SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8778, 15 November 1906, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Thursday, November 15. The criminal sessions' of the Supreme Court were resumed this morning, before his Honor Mr Justice Dennisto-n, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr T. W. Stringer, conducting the cases for the Crown. A NEW TRIAL. < The case of John Sage, charged with forgery, in which a jury disagreed yesterday, was mentioned, and it was arranged that the case should be reheard on Monday, at 11 a.m. ALLEGED FORGERY. Harry Lawrence Hamilton, who was defended by Mr Harvey, pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having, on May 25, at Wellington, forged and uttered a cheque for £24 15s on the Bank of New South Wales, Dunediu, purporting to be signed by Robert Douglas, and further with having forged and uttered a cheque for £5 on the Bank of New South Wales, Wellington. Robert Douglas gave evidence that in May he was living in Mrs Parsons' house in Christchurch, where the accused was also living. Witness had some money in the Bank of New South Wales in^ Dunedin, and told the accused of it. On one occasion he gave accused a blank cheque form. On Monday, May 21, they went to Dunudin, and on the following day accused left for Wellington. On Juno 6 witness found that a sum of £24 15s had heen. transferred from his account at Dunedin to Wellington and drawn from the bank. Be did not sign either of the cheques produced. Isabella Burt stated that she was in service with Mrs Par&ons in May. The accused went to Dunedin on May 21. but returned a day or two later, and left at once to go t<t Wellington. Ho said that he had had money left him and was going to AVollington to get it. He returned two or three days later. Theodore Richard Hickson, sub-ac-countant at the Bank of New South Wake, Wellington, stated that the accused wont U> the bank towards the end of May and said that he had money in Dunedin, which he wanted to draw. Witness said that he could not have all his money, as he was not known to them. He said his name was Robert Douglas, and he was a labourer. Witness ascertained by telegram 1 that Douglas had £24 lSe in the bank at Dunedin. The accused returned later in the day to ask if he oonld have a little money, and witness ajrreed to let him draw £5. Witness filled in a cheque, which the accused .signed in his presence. It was sent to Dunedin, where tho amount of Douglas's balance, £24 15s, was filled in, and the money was transferred to Wellington. The accused actually obtained only £5. John White stated that in May be wttSsa clerk in the Bank of New South Wales at Dunedin. He filled _in the amount in the cheque on which tho balance of Douglas's account, £24 15s, was forwarded to Wellington. He did not look carefully at the signature. With Douglas's true signature before him, he would not have paid out on the cheque from Wellington. The accused had no account at the bank. Charles Edgar, engraver, stated that in his opinion a document known to have been written by the accused was in writing exactly like that of the signature on the cheque produced. For file defence Mr Harvey addressed the jury. After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr Harvey said that the accused was suffering from consumption, and had been discharged from gaol on that account- He had been sent to Nurse Maude's Camp, and it would be fatal for him if he were sent back to gaol. His Honor said that accused seemed to him to look all right. It appeared to him that the proper oourso would be to sentence the accused and allow the question of his subsequent treatment to be dealt with by the proper authorities. The' man had hardly been out of gaol since 1896, and he would have to sentence him to a substantial term. Mr Harvey said that there was no accommodation at the gaol for a man suffering from consumption, and the Government, on representations being made, had allowed him to leave the gaol in order that he might be treated elsewhere. His Honor replied that that was the business of the Crown. His business was to sentence the accused. Mr Stringer stated that the- gaol officials, frequently had; to arrange for the treatment of sick prisoners at outside hospitals, but they were under restraint tho whole time. His Honor said that he would have to treat the accused as an habitual criminal and a dangerous character. He would be sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The sum of £5 Is, part- of the money found in possession of accused, was ordered to bo returned to the bank. ALLEGED THEFT. Alexander Reid pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having, on September 24, at Lyttelton, stolen from the person of Daniel Dalton the sum of £6 ss. Daniel Dal ton stated that jin September 24 he and one Henderson purchased some liquor in Lyttelton and went to the house of a man named O'Neill. The accused was in the house, and they all began -to drink. Henderson and O'Neill went away, and he mi^ed another man, Rennie, who was with them. He and accused were alone in the kitchen, and accused knocked him down. He found accused's hand in his pocket, in which he had money amounting to about £6 7s. The money and his pocket-book were taken from his pocket. John Henderson stated that ho heard Dalton cry out that he was robbed, and saw the accused on top of Dalton, who was lying on the floor, Elexus Menan stated that he h&d found the pocket-book in front of O'Neill's house. The accused made' a statement that he knew nothing at all about the money. They were all drinking together, and it was questionable whether the witnesses were in a condition to. know what did happen. After a short retirement the jury returned, a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged. A charge against John Joseph O'Neill of receiving £1 from the previous accused, knowing it to have been stolen, was called, and no evidence being offered for the Crown a formal verdict of not guilty was returned. The Court adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday.