SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14359, 3 February 1911, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. SECOND DAY. The sitting o£ the Supreme Court ill Timr.ru was continued yes&eruay, before U:s Honour Mr Justice Denciston. - CONCEALMENT OF JBIRTH. -E:hol Iroadec wus cliarged wiih concealment oi birth, anti picadsd guilty. IMsuncr was represented by jlr S. G. Raymond, who said that accused ■was brought up in the Catholic Orphanage at'Duuedin until she was 16 years oi Tnen she left and wcut into servile, remaining in the employment of the one person, until she was disciiargvd when har mistress discover- . eti her condition. Accused had been in trouble before, but the child was still alive. The statement which the girl had made showed that she was in a state of mental perturbation, and did cot realise the gravity of her offence. A report from the orphanage stated that the girl's conduct had been excellent whale 6he was there. Counsel applied for probation, and said employment would" be found for her if this course ©odd be adopted. His Honour said that the object of the statute was to secure a certain amount of publicity and |>rev«ent infanticide. It was a very important , statute, and it would not do to treat it as formal. In the present case ( it was in favour of the accused that the trouble appeared to hare come on her suddenly unexpectedly. There were no grounds for suspecting that : there had been foul play of any kind. Against the girl was the fact that she' had been in trouble before. However, l-i this case, he would admit the girl to probation for two years, with the condition that she need not report herself to the police during that time, 6} long as she remained in the same place of employment. BREAKING AND ENTERING.

John i 2 ark, represented by Mr S. G. Ralmonti, pleaded not to a charge ox breaking and entering the; post office at-Glenavy on June 20th, and stealing therefrom the sum of £lo.

The case was heard before the following jury:—Messrs J. Badcliffe (foreman), \V. A. Cooper, G. H. Shelley, V. Matheson, A. J. Manning, P. Campbell, G. P. Wood, E. A. Crawford, V. Simeons, E. B. Hall, E. A. Geaney and JEL H. Fraser. I\lr White outlined the case for the prosecution. On the 20th of June between the hours of 4 and 5 in the evening, the postmaster at Glenavv had occasion to leave the post office for a time. The nest day on making up his cash he found that he waa £ls short. Accused tired about 100 yards away from the building, and had a key of the front dcor in his possession at that time. A few days afterwards secured changed a £lO note and a£s at the hotel, and t}» licensee said that he rras "silvery." accused replied that he had just been paid. This his father denied, and accused then made otlxe'r statement?., about the money, which were not supported. Air White called.

J. H. White, postmaster and stationmaster at Glenn vy, who gave evidence in support- of counsel's opening statement. Accused wa.? often about the station, and had every opportunity of knowing the customs of the officials. In September witness questioned accused about a key he had for the front door, and Park replied that he had obtained it from a cadet some time previously* to get a bicvele out of the lobby.'

To Mr Raymond: About 5 o'clock c.-i Jnae 20th fee attended to the crossing of the expresses. The cash box *ras then en the safe, hut the office was n-ot left unattended, for th-e andit inspector vrzs there. An ordinary key would open the post office door, and hir. ovm house key had opened it ence. Alex. Simpson* licensee of the Redclifr Hotel, said that in Jane last ac-

cased -went to witness's place when he had a£s note which he cashed. Later he cashed a £lO note. To Mr Raymond: Tins visit wp made on accused's usual biweekly round with his grocery cart. # Accused had on several previous occasions asked for change. Witness had changed a £5 note once "before for him. Detective Fahev gave evidence as to the arrest of accused. Accused said h«i did not- remember changing the ~o note and that he did not steal any money. . Frederick Pelvin, farmer at Glenavy, s.vid tliat in November 1909 he paid the accused an account for £ls; also paid him £ls in July of last year. Paid him nothing in June. George Park, storekeeper at Glenavy, and father of the accused, - said he had not paid his son any sum of money about June 24 last. To Mr Raymond: That month he brought home over £IOO from customers. TTj* duties were to deliver groceries. and collect accounts. Ho had authority to change cheques or notes fo. purposes of the business. Constable Hilliard, of Glenavy, gave evidence as to the arrest of accused. He produced a key which ho had obtained from accused's mother. The key opened the door of the post office at Glenavy. This closed the case for the prosecution.

2ilr Raymond addressed the jury, pointing out that the accused had all along strenuously denied the charge against him; he still denied it, and the Crown had utterly failed to prove that ho was the guilty party. It had j been shown that the key found in the I possession of accused was one of the j commonest description and that he had j ccme by it in a perfectly legitimate i way. It had been shown too, that the 1 door of the post office oould be opened by a number of keys, and that it would hare been comparatively easy for any one to gain admission to the building. The; accused was in the habit of receiving large sums of money from his father's customers, and there was nothing unusual in his changing notes at .the hotel. That did not connect him with the theft in any way nor did anything else which the Crown had brought forward. His Honour, in summing up said it was clear that £ls had been stolen, the sum including a £IQ note. It was clear to that the accused had a key which would open the door of the pest office, and that four days after the robbery the accused changed a £lO. note and a £o note. He was asked where he got it and his .reply was: "It was pay day yesterday." The jury .would be able to form their own opinion as to' how far it would be necessary for a young fellow on a grocery cert to change first a £lO note and then a £5 note. The suggestion by tiiK defence was that this was an ordinary business necessity. The accused said he obtained the £lO note from Fred. Pelvin who paid an account for groceries that day. Pelvin, however, said he had not paid an account to accused that day. It would be for the jury to decide as to whether they considered the charge against the accused proved beyond any doubt; if not, he should be given the benefit of any doubt.

