SUPREME COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1800, 3 June 1891, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

DUNEDIN. Monday, June 1. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) EMBEZZLEMENT. George James Clark was charged with embezzling the sums of L 5 16s 8d and L 8 0s 6d, the property of the Loyal Prince of VVales Lodge, M.U.I O0 F. A second indictment charged prisoner with embezzling LI 4a and LI. Prisoner, who pleaded guilty, gave his age as 35. Mr Solomon, appearing as counsel for prisoner, said that he would like to point out that prisoner was a comparatively young man, and bad been placed in a positien of most extraordinary temptation. His Honor would see by the depositions that Clark was secretary of a friendly society at Port Chalmers. There was also a treasurer in connection with the lodge, but the negligence with which the affairs of the institution were conducted seemed to be almost criminal, and almost offering a premium for dishonesty. He (learned counsel) did not go so far as to say that this excused prisoner's conduct, but it should be mentioned that there was no one to look after him.. The treasurer carried out his duties byknowingnothing aboutthem, and merely signed cheques as they were put before him. If the duties of the officers of the lodge had been carried out in anything like a proper way it would have been impossible to commit the offence. No check was placed on the secretary to see whether he really did place in the bank the moneys that he received ; and it was possible for him during the interval of the half-yearly audits to put the money in his pockets, and no one would have been any the wiser. He (learned counsel) submitted that the remarks made by" His Honor in the case of the Standard Company applied here. Clark's temptation had been very great indeed. It might also be mentioned that he had been in custody for about two months. In answer to His Honor, The Crown Prosecutor ( Mr Haggitfc) said that the total amount said to be involved was L 350. Clark arrived in the colony about eleven years ago, and was /in the employ of Thomson Bros, at Port Chalmers, as clerk, for eight years. Mr Solomon submitted that it would not be fair to read the report of the police, as it contained, he understood, something that he had never heard of. His Honor said that the police report ought to be confined to previous convictions or general character. It would be better not to go into details. The Crown Prosecutor, continuing, Baid that Clark had been secretary of the Odd-

fellows' Lodge for six or seven years, and appeared to have been thoroughly trusted. Be was a married man, with no family, and was addicted to drink and gambling. He had been arrested in Sydney. His Honor: No doubt, prisoner, there has not been that check upon you that there ought to have been, and it may be and probably is the c&se that this circumstance has been one of the factors that has induced you to commit the crime to which you have pleaded guilty. I shall take that into consideration in passing sentence. At the same time, however, the particular kind of theft which you have committed is a very mean one. The moneys which you have stolen are the hard-earned savings of men who live by their labor, and were accumulated for the benefit of the sick, and the widow, and the orphan. These you have robbed. As I have said, I shall take into consideration the fact that you may have been to some extent led into temptation by not being overlooked ; but I am bound to pass an exemplary sentence. His Honor then sentenced prisoner, to three years' penal servitude on each indictment, the sentences to take effect concurrently. FALSE PRETENCES. Walter Spurting (twenty-two years of age) pleaded guilty to a charge of falsely representing that he possessed a credit of L 154 at the Union Bank, by which pretence ho obtained possession of eight horses. Mr Solomon applied that prisoner be admitted to the benefits of the First Offenders' Probation Act. Spurling was in the habit of dealing with various stock agents in Dunedin for some considerable time. On this particular occasion he bought goods to tho value of L 154 from Donald Reid, and gave a cheque which was dishonored. The case on which the case in the lower Court was founded was Regina v. Hazleton, which laid down that the onus remained on the person who issued the cheque to show that there was a reasonable probability of the cheque being honored, and that being so it was useless to defend the case. He (learned counsel) would, however, point out that Spurling was a young man who had never been convicted before, and that several people with whom he had had dealings were prepared to give him a good character. Further, prisont r himself always said that he intended to pay, and that this was only an ordinary business mistake. It might al-o be mentioned that Mi Reid had not suffered by the cheque being dishonored, because by a decision of the House of Lords the property did not pass in such a case. Mr Reid also said that he did not want the man punished, and believed that Spurling had been led astray, and was more fool than rogue. Mr John Stephenson also said that he had always found prisoner to be straightforward in business transactions. Spuvling had a wife and young child, and he (Mr Solomon) submitted that the case was