SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2566, 3 September 1867, Page 4

SUPREME COURT— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

. • -MoKDAr, Septembke 2. [Before His Honor Mi- Justice Johnstou.] His feonor took his seat at 10 o'clock. Tho following gentlemen were sworn in as a grand jury :— Messrs W. Hickson (foreman); Hunter, Levin, Bannatyne, Rhodes, Dransfield, J. H. Wallace, &. Crawford, Barraud, Battersbee, Dorset, Laing, E. Miller, A. H. Hicksen, H. A. Owen, R. Pharazyn, Side 1 ", and A. P. Stuart. His Honor delivered the following charge : — \ Mb Foreman and G-entlemen of the Grand Juny.,— The calendar- with which you have to deal is one of a characteristic sort— one which presents no very remarkable features, beyond what I am about to call your attention to, in respect to the variety and nature of the offences alleged to have boon committed by the persons charged, for the district andthe population. But tho cases are of sufficient importance with respect to gravity, and some of them with respect to the frequency of the crimes, to demand a slight notice on my part. I first notice that the crimes of horse and cattle stealing, more especially horse Btealing, ore very prevalent at present, and I am very sorry to find that, in several districts, these offences are assuming a prominent shape, and it is my duty in this place as it is tho duty of others j who occupy similar positions, to point out the | special necessity to those who are engaged in the administration of the law, when so much depends upon the protection and preservation of animals— the urgent necessity of displaying more vigilance than is necessary in a more settled country ; and if it should be necessary, that the law should be enforced with very considerable strictness and severity. lam sorry to observe that there are three case 3 of horse stealing, and as I have had occasion to remark in one or two previous instances, the offence has been committed by a European against a Maori, which for very obvious reasons, must be a matter of much regret, and ought to arouse the vigilance of the police, and the proper tribunals of law to detect and punish. There are three charges against persons for obtaining money under false pretences, and one assumes the shape of forgery, or rather, of uttering a forged cheque, knowing it to have been forged. In the present circumstances of the country, this crime can be easily perpetrated, and' it demands the active and vigorous co-operation on the part of the police and other persons engaged in the administration of justice for its suppression. The calendar shows a very considerable variety of offences. I find seventeen personß charged, five of whom are soldiers, and sixteen charges — three being against two persons. There are two cases of robbery with violence, four enses of horee stealing, one of cattle stealing, one of larceny, one of obtaining money under false pretences, one of bigamy, one of uttering a forged cheque, two of murder, two of robbery, and one of keeping a bawdy • house, making no less than nine varieties of offences. With regard to locality, there appear to be three prisoners from the town of Wellington, three from Wanganui — but these latter are all soldiers— three from Rangitikei, three from Wairarapa and Greytown, two from Turakina, and two from other places within the province. These matters are of no great importance, but are some little indication of the relative position of the criminals of the province, though to my mind not very suggestive. Now, gentlemen, I should first wish tocall yourattention to the charge of murder against Maria Baker and Elizabeth Lockyer — one, of, course, I need not say, of the very greatest importance, both to the community and to the persons affeoted ; and I must again point out, as I have done before, the extreme importance of instituting the earliest and fullest enquiry into cases of so serious a character as this — that all accessible evidence, whether for or against the person suspected or accused, may be procured at the earliest possible moment. There is no course more likely to shake the faith of tho community in tho administration of the law than the discovery, if Buch should be made, that the persons who have been convicted or acquitted of grave crimes might have been proved innocent or guilty by the prompt action of the executive of justice. And it is also another duty to administer justice so that the evils of scandal may be effectually avoided, and also that they may regard as equal cases where persons muy have been suspected, where there have been improper convictions or acquittals — improper, not in respect to any want of solemnity, care, or conscientiousness on the part of the disciplined administrators of justice, but improper with respect to facts which might have been discovered that could have disproved or established beyond a doubt the innocence or guilt of the parties, the want of which may make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the truth fully in one's own mind. But understand, that when I make this general observation, I make it by no means in the shape of the criticism which I may, at another time, have a right to utter, but because I think it necessary, from the