SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 136, 16 June 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

THURSDAY, JUNE 16. (Before His Honor Sir a. A. Arney, Chief Justice, and a Petty Jury.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock. lABCENT. Matthew W. Frost was indicted upon a charge of stealing, on the 11th of March last a watch and chain, the property of Bichard Kennan. Mr. Brookiield prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr. MacCormick defended the prisoner. The prosecutor examined, deposed that on the 11th March he was practising at the Butts in Shortland, for the competitive firing. The prisoner was also practising. Had a watch and chain —the watch a " silver hunting lever," and the chain, gold. After firing tho first shot, the witness took the watch and chain from his pocket and placed it in the " ball pouch" which he placed on the grouud. Was then at the 400 yards range. Walked to the 500 yards range, taking the belt and pouch. Had the watch and chain then. Remained at the 500 yards range during the firing of the six shots, and saw the watch and chain several times during the interval. Went to the 600 yards range, and was occupied some time in comparing scores. The word was given to " fall in," and. prosecutor " fell in," neglecting to pickup the "ball pouch." Went afterwards to the 500 yards range and to the 600 yards range and back to the 500 yards range to look for the property before accusing anybody of taking it. The belt was ultimately returned to prosecutor at the 600 yards range. Prisoner was standing close to witness when it was returned. The watch and chain were not then in the pouch. Asked the prisoner if he knew what had become of the watch and chain that was in the pouch. The watch was m ade by Eotherham of London. Would know it again. (Watch produced.) Next saw the watch in tho Police Court. The watch produced is the same.

Cross-examined : The prisoner was a volunteer and a competitor- Cannot say ■whether all the competitors were marched together from one range to the other. Saw the prisoner for the first time to know him at the 600 yards range. There are a few houses, and scrub about the locality of the ranges. Prosecutor was not certain who returned the belt and ball-pouch. It was not the prisoner. It was possible that the watch and chain might have dropped out of the pouch while being carried about, but not before going from the 500 yards to the 600 yards range. A native named Renata Kitahi, living at Waihou, said the prisoner offered to him the watch produced for sale. Prisoner asked £2 for the watch, and witness consented to give £1 19s.

William Blundell, carrying on business at Shortland as a watchmaker, identified the watch. Two Maoris brought it to him about the 22nd of March. Having received notice of a watch having been stolen, witness gave notice to the police, and handed the watch to Detective Hitches, of the Armed Constabulary Force.

William Frederick Hitches, examined, said ho was a detective officer stationed at Sbortland. Received the watch from Mr. Blundell. Asked the prisonor whether he had sold a watch to any Maoris Jately. lie answered in the negative. Searched his premises under authority of a search warrant. Found no trace of the remaining property, viz., the gold chain and key. Witness cautioned the prisoner in the usual way. There was a second Maori witness, but he is lyiug very sick in a house near the Coui't. That Maori is suffering from fever. Believed the Maori was unable to attend.

His Honor: When duly qualified medical testimony is brought, it is admitted at- once. Persons are sometimes brought into Court in a very grievous state of illness. What is wanted is to know that the illness is of such a a character that the man cannot possibly attend.

Mr. MacCormick: If tho object of the Crown Prosecutor is to get in tho deposition made by that native in another Court, then I object. His Honor : It is of course the duty of the Court to see that there is no keeping a witness back.

Mr. Brookfield : I have sent for the medical man who has attended the Maori that is ill, but he cannot at present attend. His Honor : Even if you had him it would be rather a loose way of getting in the deposition, for in. ordinary eases it is necessary to have the clerk of the Court below, who would identify the deposition and prove the exact time it was taken.

Witness (cross-examination continued) : The prisoner looked confused when the charge was made against him. Most people do when charged with robbery by a detective officer. Prisoner had another watch in h'S possession.

Mr. MacCorinick said lie had no witnesses. It was unfortunate that the father of the prisoner had recently died, and those who might have attended could not come. Mr. Brookfield said the fact stated by the learned counsel for the prisoner was true, au;t addressed the jury for the prosecution. the defence set up was that the prisoner "found" the watch and kept it. But it was well to be known generally that persons who might " find " property and " appropriate" it to their own use, at the same time that they knew to whom it belonged, and could give it to the owner if they pleased, were guilty of larceny. The Rev. Q-ideon Smale, a. Wesleyan minister, knew the prisoner. for about twelvemonths. Could not speak to particular transactions, but had no reason whatever to believe that the prisoner was a* d;shonest man.

Mr. Samuel Harrison said he had known the prisoner from his childhood, and Ms grand-

fathers before him, who were men of high character and influence. Never heard anything against the prisoner before the present charge. Mr. MacCormick, in his defence of the prisoner, said there was no evidence to show how the watch came into prisoner's possession. The more reasonable supposition was that the watch and chain were not " taken" by the prisoner but were "absolutely lost." Even if the prisoner found them, let the jury consider that there were some thirty or forty persons who had been firing at the ranges. The intent to appropriate must exist at the time of finding to be felonious. If it came into the mind afterwards, then there would be no larceny. Then ;s nothing to show that the prisoner cou^ :-ive known to whom the watch belong. :, :>■•• l.h:it he had any opportunity of restoring it to the person who lost it. The watch, for anything that appeared in evidence, might have been found two or three days after it was lost. The . prosecutor and the prisoner were shown to have been strangers, so that the prisoner could have no " immediate" means of knowing to whom the watch belonging, and so have restored it. Even the facts proved were consistent with the prisoner's innocence. His Honor summed up the evidence with great care, and the jury retired to consider* their verdict.

Tho jury, after an absence of twenty minutes, returned into Court with a verdict of Not G-uilty.