morqpver, although Storey said ho had not instructed prisoner toj?et money for him ;yet he had told him to sell a saddle for him for £3 10s. Why not charge

him with the embezzlement of this also ? Prisoner had made no concealment and had really not embezzled anything. His Honor summed up the case. Ho said there were two points to be considered : —(1.) Was prisoner the servant of the witness Storey, from whom he was alleged to have embezzled money ? (2.) Did he embezzle, or take away (having no right to do so) certain money, the property of his employer ? There was abundant evidence on the first point. It had been shown that prisoner had been engaged to serve Mr Storey at a specified rate of wage. On the second head, it had been shown that prisoner received and appropriated one guinea the amount of a prize obtained by the horse Rapid Roan.

He rendered Carsten an account, and received payment. The evidence of the prosecutor was, (1) that he had never authorised the prisoner to receive these monies, and (2) that prisoner, at their settling up, had denied having received any money. Concealment and falsehoods were important elements of embezzlement. ,Such concealment and falsehood had been shown by prisoner, if the evidence was reliable. Further, prisoner- supplied his employer with a list of persons owing monies on ‘account of the horse (with the several amounts), such list having on it the name and amount of Carstene; when prisoner had actually received that amount himself. The jury had therefore to consider how the evidence appeared when looked at in these two aspects.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, but they had not agreed up to the time we went to press.