surrounding circumstances, to make this goneral reflection. Sitting here, as I do, not merely endeavoring to discharge the functions of the present moment, but also to assist in every way in establishing a proper and satisfactory state of things with regard to crimes, punishments, and the administration of justice, I cannot but feel it my duty to make these observations, and whenever anything occurs to obstruct the administration of justice, such observations are perfectly pertinent to the matter before us. With regard to this serious charge of murder preferred against two persons, Maria Haker and Elizabeth Loekyer— the murder of a child ulleged to have been given birth to by Maria B.ikcr, it in very possible that in this case all the persons connected with the administration of justice may have done their duty. It may be that the case was such thai, there was no mmins of getting further evidence- thm will be produced bofore you and the Court ; though it is perfectly possible that the absence of evidence will make your duty somewhat difficult, and it -will be my duty, in tho proper place, to put. (he chief points of the case before you. Tho charge against these two women seems to be founded upon evidence of a not very conclusive or satisfactory character, but evidence that demanded a strict enquiry and investigation. But if it should turn out that in this caso, or others of a serious character, that in tho invostigal.ion before the magistrate, or previously by the police, it is the business of no one connected with or versed in the 1 iw to conduct the legal proceedings, you will agree with mo that this ia not a desirable state of things, and that ifthoroisany attempt in the nature of police prosecution in this country such an attompt will entirely fail of legal system, until a system is initiated by which the police will act under the guidance and direction of some properly qualified person. I understand that the gentleman who prosecutes on behalf of the Crown proposes to present the cases before you iri this manner. He proposes to present separate indictments against each person charged — against Maria Baker, the alleged mother of the child alleged to have buen murdered, one indictinont will be presented for murder, and another for concealing the birth of tho child, by secretly disposing of the body. Againßt the woman Elizabeth Lockyer there will also be an indictment for tho charge of murder, and a separate indictment for aiding and abetting tho mother in concealing the birth of the child by seeretiy disposing j of Ihe body, and it id necessary that I should I explain to you both the law of England and the ! law of New Zealand as it at present exists on the { subject, though ib is possible that it will not bo ' tho law of iSew Zealand more than a month longer. I will call your attention to what the law of England was formerly, which was the same as i what the kw of New Zealand is now ; and I will ' tell you what the amendments are that hare beon

made in tit© English law, and wbielut is proposed to mii\w in i.he JSew Zealand' law. "*ln England before the existing Act was passed, and now in New Zealand, besides the ordinary common law ! offence of murder, the murder of a child was a j special offence under an Act of. George IV. (His j Honor then read an extract from the statute in I oue9tion.) Now, you will observe that this renders it unnecessary to prefer separate indictments i ugainat a woman for murdering a child, and con- ! cealing its birth ; and therefore if in such a case, 1 a jury were not satisfied that a murder had been committed, but that there was prima facie evidence that the woman had been guilty of concealing the birth of the child, they ought to bring in a bill far Baurder. In this case, the prosecution ;Kave chosen to present n second bill, but if you I are not satisfied that a murder has been committed, but that a concealment of birth has taken plaoe, you should still bring in a bill, because it • is competent for the petty jury to find the accused I guilty of the hitter charge. It is not' important ' that you should be perfectly satisfied about the murder as prima facie evidence is sufficient ; but il you think there is proof of the lighter charge, you can still find a bill for murder, because, when tho case poes before the petty jury, it will bo competent for them to find the prisoner, upon tho bill for murder, guilty of either murder or concealment of birth. With regard to tho second woman, there are certain facts which may afFect her case, and that I will explain afterwards when I have explained the relative position in which the parties stand in law. You observe that the extract from the Statute which I read to you mentions only the woman who is delivered of the child, and that if such woman is acquitted on the indictment for murder, but is found guilty of concealment oi birth, no other person — there is the point where tho law of England h»s been altered and the law of New Zealand is to be altered, by inserting the words "any person" instead of the woman who has been delivered — can be found guilty of the same oflbnee ; therefore, as the law stood in England, and now stands in New Zealand, on an indictment for child murder against another person, it