one in which the clemency of the Court might be exercised. His Honor would see that there was another man connected with the matter, and this man was rather severely handled by his (Mr Solomon'b) learned friend in the Court below. The Crown Prosecutor said it was the case, as stated, that there had been no previous convictions. Prisoner had been only a short time in the colony, and was said to have come from Sydney. The police there knew nothing about him, nor the other man either. His Honor : I have read the depositions in this case, and do not think it is a case where I should be justified in extending the benefits of the Probation Act to accused. It speaks very well for Mr Donald Reid that, under the circumstances, he should allow Mr Solomon to say what Mr Solomon has said. Mr Reid does not wish that the man should be punished. However, of course, the question of whether he should or should not be punished must depend upon other considerations. As I have said, I have read the depositions, and it seems to me pretty clear that the accused made a deliberate attempt to swindle Mr Reid, and that the attempt was on a pretty big scale. It is impossible to suppose that a man who does a thing of this kind is not, to speak colloquially, a bad lot. I shall, of course, take into consideration the fact that he has never been convicted before. Nothiog about him is known to the police, and I shall pass a light sentence, as it is a first conviction. His Honor then sentenced prisoner to twelve months' hard labor, and made an order for the restitution of the property. BREAKING PROBATION. Christopher Con way was brought before the Court. The Probation Officer (Mr Phillips) narrated on oath the circumstances under which this was done. Conway was sentenced in December, 1890, to probation for twelve months. His conduct whilst in Dunedin, after sentence, was not satisfactory as regarded drink. About the latter end of January last prisoner obtained a situation at Waimate, and was thereupon transferred to the oversight of the probation officer in that district, but on April 3 he appeared before the resident magistrate at Dunedin on two charges of drunkenness, having left Waimate without permission, thereby breaking the provisions of the Probation Act. Prisoner said that he had come to Dunedin specially to draw his pension, and that if opportunity were given he would return to Waimate, where he had employment. Witnesß represented the matter to the magistrate, who dismissed the charges of drunkenness, it being arranged by witness that prisoner should leave on the 4th April. On the night of the sth April, however, he went to the gaol drunk and broke the windows of witness's house, for which he was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. Prisoner had paid L 2 out of the L 6 charged against him. His Honor: What was his original offence? Witness : Breaking Inglis's window in George street. His Honor : He ia an army pensioner, is he not ? Witness : Yes, and whenever he draws his pension it is a time of warfare until it is all gone. Prisoner said that what Mr Phillips said was quite true. vv*hen he (Conway) left Waimate it was holiday time, and he thought he might come down, but he intended to go back, If not punished this time he would leave the colony or Syndey, where he had friends. His Honor: If he wants to leave the colony there in no reason why he should not. It is not as if he were a criminal. Mr Phillips remarked that there was nothing against the man, except that drink got him into trouble. He was well behaved in gaol, where he had been employed inside Prisoner : Conscientiously, I cannot take probation, your Honor, and stop in the colony. I wish to get out of it. Mr Torrance, gaol chaplain, being questioned by flis Honor, said that he proposed to draw the pension coming to Conway on the Ist July and keep an eye on him until he got off by the steamer. His Honor: I think the best thing for you, prisoner, is to stop where you are until a week or two after your pension is due ; then you will be able to get away. It will keep you out of mischief now. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for Bix weeks. I will not Bay with hard labor. Mr Phillips pointed out that it would assist prisoner in the way of diet if he were sentenced to hard labor. His Honor thereupon added " with hard labor." Subsequently His Honor remarked, in reference to this oase : It may be said, Mr Haggitt, that it is improper that we should

send our undesirable characters — I will not say a criminal, for he is not a criminal— to other colonies ; and it is perhaps right to mention that he came from Australia and wishes to go there again, and this is simply sending him back to the place from whence he came. I should certainly be the last to do anything that would be contrary to what we may call the colonial comity in sending our bad characters to our neighbors. The Crown Proseoutor : 1 may remark, your Honor, that you don't send the man back ; you merely give him facilities for going back. , His Honor : Yes, that is so : W;5 jm» I have said, one ought to be carelul tv v guided as far as possible by what we call intercolonial comity in these matters. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. James Curny (40) and Roderick M'Kenzie (32) pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting Richard Symes Faviile, and robbing him of a pipe, chain,' and pendant. Prisoners, asked what they had to say, handed in a written statement. The Crown Prosecutor said that Curny arrived from Melbourne in 1879, and was a' laborer by occupation. In 1890 he was convicted of larceny and admitted to probation ; subsequently he was punished for failing to comply with the terms of the probation order, and in February last he was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for obscene language. M'Keczie was a laoorer, and arrived from Scotland in ISSO. He had served a sentence of a month for obscene language. His Honor (to prisoners) : You both say in tho papers handed in to me that you were in drink at the time of this occurrence. I thinki Miighly probable that drink is at the bottonjrof the' trouble, and that the best thing for you both is to send you to gaol for such a period as will put you out of the way of drink for a considerable time. His Honor proceeded to sentence each to two years' hard labor. BURGLARY. James Riddle (34), charged with burglary of the premises of Ann Webb, at Outram, and extracting therefrom a watch and three bottles of whisky,. pleaded guilty. Mr Hanlon was instructed to say a word or two on prisoner's behalf. No doubt, technically, the crime of burglary had been committed ; but if His Honor would look at the depositions he would find that it was not a case of ordinary burglary. The fact was that the man had been knocking about the public-house, where he was allowed to stay until two in the morning, when he was turned out ; but later in the morning he was heard humbugging about in the bar, knocking bottles about and talking so as to be heard quite plainly by the girl from her bedroom. The whole thing was done while the man was in a druuken state. He (Mr Hanlon) asked His Honor to take this into consideration, and also the fact that prisoner had never previously been in serious trouble. His Honor said he noticed that there were several convictions for drunkenness. What was known about the man ? The Crown Prosecutor said that his offences were principally owing to drunkenness. He was a laborer ; had arrived in the colony nine years ago ; and had worked principally in the Taieri district. His Honor : I suppose it is the old story — good enough man when sober and a bad one when drunk. The Crown Prosecutor: Apparently bo, your Honor. His Honor: The best thing for you, prisoner, and for the public, is to put you for some time out oi the way of drink. Prisoner was then sentenced to eighteen months' hard labor. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. William Nichols was charged that, on the 14th April, he did assault one Edwin Harris and steal from him the sum of LI 15s 6d. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was not defended by counsel. The Crown Prosecutor stated that previous to the date of the commission of the offence the prosecutor had been harvesting in the Clarendon district. He came into town on the evening of Monday, 13th April, and put up at the Central Restaurant in Manse street. He had in his possession L 3 11s 2d in money. On the following afternoon he went for a walk down George street, and afterwards went into King street. There he met prisoner, who spoke to him. After a little conversation they went together into the Harp of Erin Hotel, where they had some drink. From the latter hotel they went to the Waverley Hotel in Moray place, where they met other men, and the prosecutor paid for more drinks. Afterwards the prosecutor went out into the backyard, where there was a right-of-way next to the hotel. The prisoner followed him, and when they got outside he asked the prosecutor for some money. Prosecutor replied that he had none. Prisoner thereupon seized the prosecutor and knocked him over, put hia hand in his pocket, and took out the money. There were two young women hanging out some clothes near by, and they cried out something to the effect that it was a shame to rob a man in open daylight. Prisoner replied that it was all right, that he knew the prosecutor, for whom he used to work, and that he was only minding his money for him. Information was subsequently given to the police, and accused was arrested in a brothel in Albion street. Evidence was given by Edwin Harris, Maria Conway, Hettie Thompson, William Brown, and Constable Crawley, Prisoner desired to give evidence on his own behalf. He said that he was in bed on the Tuesday morning when prosecutor knocked at the window and asked him to get up. When witness let him in prosecutor asked if prisoner would have some beer, and sent three times altogether for beer. When prisoner went to get his breakfast prosecutor gave one of the women 3s, and also gave a boy Is 6d to get beer. After that prisoner said he thought he had had enough beer, and told prosecutor to go. Prosecutor asked if he was getting jealous of the woman. Prisoner replied that if prosecutor wanted the woman he could have her. They then went next door, and prosecutor then Bent for more beer. He sent for it two or three times, until the party there said she would have no more beer brought into the bouse. They then crossed the right-of-way and went into another house, and prosecutor sent for some more beer. He (prisoner) said if more beer was cent for the man would be growling, and he