Criminal Sessions.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1678, 5 July 1875, Page 2

Criminal Sessions.

His Honor took his seat at eleven o'clock.

GRANT) JURY. The following gentlemen were chosen Grand Jurymen f-Captain Daldy (foreman), J. T. Boylan, J. Buchanan, R. Cameron, J. M. Clark, P. Dignan, J. Dilworth, H. Oilfillan, G. S. Graham, Bobt. Graham. D. Hean, G. W. Jones, S Jones, G. S. Kisslinsc, T. Morrin, G. P. Pierce, L. D. Nathan, F. Ring, J. M. Shera. A. K. Taylor, R. S. Taylor, and R. M. Wynyard. Mr E. Isaacs was excused. Messrs. JJargaville and Pounds absent. Charge to the Grand Jury. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, again congratulated them on the lightness of the calendar. He said the number of Drisoners for trial was 14, and the offences 16 ; one prisoner being charged with five offences, and in another case three prisoners being jointly indicted for one offence. It must strike the Grand Jury, as it had struck him in looking over the calendar, that a number of offences which for a long time had been very prevalent, seemed to have died out. On the present calendar there was not one case of forgery, embezzlement, or obtaining money by false pretences. The list consisted chiefly of cases of larceny and burglary. On the three larceny cages he need not specially direct them nor on the charge of horse stealing. The five cases of burglary and house-breaking against an old offender would, he believed, cause them no difficulty. The crime of burglary consisted of breaking into a dwelling by night with felonious intent. It differed from house-breaking only in _ the fact of burglary being an offence committed at night. With the charge of illegally pawning thoy would find bo difficulty in finding a true bill. The law provided that for a person to pawn property which did not belong to him was a punishable offence. Another case of horse-stealing on the calender he desired should receive their particular attention. It was the charge of stealing a horse at Onehunga. In charges of horse-stealing there must be felonious intent shewn, but the crime differed from larceny, inasmuch as a person might be assorting bis right to the ownership of the a<nimal. In the present ense the prisoner, who had a sort of possession, whether rightfully or wrongfully claimed that he had a right to take the horse. Unless they were satisfied that he had no colour of right he could not be hold guilty of horsestealing. There was one case of breaking into a hou^e with intent t« ravish, in which they might find some difficulty in making out the intent. The breaking into the houae did not constitute an offence —the crime lay in the intent, and the proof of intent was very slight indeed. One prisoner was charged with shooting with intent to do bodily harm. There was no doubt about the shooting or intent, but the peculiar circumstance of this case was that the prisoner alleged in justification that the p«rson shot at had seduced hh wife. His Honor proceede.l to say that such a plea was no excuse for a man some time after the seduction coolly going and purchasing a gun, and proceeding a distance for several miles for the deliberate purpose of shooting the person against whom he felt aggrieved That was a matter for the Court to deal with in the event of a conviction. In the [charge of unnatural offence, there was only one witness who testified directly to the commital of the oifence, and the jury must consider carefully whether his evidence was sufficient to base a committal. There was only one other case on the calendar —that in which two persons were charged with forcible entry at the Thames. It was quite clear, in law, that a person could not take possession of even his own property by force —he must apply to the law. It had been laid down, and there was no doubt that a landlord who entered with force or threats into his own property after a tenant's term had expired was guilty of forcible entry. It was not necessary that force should be actually used if means were employed to overawe and terrify, by a show of force, so as to lead the person in possession to believe that violence would be used unless the wishes of the person] threatening such force were complied with. In the present case the tenant had received notice to quit, and upon disregarding it the landlord burst open the door, which was fastened and tied with a rope. There was no doubt that persons so acting were guilty of forcible entry, notwithstanding that they might consider that the steps they were taking were in the assertion of a right. His Honor then dismissed the Grand Jury to their duties, TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned shortly at intervals and found true bills in all of the five charges of burglary and house-breaking against Dunn. BURGLARY. James Dunn was then arraigned on the charge of burglary at Mrs Grattan's, Parnell. He pleaded not guilty. He was also charged with burglariously entering the premises of Charles Mack, and stealing therefrom 1 watch, 1 chain, 1 vest, and 1 pocket-book. The Crown Prosecutor determined to go on with this case first. The prisoner said he was not prepared to defend that case just then, on account of not getting the depositions, although he applied for thena. He pleaded not guilty. His Honor ruled that prisoner had not made the application in the proper form, and it was too late to take such an objection now. Prisoner : Then is a poor man to be denied justice. I made the applicatian according to the regulations posted in the gaol for the instruction of prisoners, and signed by Capt. Eyre. His Honor: I have no doubb you will receive full justice. You will not be tried by the depositions, and when the witnesses are examined you will have ample opportunity for examining them. Prisoner (who shewed the utmost familiarity with his position) then asked if " the first case called on the board " (Grattan's) might not-be heard first. His Honor replied that that was a matter' for the Crown Prosecutor to determine. A jury was then empannelled : George Giles, foreman. Charles Mack, commission agent, deposed to the facts as elicited in the Police Court. He lived in Chapel-street, and missed the articles referred to on the morning of the 21st May. They were in his house on the previous night at eleven o'clock. Alexander Freeman, a little boy, deposed to finding the vesfe in the yard of the Baptist Chapel, Wellesley-street. Detective Jeffrey deposed to taking prisoner into custody on the 16th June at his house and Cox's Creek. Detective Grace was present, and they commenced to search. The prisoner, who was handcuffed sitting on the form, said, " Now I'll'not be responsible for anything not found in this room." After

lining Aboard ■•-» silverl J°^^3SP^v\ fied by Mr Mack night cap, loaded flJßlgpgcP JtoFLgf P^^hosfaSfe^^^ in£? all cnose d.riicicß'\— — on,-!. "Yes; I know I'ml in for it now. ±hat lookfvery bad against me." He mdentified the handkerchief as one belonging to Dunn which he had seen upon him some time Sore. Dunn said that was not the handkerchief ; the other had been torn in four Sees. Ou the following Monday, witness Lain (searched the house, and in the room at the Wk of that occupied by Dunn, found Lack's watch and other arieles, which we.c rolled in four pieces of a handkerchief, similar to the other one *hich he had seen on prisoner ... The prisoner occupied forty minutes m cross-examining Deiective Jeffrey, but nothin" in hs favour was elicited. He then examined Detective Martin Grace, and addressed the jury at great length. The jury returned a verdict of guiltyHis Honor reserved sentence until the other chirks against the prisoner were heard. . , The prisoner was then arraigned upon an indictment, charging him with breaking and entering the dwelling house of CuaMes Boyce, of the Ponsonby .Road, on the 27th. of May, and stealing therefrom one workbox, value 30s-; two pair earrings, £2; and one brooch, value £3. Prisoner pleaded net guilty.