wa9 impossible, and would be now impossible for the petty jury, to find any person but the mother guilty of concealment of birth. But by another Statute the aiders and abettors of the murder are rendered liable of the principal, or can be found guilty of the minor otf'ence. But you need not trouble yourselves about these difficulties and niceties, as tho law is soon to be altered. I will now explain the principal facts of the case, and in doing so I find no fault with any person connected with the administration of justice. No doubt you will see that tho circumstances were such as demanded the strictest enquiry and investigation. The facte of the case are, as I understand them, as follows : I Maria Baker, a young girl, enters tho service oi I Mrs Liardet as a servant girl. About six months afterwards Mrs Liardot notices certain appearances which lead her to charge Maria Baker with being with child, which the girl denied. About the 28bh June, Mrs Liardet noticed that the girl looked very ill and taxed her with being in the pains of labor, which she denied, but said she was going to Mrs Loekyer's. Now, as far as I can Mrs Lockyer is a midwife, so that fact is worthy of consideration. She and her sister went to Mrs Lockyer'a in the evening, and Maria Baker came back in a different condition ; and Mrs Liardet will, I understand, give us such evidenco as seems to show that on that day Maria Baker was delivered of a child, especially as after she denies that she has had a . child, Mrs Liardet refuses to take her back into her employment. I am not aware that anything more look place until tho police made enquiries. The police examined Mrs Lockyer's Borne time nflerwards, though I cannot exactly make out the relative times and dates by the depositions, but in tho month of July, &fc all events, Mrs Lockyor's premises are examined, and in a privy there is found a decomposed, or partly decomposed, body of a child. The body is examined by a surgeon, who gives reasons, and will explain them, that the body is one of a full grown child that has been born alive. Now, the law, as it deals with the question of concealing birth, makes it of not so much importance to ascertain whether the child was born alive or not; but with regard to murder, iti s all important. If the child were not alive, it could not hare been murdered. Therefore, jou have a child found in Mrs Lockyer's premises in a privy — a mode of concealment commonly used in these offences. The question then is — when that child was put there, was it put there by these two persons acting together — the mother and Mra Lockyer. If the child was put there alive, both parties committed the same offence. If one woman or aHothor, or bath together, did so, they were each or both guilty of the same crime. But if you do not see your way clear in this respect, you must consider whether one or the other, or both, must not have been concerned in abetting or putting the body of this child into the privy, because if you are satisfied that tho offenco against the statute of concealing or attempting to conceal this birth ha> been committed, you must find a bill. But there appeara to be no doubt that when Mrs Lockyer and Maria Baker were going to prison together a conversation took place, when Mrs Lockyer denied going, and the girl said, " Oh, Mrs Lockyer, you know all about it !" Now, I wish to point out that really this ought to be no evidence against Mrs Lockyer, but it is good against M-tria Baker ; and that, with some other evidence that will be submitted, it will be sufficient to show that she. had a child, and thore may be something to identify the child she had with the child found in the privy. Under these circumstances, if you think there is prima facie evidence of tho uhargn of mvirder, you ought to say so ; but if you think there is not BiiUicient evidence furni.-hed to implicate the old woman in uuoh a charge, at all events, you will probably find uu indictment for itiding nod abetting in the concealing of tho body. With regard* t;> tho girl, us I pointed out, it. is not substantially very important, if you think her guilty oi concealment or murder, whether you find a bill upon one charge or the other. It is not easy to make myself plainly understood when speaking abstractedly ; but when you have the case before you, you will find the facts extremely simple. It was however, lny duty, to explain tho legal position of the woman. The old woman cannot be | found guilt* of concealment of birth on the indiutment for murder, tho mother may be, and no doubt you will be able to form your own con- ; elusion on the subject. G-ontleuten, your expoi rienco in these matters will enable you to come to a conclusion in most of the cases of horsestealing, when they are more or less cases of identification or otherwise. In one case of cattle* | stealing, the matter stands thus. The case is l against a man named David Johnston, who is charged with stealing two cows belonging to a mun named Simpson, living at Kangitikei. Mr Simpson loses two cows ; an<J for some reason he goes ( to a slaughter-house not actually kept by tho prisoner, where he finds the head of one of his cows. Simpson takes possession of the head, which is afterwards claimed by prisoner, on the