The jury after a short retirement returned with a verdict- of not guilty. His Honour said that prisoner could not be discharged as there was another charge against him for breaking into the same place on September 12, and to this he had pleaded' guilty. His Honour explained to the jury that the la*.r in New Zealand was so extremely jealous of the interests of accused nersons that he had been unable to inform them of the fact that prisoner had already pleaded guilty to one charge, when they were dealing with the charge on which he nlead-ed not guilty. The law in New Zealand, in this respect, was unlike the law of any other country, where the fact that a prisoner had pleaded guilty to one charg-e would ha treated as important evidence in dealing with a 'second charge of the same nature against him. Mr Raymond suggested that accused might bs admitted to probation.

Ills Honour said ho could nut trout the cuae ;u» duo tor probation a3 tho Act required ihut only pci'suiis of pivvious #;< d v-ii.iruuU.T thould rojcivo ik* benefits. .Mr \*» Jiitu mentioned that ill addition t> this chnrgo and the one to which accused had pleaded guilty, there was another <?no on u-hidi ho had heon convicted lor stealing a suit of clothes from the Olenaw railway station. HL> Hon our suid tbo parents of aociisod seamed Jxighiy respectable people, and ho was very sorry for them, but- ho could not see how ho could admit tho accused to probation, Mr Raymond contended that it was in tho discretion of tho Court to grant probation in mirh a case, »nd though His Honour said he was of tho opposite opinion, he agrood to hold the case over for further consideration.

Mr White applied for a order for restitution of the money (£9) stolen bv accused when he broke into tho Glenavy station on September 12. The order was rondo. Later in the day His Honour spntonced accused to four months' imprisonment and made an order that he be kept apart from other prisoners. CRIMINAL ASSAULT. Ernest Barter was charged with baring broken and entered a dwelling at Beaconsfiold on October 4th, and with having committed an assault on a woman there. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and v»as defended by Mr Emsiie. The case was heard before the following jury .-—Messrs A. Budd (fn)eman), Or. H. Shellov, C. H. Bradley, J. F. Hardy. O. R. Hadfield, K. J. Bell, F. Gruhn, U. Wakefield, W. H. Bell, A. A. Fraser, A. G. Knoudes, ami V. IJoy. Mr White. .. ;• iYosecutor, outlined the ca::-» ! the prosecution, explaining that the complainant was a widow with three children, and that accused had broken into 3ier house at night and committed tho offence, threatening to shoot her if she called out. Accused made a statement arrested in which he admitted the offence. The complainant and serer.il other 1 witnesses gave evidence for the prose- : cution. i Detective Fahey said that he and i Constable McLean arrested accused, | who mado a statement which ivitnors J took down, and after it was read or»-r I to him ho signed it. I Witness read the statement. in j this accused admitted the offence, but | said he had not knocked the voman i about. \ Counsel for the defence endoa7)ured jto make a poiut of the fact that the I complainant had not gone to a coelor | to see whether she was bruised, but His Honour said it would ha-e Loon | absurd for her to have dono seeing that she knew she was not bruised. There was no reason why ohe should expose herself unnecessarily fur ejrainination.

Constable McLean said that whe»i coming into Timuru with acc t* e latter, said: "I thought it would be all right, her being a widow, and that she wouldn't say anything about it, to save herself." He also s>aid that ho entered and loft the house by the same window. .

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr Emslie did not call any evide:"** 1 , but addressed the Jury at some length "FTir Honour in summiug up s:ui tne accused had admitted the oireajc, end it was difficult to know what the i'ufence really was. Accused simply ga* o the vague statement that " he thouj.l't it was all right." Why he sbou.'d think that they , did not kno.v; tfiue was certainly no evidence to surest it, and the complainant was evident ly a respectable woman. If anything could have been brought against her it would have been brought out in crossexamination. It would be a very dangerous state of affairs if a young man could assault a woman in this way, and then depend upon a jury to give him his freedom on his assertion that "ho thought it would be all right, her being a widow." It was a most extraordinary defence.

The jury after a brief retirement returned 'with a verdict of guilty, and accused was sentenced to sis months' imprisonment, ho to become at the expiry of this term a reformatory prisoner for two years. His Honour said lie made the sentence light on account of the youth of the accused. If he showed by good conduct a genuine d-esire to reform, lie would be liberated before the expiry of the -two years. CIVIL CASE.

There is only one case remaining to be heard, and this i 3 a civil one—G. S. Meredith and Co. v. J. Hunt,. junr., claim £l5O damages for illegal seizure of a traction engine. This will come on at 1U.30 this morning, and to hear it the following jury has been em. pannelled:—Messrs W. H. Budd, W. A. Cooper, J. Stevenson, and J. Acheson. Mr Kinnerney will appear for plaintiff, and Sir Raymond for defendant.