tried to get prosecutor away. Prisoner then left and returned in half an hour to try and get prosecutor to see Mr Ussher about getting work. Prosecutor then said they would have another shilling's worth of beer and then go. He sent for the beer which was drunk by the three women in the house. They then left, and prosecutor wanted more drink. Prisoner said " Well, then, let's go to Graham's." Prosecutor said that Mr Graham would not serve him, as he had been there before. Prisoner said that it was no use going to Mr Ussher then, as they were muddled. Prosecutor then suggested that they should go to Infield's. They went, and a good few who came in were shouted for by prosecutor, who then commenced to talk in the bar about the woman of whom they had been previously speaking. Mr Infield told him to hold his tongue or he would get no more drink. Infield said that he would not serve him with any more as he had had enough. Prosecutor pleaded for one round more, with which they were served, and Mr Infield then refused to serve any more, as Harris was drunk. A woman then came into the bar, and prosecutor got two more rounds of drinks from her. Then he went

out to the back. He had arranged to give Paddy Toole half a crown to show him some office in Moray place. He called prisoner to go with him to Moray place, and four of them went together. They stood in front of the Waverley, and prosecutor gave the man the half-crown as though it was a secret. They then went into the Waverley and prosecutor ahouted. While there he went out. Prisoner missed him and three others from the bar, and went himself to the back of the house, where he heard somebody whistling, and looking round he saw the three men standing there laughing. They called, prisoner, who went to them, and saw prose-o-ator lying on the floor of the back place. Prisoner remarked that it was no laughiDg matter, and told the men to come away from him. They did so, and went to the bar. Whilst talking there the three went out again ; and prisoner and another chap also went out, and saw prosecutor lying close to the hotel, not far from the door. There were two women leaning over the fence chaffing with the three men, who said that prosecutor had laid down to have a sleep. Prisoner went into the hotel and asked to be trusted for a glass of beer, and after drinking it and going out he saw that they were all gone excepting prosecutor, who was ljing asleep and drunk. This charge was trumped up against him (prisoner) because he had induced a man to leave the women's house. Having been cross-examined on Hbehalf of the Crown, Prisoner said that he had nothing to tell to the jury further than that he had come to town about three weeks before this occurrence, bringing a good Bum of money, which he had got through in drink. His witnesses had cleared out. He would like it to be remembered that he had never been in the hand 8 of the police before this affair. His Honor having summed up, The jary retired at 3.20 p.m., and returned at 3.30 with a verdict of " Guilty." Prisoner was sentenced to twelve months', with hard labor. ATTEMPTED HOUSEBREAKING. Edward Martin, charged with this offence, pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hanlon. The Crown Prosecutor, opening the case, said that Mr Cable was a produce merchant carrying on business at a store in George street, which was locked up every night, no one living on the premises. On the night of the 6th May the place was locked up as usual, by Mr Cable, with a padlock and an ordinary Carpenter's lock. About half- past ten o'clock that night Constable M 'Allan was going down the street, when he saw prisoner go into the entrance of the door and apparently try the lock. The constable heard the jingling of keys, and saw Martin leave, upon which he arrested him, and search revealed the fact that prisoner had in his possession six ordinary door keys and five smaller keys. He asked prisoner what he was doing, and the reply was "Nothing." Prisoner tried to run away, but the constable would not let him. One of the keys found on him would lock and unlock the door. Prisoner did not succeed in entering the premises, therefore nothing was taken away. Evidence was given by Jas. Cable, ConBtable M'Allan, and Frank H. Guinness, Mr Hanlon called no evidence, but proceeded to address the jury. The evidence was that of a constable, who- had his suspicions aroused by seeing a boy standing at a door, and set himself to watch. The keys that he heard jingling might have been four smaller ones which were bunched together — keys that were fit for opening workboxes, or something of that kind; and all that the constable saw was the boy stoopiDg down apparently to examine the lock, and then walk away without being disturbed by anyone. Arresting the boy, the constable found on him a handful of rusty old keys of a very common kind, that he might have picked up on a dungheap, and these were the implements with which he was supposed to be going about committing burglaries. Learned counsel submitted that at the width of a street the constable could not see what the boy was doing. Was that the evidence on which the jury could say there was no reasonable doubt in their minds that the boy was trying to force an entrance ? He ventured to say it was not. The jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty. '