ground that he hud bought it of prosecutor's brother ; but, furtlior, on a search being ! made of a certain wator-hole a short distance j off a soldier found two skins, and these prosecutor alleges to have boen the skins of his . cows, and identifies them through having certain | marks. Now, tho evidenco of a certain person ' who has been employed by the prisoner, iB of some value. iio states that ho was em- ■ ployed by the prisoner to slaughter the beusts, mid by his direction put the skins in tho waterhole, which is not an ordinary place of deposit for ' such things. If that be so, and there seems eride.nce of tho heads having been found, you will get primd fdcie evidence of the guilt of tho person charged. With regard to the ether cases of cattle and lions stealing, I need not nay more

I than th'ati with regard to horse stealing, sane" of you may be acquairite3Twrth~t£?'fact7tMt"rat'Eer i nice points used to arise in cases of horse-stealing -. when the horses had been hired. Undoubtedly, , at one .time,. wJien a man hired a horse and approi priated it after the time ibr which' it was hired, it i was necessary to make out that, at the time be ■ took thfl horse on hire, he had no intention of i ( stealing it, in order to prove that he had stolen the horse, otherwise he was held to have committed a breach of trust. -But with these niceties you need not trouble yourselves, because, as the law now stands, if a person takes away a horse which he has hired and does not return it he is guilty of larceny. You will find that this is the caße in one ©r two of these chargeß. There are two eases of obtaining goods under false pretences ; and there is one case against two soldiers i of uttering a forged cheque, and I understand ; that these are the facts. Two soldiers came to i an hotel at Wauganui, and called for some beer, ; and together tender a cheque for £'i 2s 4d, upon i the Union Bunk, signed Stanhope Ross. There 7 will be evidence that a third person took part iv the proceeding ; that at all events there were i three persons dealing with tho cheque — but the two persons accused — the beer having been paid for — divided the residue of the money between them. If this bo so, I think there is a good ■prima facie case against the prisoners. There is ono case to which I wish to call your attention for a fingle moment — a case of bigamy. As you know, bigamy consists of marrying a second time when the former husband or wile is still alive. Tho case is one against a woman, and it would ' appear that she was married to two men, one at Christchurch in 1861, by Archdeacon Matthius, and again, some time this year, her husband being still alive, she married another man named Gibba. The person who was present at the second marriage will give evidence, the certificates will be produced, I understand, and no doubt you will . think there is sufficient jpw'ma/acte evidence. In this case there will be no question as to the lapse ;of seven years or not — a question which hns arisen from a misapprehension of the law on the subject, people supposing that if a woman or man it' not aware, alter the lapse of seven years, whether the husband or wife is alive, that is a valid defence i for a second marriage. I need not tell you that. ; this fact does not make the second marriage good. In this case the lapse of time is only about six > yeare, so that question will not arise ; the simple i thing you have to determine is whether the woman did go through the form of marriage on both occasions. There is only one other case to i which I need call your attention — a woman , named Elizabeth Pepper is accused of keeping a bawdy house. In regard to this case, you. have i to ascertain whether the person charged is the ; householder or manager, and that men and women ' go into the house for purposes of prostitution, to i the annoyance of the neighbors. I believe the charge has been laid by the police, under the provisions of an old English Act, by which Iwo ; householders, or the police themselves, can prosecute for such an offence. With these observations, i gentlemen, I will leave you to the performance of i your duties. , TBUE BIIIS. The Grand Jury found true bills against all the prisoners on the calendar, with the exception i of Maria Baker and Elizabeth Lockyer, charged with murder, in which two caseß they threw out the bills for the more serious crime, and returned ■ bills for misdemeanors. BOBBERY. James McCauley, placed in the dock charged with having on the 20th July robbed a man named Michael Brown of a purse and the sum of fourteen pounds, pleaded guilty. The prosecutor, in reply to a question from his Honor, said that when the robbery took place both, he aud the prisoner were the worse for liquor. Constable MoLean had known prisoner at Turakina for some months, and believed him to ! have been a soldier in the 70th Regiment, whose discharge had been purchased by au uncle. His Honor could not treat the offence as a light one, tho robbery being of an impudent nature. The prisoner was not an old offender, but on his own confossion had been guilty of an aggravated case of felony, therefore the sentence ' of the Court was that he bo imprisoned and kept at hard labor for the space of six calendar months. HOHSK