CRIMINAL SESSIONS OPENED.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 896, 16 August 1910, Page 3

CRIMINAL SESSIONS OPENED.

kJUDGE'S REVIEW. SEVERAL UNUSUAL FEATURES. The criminal sittings of the Supreme openerl yesterday before his' Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. , The following wero empanelled as a grand jury:—Messrs.' .Henry Cromwell, Tewsley (foreman), Frank Joseph. Dyer, . Ernest s PI-euil, Roland Thomas Robertson, Francis Fauvel, Sydney Bernard Short, John Bcveridge, Frederick Arthur Allen, Charles Onyon, William Hugh Croskcry, Alex. Feeblcs Webster, .Charles Davis, Gcorgo Ross, William Inglis, Richard' Brown, George Francis Pearce, Henry Arthur Shepherd, William David Kirkcr,' Samuel Mackay, Ernest Smith Baldwin, Henry Wardell, Thomas Acock, and Reginald Joseph White. CHARGE TOitHE GRAND JURY. . REMARKABLE CASES. . His Honour, in his charge to the grand jury, said that in regard to tho particular cases, with one exception, he , would make but few observations. Under the' heading of' crimes against persons, there were three of the ordinary sexual-" cases, whisk, ' unhappily, had to be investigated from - time to time. There were also several eases of the ordinary kind of ofTences..,against property. In one of tliese eases a man was charged with sending a telegram in the name of a girl with whom ho was keeping company, his object in sending the .telegram being to get hold of. some money. -The .-falsified-' tion of a telegram t was. in itself an offence. The samo man was. also charged with stealing from a dwellinghouse an article that would be identified. There , were several charges against women of shoplifting in- three different, establishments in this town. ' There was.; also a charge against'a man of breaking.into and stealing from a,shop or warehouse. Two men were captured by.', the police, but., escaped. One was subsequently arrested, and was found to have in his possession a coat that'the owner would identify as having .been safe on the premises. There was a peculiar: case of a man who went, into a hotel on ■ tile pretence of looking, for a friend, and was found, in the roonv of the manager, or. the manager's wife, apparently' engaged in helping himself to jeweller;.. He escaped, but'there would be evidence - that he wad ' seen getting away, down, the fire escape,: and that- lie was found in, possession of a cake of soap in its'wrapper, with the brand of the hotel'on it.--There was a very painful charge against a woman of cruelty to a child. Our law was sufficient to .prevent, such■ crueltywhen detected. It was ail indictable offence. I'heio ! would he good evidence that the child was'ill-treated; The chaTge consisted, of a series of direct and wilful cruelty and neglect. He need liatdly say •ffiat when, that kind of thing-v;as discovered , prosecution must follow. '_ .-. ' : -Perjury Charge. . . There • was also: a charge of perjury. Sn connection'with . some litigation. This charge was that Vit-h a view to getting rid of a considerable obligation—an obligation to : accept, a leasei-the 'defendant-in the litigation referred tornado a falSo statement,'endeavouring .to repudiate, an agreement whicli he was stated., to' have signed.' It would. be proved that, after being, repeatedly cautioned";by tlio Chief Justice, to be careful as to. what evidence k lie gave, 1 lie persisted 'in declaring that it'was' not his'signature, but had -beoiifabricated.. for' some fraudulent purpose* That was a' very serious statement to. make, ; apart from the question of its being -false. !■', : The Leader Picture Case. til' There was one ease whicli would probably .'occupy the Grand Jurjr. for .a .considerable '.time,. and would require close attention; ' but would liot present much difficulty if' approached in the-riglit-way. It was a charge against two men. named ■Tier—presumably :brothers-7of stealing.-'a picture from an art ; gallery in this city. His Honour then traversed tlie history of the negotiations, for. the recovery of the picture! l which were carried on ostensibly, between Mr. Wardell, -president of the. Academy of Fine Arts, and the persons] who had; obtained possession of it, and wanted a reward for : returning it. - The .correspondence .was really between tlie detectives a'ndvthbse persons,and- it - was qui-to.justifiable for tile.detectives.to enter into suoh a correspondence in order to detect the authors of' the -crime. '■ Only a comparatively small .part of the correspondence would .require tho close at-, itention of the Grand .Jury in order -to determine whether it connected, either or both of the accused-with tho crime. The circumstances attending, tlie recovery, of the .'picture (as already, fully reported) were then reviewed by his Honour, who dwelt especially upon the arrest of-Francis Tier., when lie', was With Jhc messenger Burr, who had just delivered the picture to Mr. Wardell, and the evidence of certain' boys employed as messengers by Michael Tier to the effect that both the "Tiers were connected with the correspondence. If a man was found in possession of a thing that had "been recently stolen, the law: cost upon him the' onus of explaining how ho came by it. If the Grand Jury-found-that Francis Tier handed the-picture .to Burr, and that Michael ■Tier, was connected, with the matter, that would be • enough '. to justify them in sending the case' to trial., It would not be necessary for t tho Grand July/.to distinguish between stealing and - receiving, as the prisoners were charged with both offences. '~ • - TRUE BILLS. . : RETURNED IN ALL CASES. . Tlio Grand Jury, after a sitting that lasted until 4.30 p.m., returned true bills in-nil the cases submitted to its consideration. The list is as followsDong Hon (criminal assault),. Francis Edwin Tier (breaking and entering and theft), Charles Nodine (perjury), Robert Stewart (forgery- and sending a telegram with intent .to defraud), Wm. Plain,(indecent act), George Brown - (criminal assault), James M'lutyre (theft), Catherine Mooro (theft), -Valentine Moiser. (cruelty to .a .child),' • Arthur Cyril Dowell, alias Schapira (sending a;telegram with iirtent to defraud), .Thomas Joseph Lloyd(breaking and entering and thett), ArthurCyril Dowell, alias Schapira (theft). "WIRE MONEY; IN TROUBLE." ' ANIMPUDENT FRAUD. The first case heard was tliat of Robert Stew-art, who was charged with having,on March 2G, 1910, committed forgery ami dispatched a telegram with; intent to defraud. Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted for the Crown.! Accused conducted his own ..defenccT ■ , Mr. Ostler said the evidence against accused'was brief but stron'g. Tho charge was,that, on March 26,. 1910, lie sent a telegram: "Wire money, in trouble," to a man named Justus Hobbsat Kaipara Flats. The'' telegram was signed "V.: Stewart;" and. purported to come from-a Mrs. Veronica,'- or "Vcinnie" Skidniore, who was at tliSt time living with Stewart. A sum of £2 was forwarded by Mr. flobbs, and'.this amount, accused secured, forging a.receipt. Veronica Skidniore deposed that on the date, of the alleged offence she was living .with Stewart. She had neither sent tho telegram' nor' authorised anyone elso to send it. / , Justus Ilobbs stated that he sent a money order, telegram for .£2 in. response to what he believed to be .a telegram, from Mrs; • "Vonnio" : Stewart. . , John " Brackenridge, telegraph ' clerk, remembered accused passing" in the telegram at 8.10 a.m. -dii March 20, and had experienced no difficulty in - identifying hiin wlien ! lie next saw him about the middle of' May. Francis Ernest Stubberlield gave evidence as to delivering the order' to a man who said lie was "Vonnio Stewart"and -signed a receipt as "V. Stewart." Detective Cassells stated that on May 17 in the Detective Office he got accused to take'down from dictation,flic contents of the telegram in , question. In both copy and original the words "Flats" was spelled. with two "t's."-