STEALING. ; William Ckarlton, alias Simpson, pleaded guilty to two charges of horse-stealihg in this i province, one animal having been stolen from William Green, of Ohau, the other from the late firm of Hannah, Prosser & Pierce, livery stable keepers, of this city. . Mr Inspector Atcheson gave the prisoner a very bad character, and said that in addition to theeharges to which he had pleaded guilty there were several others of horse-stealing which could be proved against him, as he had for some months been wandering about the province from place to place, and had been in the habit of cither leading away or borrowing and then selling the horaes of tho settlers. The prisoner wbb very sorry for the offences he j had committed ; he knew he had done wrong, ! and bitterly regretted it. j Hia Honor deferred delivering sentence until after the whole of the cased on the calendar of a similar nature had been tried, it being hie intenJ tion to sentence all the prisoners together. The prisoner was then removed from the dook. EODBJJBY FBOJI THE PBKSON. A man named Robert Shannon was placed in the dock to plead to a charge of robbery from the person I Mr Borlase, for the prisoner, submitted an affi* j davit applying for v postponement of the trial for ! the production of witnesses. I Mr irLicuiah Read, warden of the Gaol, in reply ' to his Huuor, said that tho prisonor had been in j gaol since the 20th ultimo, and that on the after- ■ \ noon of Wednesday last he had expressed a desire to send down to the Supreme Court ibr subpoenas ito send to Kangitikei. He had been informed i that the Court wub closed lor that day, and thut I us the mail for tbe West Coast started at an early hour tbe next morning it would be impossible for him to obtain his witnesses in time for the trial. Mr Izard lor the Crown did not oppose the application, und the Court ruled that tbe case ' should stand over till the next sittings of the I Court, and that the prisoner should remain in I custody. | BOBBEfIY WITH VIOLENCE, , j Patrick Ryan, a private in the 2nd Battalion j 18th Royal Irish Regiment, pleaded not guilty to l having ut VVtingamii on the 19ih August, feloniously assaulted ono Thomas Kennedy and robbed j him of £1 18s aud a mutch box. j Mr Izard conducted the case for tho Crown, and the prisoner was undefended. •Thomas Kennedy, a stone-mason, residing at , Wanganui, said that on tho evening of the 19th ' August ho met prisoner and other two men on the Quay at Wanganui. He accosted thorn and after some short conversation, took them into a public house to drink. Witness changed a pound to pay for the liquor, and then went away. Prisoner followed and tapped him on the shoulder, saying " Where are you off to." Witness replied, "I am going to buy a pair of boots," and prisoner said " come along with . mo to the Racecourse camp, I have a couple j of pair there which I should only chuck away, you inuy a3 well have them." Witness agreed to accompany prisoner, and when near tho camp prisoner, after tolling him to waifc in a hut while ho got the boots, borrowed two shillings to get j some beer, and went away for about three minutes when ho returned with a pair of boots, saying i'< Here your are mate, shove them on." Witnoss I examined the boots, and seeing tkem too ha/d ! and too email, refused to take them. Prisoner

Without further remark foHwpon him, and * r placing*'Tn3* "liuee'^on"'¥ir cheit ' nflccT £v trousers pocket • of the money it contained and a inutoh box, after which he savagely struck witness about the face and body, and endeavoured to gug him. Witness Bhrieked out "Robbery, robbery;" prisoner jumped up, and picking up the boots he had brought, ran off with them, and the money and match box he had taken. (A tin match box was produced and identified by witness as his property). Cross-examined by prisoner, witness said that he had gone to the Regimental Quarter Guard and pointed out somebody elee other than prisoner as the person who had robbed him. Corporal Daniel Sullivan, of the 18th Regt., ! saw the prisoner about four o'clock on the afternoon of the 19th August, running from the direction of the racecourse camp towards the town of Wanganui, and shorily afterwards met last witness, who called out " Follow him, follow him ; I have been robbed." Witness started off in pur- ! suit, caught up prisoner, and seized him with a : puir of ammunition boots in his possession. He then marched him off to the guard-room, and on the way noticed that he had money about his person. Witness also observed that during the time he was chasing prisoner over the sand hills between the camp and .Wanganui, he every now and then, thrust his hand into the sand, as if with the object of concealing something therein. Sergeant G-eorge Copley, of the 18th Regt.,iwaß on the 19th August, acting-sergeant of the guard at. the racecourse camp. Prisoner was brought to the guard in custody, and on being searched the mutch box, already identified by Kennedy, and eight shillings were found concealed on different parts of his person. Shortly afterwards, prosecutor, excited and under the influence of liquor, came to the guard tent und pointed out some, person other than the prisoner as "the blackguard who had robbed nim." The next morning, however, prosecutor saw prisoner at the ) regimental orderly room, and in reply to the commanding officer, Major Rocke, deposed to his identity. This concluded the case for the Crown. The prisoner made no defence, but denied his guilt. His Honor having summed up, The jury retired, and returned in the space of half an hour with a verdict of " Guilty of stealing from the person." Sergeant Copley was recalled, and said that the prisoner bore a bad character in the regiment. Sergeant Thomns Kelly, of the 18th Regiment, also gave the prisoner a bad character, and said I he had been tried before a military tribunal for dishonesty. His Honor pointed out to the prisoner that although the jury had found him guilty of a minor offence than that with which he was charge d, there was no doubt he waa a superla- | tively and extremely bad man, with whom it I would be worse than useless to. waste words. The sentence he wa* about to inflict was by no means commeußurato with the aggravated and impudent robbery he had committed, and the sentence of the court was that he be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a term of two years. BIGAMY. Fanny Glover, alias Gibba, an interesting looking woman, pleaded not guilty to a charge of bigamy. Mr Izard conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr Buckley appeared for the prisoner. In opening the case, the learned counsel for the prosecutioH briefly stated that on the 19th June, 1861, the prisoner had been legally married at Christchurch to one William Glover, and that on the 15th May, 1867, she went through the ceremony at Greytown with a man named Robert Gibbs. He then called Mary Ann Manning, sister of the prisoner, who said her maiden name was Cray thorno, and that she was present at the marriage of the prisoner with one Hawley William Glover, which was solemnised according to the rites of the English Church at St. Michael's Church, Christchnroh, on the 19th June, 1861, by Archdeacon Matthius. The man Glover was alive, and within the preoinets of the Court. Cross-examined by Mr Buckley, witness said that she had instigated her husband to lay the information against the prisoner. She had done so not out of enmity, but from a feeling of duty. She never threatened to expose prisoner if she did not give her money. Glover, the iirat husband, was said to have illused prisoner, but witness never saw any marks and bruises on her body. : By the Court ; Prisoner is four and twenty. Glover is older. Prisoner had three childreu. One lives, the othor two are dead. Glover is a farm laborer and in moderately good circumstances. Prisoner often complained of having received ill-usage from him. Gibbs, prisoner's second husband, is aged forty. In the Wairarapa, prisoner took the name of Gordon. Previous to her marriage with Gibbs, prisoner lived with him as housekeeper. Gibbs knew prisoner was a married woman when he married her. He also knew the first husband was alive, for witness told him that such was the case. Witness' husband laid the information against prisoner as coon as he heard of the marriage with Gibbs. James Edward Ind Boys, Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, at Greytown, Wairarapa, deposed to the prisoner having come to his office on the 15th May, 1867, in .order to be married, and to hiß having, as Registrar, married her to Robert Gibbs, a publican of Greytown. By the Court — Prisoner signed the register in the name of Frances Gordon, and described herself as a widow. Charles Allen, Clerk to the Registrar-General, produced the original list of officiating ministers for the colony for the year 1861, and pointed out in it the name of the Yen. Archdeacon Octaviua Mutthius. This concluded the case for the Crown. Mr Buckley for the defence, said he would not argue against the evidence adduced, a» it could not be contested. He begged lcavv to withdraw the original plea and substitute in its place one of guilty. His Honor could not withdraw the case from the jury, in whose hunda ha left it without comment. The jury returned an immediate verdict of guilty. The prisoner had nothing to say why sentence should not be pussed oa her. William Glover, the prisoner's first husband, in reply to his Honor, said ho could not say anything in her favor, und would therefore say nothing. His Honor proceeded to pass sentence, nnd in doing so, pointed out the degree of shame to which prisoner hud exposed herself, and expressed a hope that an easy divorce would 'never bo procurable in this country, as it would sap the foundation of all civilized sooiety. Ho did not see tho necessity of giving a heavy sentence, as it cuulcl not utono for the prisoner's past conduct, and would therefore sentence her to the merely nominal punishment of imprisonment with hard labor for the space of nine calendar months. HORSE STEALING Edward Roe pleaded not guilty to stealing a horse from an aboriginal native named Te Watene. Mr Izard conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr Allen appeared for the pr.eoner. Te Watene, whose evidence was. interpreted by Mr Ebenezer Baker, said : I live at Turakina ; prisoner wa9 in mv employment looking .lifter sheep, up to the 25th May. I knew of his leaving. About the time he left, T lost some clothing, a horse, saddle, and bridle. 1 knew prisoner had taken them, and followed him. By the Court j Prisoner did not ask, nor. did I give him leave to take one of my horses. ' '"