Expert evidence.-was led to show, that the writing in each ense was that of the same person. ■ . Constable Doggett deposed that Stewart, while-bsing taken from Lanibton Quay to the Terrace Gnbl, made a statement to the effect-that "Ca'ssclls has- made a mistake this time. It was a woman who did it. Accused, giving evidence 611 his own behalf, said that on March 2G he did notleave his residence at Broadway Terrace before 10 a.m. .' . John Savage was called by accused in support-of his endeavour to set up an alibi, but stated that Stewart could have left the house at any time without witness being aware of the fact. . Accused admitted to .Mr..Ostler that a. series of-:delinquencies ranging 'from vagrancy to theft were on record against him. . ' . In the course of a lengthy statement accused suggested that the jury should beware of "cocksure" witnesses. He denied that ho took do.wn the- telegram from dictation as stated by Detective Cassells. In fact, he copied it exactly, with the original in front of him. He hud not stated a woman committed the offence. In conclusion, accused submitted that the .prosecution had failed to. identify him with the man who sent the telegram. His. Honour, after reviewing the evidence, remarked that Stewart's own statement at any rate brought him- within tho circle of those who.had some knowledge of the transaction.. Mr. Sawyer's evidence threw no light on the case at all. ' • Tho jury after a retirement of threequarters of an hour returned) with a verdict of "Guilty." His Honour,. in passing sentence, remarked that accused had been found guilty of a very impudent fraud. A sentence of three years' .. imprisonment with hard labour was imposed. . '. "EMBOLDENED." ' HIS FIRST FRAUD- SUCCEEDED. , .'■ Wm. Robert Munro, alias E. Anderton,'a young.man twenty years of age, was brought up for ■ sentence before his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday mornling on a charge of false pretences,' anotiier.qf forgery, and'two of forgery and utfcriug: ' . .-. ' • r . :■ ' ' Mr. tl F. OTeiry, who, appeared for the prisoner, said this -was unfortunately not the first time that ho.'had 'appeared in. court! Four years previously he had been sentenced in the Magistrate's Court at Levin 011 a charge of theft. ' Two years ago he was fined 40s; on one charge and convicted and discharged on , two other, charges of theft. Since then, he had not appeared before the Court ■ .uiitil the present, occasion. "Prior to committing the offences with which he was now charged the prisoner was in Hawera, absolutely without means; . His first attempt at fraud was successful, ■• and no doubt this emboldened him to > continue. Prisoner was' sentenced to two years' imprisonment with .hard labour, on each charge, sentences to be concurrent.; There was no presumption as to whom a- .sum of £i found on the, prisoner belonged. It would, his-Honour stated, .: be ■ divided among tho people whom lie had defrauded. ..... ' ■'■ " ■•-.■ '■ .•'/ ■■~.'.■