P *$n'?h'e27th May-^two dayfc tiftor hoiofl me ; n» , 1 was then in custody at Baii,,itikei, and my horw was there too. . . . By Mr Allon : The. prisoner came into my sa> , yicd on the 16th May. There -was an agreeineiit between us in writing. I consented to' give hito ' : - £12, hia food and clothes three' times a year let twelve months' work. I never took the copy of '■ the agreement out of prisoner's pocket.., On the ' 25th May, prisoner asked for permission to cancel the agreement. I gave him permission. Prisoner ' • | did not ask for his wages, neither did I gire him' ; ! any, for I had let bim have clothes to the value ' lof £4— a sum it would have taken him. four ; months to earn. I did not assault prisoner and , pull oif his clothes ; prisoner took them off him" . self. ■ By the Court i Prisoner left my employment in his own, clothes. By the, agreement he .had with me, I had to give prisoner all necessary clothea. I gave prisoner no money before he left nie. . , , , Paurini, an aboriginal natiro, residing at Turaj kiiia, said : I recollect the 26th of May last. In ' consequence of ■ information* received from 1c j Watene I went in search of prisoner, whom I . ' caught at Manawatu He had Watene'i horse .with him. I recognised it at once. . It is a roan.. ' stallion, and it is now outside the Court. When. l J caught prisoner I told him he must come back . 1 with me, but he asked me to take the horse, ! saddle, and bridle and let him go. I refused to let him escape and took him to Parawanui to the police. ■'•■';•'. Cross-examined by Mr Allen : Prisoner made mo forcible resistance to me. : ,He did nothing. ' I more than ask me to. take) the horse .and let him 1 go, and when he found I would not ho. came with. ..• j me quietly. , '=-.-■*;' i William Scott, of Manawatu, said: On the ! j 26th May, prisoner offered me for sale a brown 'c i entire horse. I told him I would give him £10 k .- for the aniinaVif it was his own, and he told me that it was his, that he had earned it from some I Maoris for whom he had worked, and that I i might have it for the money I proposed' to give. I asked him to let me have a written document - showing the animal to be his property, but h© could not, so I would not buy it, and he took it • across the ferry. ' Constable McLean said: The prisoner wsa given into my custody at Turakina on the 26tii May, and I, on arresting him, said "You aw charged with stealing from Te Watene a horfe, saddle, and, bridle." , Prisoner turned round ana -. said to me "What punishment .would J, get iifjfc'ji-' had sold the, horse ?" I thon said " Any exprej?" 81OH8 you make use of will betaken down MA,-,? used in, evidence against you." Prisoner madV no further remark at the time, but afterward* when on the, way. to the lock-up said "If Uw ' Maories had not. twigged me so quick I wouUT have been in Wellington by. this kime. By Mr Allen : I know the prisoner; he'toleL me on the Saturday prior to my taking him into custody that he had quarrelled with the Maori*; that he could not get his wages ; and that if h» had any money he would leave them and go to Wellington., . :'*, This closed the case for the Crown. : !,- Mr Allen, in addressing the jury for the defence, would not attempt to justify the action taken '}if\ the prisoner in running off with the horse, but ;* only urged upon them to remember that tto" p youth in so doing was not committing what ":h»l considered to be a felony. The unfortunate, la^', left the Maoris who had employed him, he didep because he quarrelled with them, they would not give him big wages, and foolishly he attempted ta ; recoup himself by taking the horse. . It war»foolish act, but not a greut crime. The boy w*« ■ only some seventeen years of age, the son ot'fifc, p'ectable though humble parents in Wellingtott, and ho hoped that, taking the whole oiroumatiutf ces of the case into consideration, they would comaf to the conclusion that he did not take the hori^. with a felonious intent, but only from a desire ♦? get out of the district, and to raise some of the. money that was due to him. ' '„ His Honor summed up, and read over the e?i« denco to the jury, who, after an interval of twenty minutes, returned a verdict of " Guilty," but re* commended the prisoner to mercy on account bis youth, and the probability of his having cott* eidered himself justified in taking the horae. •His Honor refused to accept the verdict vritSk the recommendation' oh the grounds stated,, as if the jury really believed the prisoner thought hint* self justified in running away with the horse, tlwnr were bound to acquit him of the oharge on whioft he was arraigned. If they chose, however, at would take their 'verdiofc as one of guilty, .with ft recommendation to mercy on the ground of youth. The jury a; f ain retired, and after a few minutes brought back a verdict of " Qruiliy," with a x<t* oommendation to mercy on the ground .of youtn. ', His Honor deferred judgment until after - thf> remainder of the oases of horse stealing were tried. The Court then adjourned at 6^30 p.m.. till t«a o'clock this morning. „