CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1214, 24 August 1911, Page 3

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

SENTENCE PASSED. ;■ LONG TERM FOR E. REYNOLDS. PETERSON CASE DROPPED. The criminal sessions of the Suprsino Court wero continued yesterday, before Mr. Justice Him. Before any new trial ""as proceeded irith, two prisoners were brought forward for sentence. Edward Reynolds, who had been found ffuilty, on Tuesday, of procuring abortion, was brought before Mr. Justice Sim for sentence, yesterday morning. Mr. T. A"eavo appeared for ths Crown, and Mr. T. M. Wilfc-rd for tho prisoner. Mr. -\Vilfpjd 53i<l that he would Jike to point out that this was a remarkable caso in its way, at the prisoner had oncebeen found "not guilty." Mr. Justice Sim: By direction of tho Judge! Mr. Wilford admitted that was true, but added that, when the Crown Prosecutor had suggested that the jury had been misdirected and, asked for a case to be stated for tho Court of Appeal, counsel tot both defendants took no exception. i\ow ho (Mr. Wilford) desired to ask for leave to state a case for the Court of Appeal on some now points. Tho case would embody tho following questions:— Did the Judge wrongly admit evidence of occurrences, and a conversation, which •"•ere stated to have taken place between tho accomplice (the girl) and the other person, whoso trial had been separated (by tho order of Mr. Justice Chapman) from that of tho accused, Reynolds?

Did the Judge (Mr. Justice Sim) misdirect tire jury when ho referred to the evidence above defined, whereby (following the words of the statute) some substantial wrorjg or miscarriage nf justice had been occasioned on the trial? Was It Admissible? Counsel added that the point which he desired to make was, first of all,- that circumstances which took place between the other accused person and the girl were not evidence against his client. His Honour, did not think that any conversation between tho girl and the othor accused had been admitted. Mr. Wilford referred his Honour to the conversation mentioned by the girl in winch she stated that she had been told to write certain letters to her mother. His Honour: I should assume that tho three of them were together Mr. Wilford replied that the girl did not say so. It has certainly not been shown that itoynolds had not lx*n there, but the evidence could not be mado admissible unless it were proved that he really was tlicre. • Iho girl had never once stated so, nor did the Crown lead evidence to prove it.

His Honour was of opinion- tliat the whole of the evidence objected to was plainly admissible. It had been suggested that the Dicaning to be put on the evidence was.that Mrs. Peterson (while Reynolds was not present) told the girl no -., t0 l ay vbc F t,lO lettcT lla( l bKn written from, but tho inference which his Honour drew was that Reynolds had been present w'hen this was said. Mr.'Wilfofd wished his Honour to give Uie prisoner tho same facilities to have those points settled as had been allowed the Crown on the previous occasion. His Honour: 1 would not consider the ciiifstion of bail. He is a single man, and I would-not allow him on bail.

Counsel objected that if the Court of Appeal should decide-in his favour- it would be hard on the prisoner that he had served part of his sentence unjustly. Besides, there were other ways in which his Honour could deal with'him. The cas? came, within the First Offenders' Probation .Act. . . ■'His , (Honour: The offence may come within the definition 'of the Act. But surely a judge would i;ever dream of granting probation in such a case. Mr. Wilford: We 11..1 had to find your Honour's mind on the subject. * , His Honour: Very well, you've found my mind. Continuing, his Honour remarked that before stating a ease for the Court of Appeal ho had to be satisfied that the case was reasonably arguable. • Mr. Wilford went on to say that the admission of certain evidence had prejudiced his client. • He referred to the two letters which the girl had written. As to the first, she hal admitted in crossexamination that it contained five untriiths. The Crown Prosecutor had statfd that she had written the letter under direction from "Reynolds, but.in her depositions she had said that no one had influenced her. The ndmission as evidence of the conversation referred to must'have weighed with the jury in judging the value of tho evidence of the accomplice. His Honour know that the slightest of evidence weighed with a jury'at times, and counsel could rot think of any part of the evidence that would more greatly weigh against his client than that part referred to. , An Application Refused. After another reference to the point referred to, his Honour said that it seemed to him that anything that had happened at Mrs. Peterson's was admissiblo as evidence against Reynolds. Ho had no hesitation in refusing counsel's application, because the prisoner could still get to the Court of Anneal. His Honour then asked if .Mr. Wilford had anything to say in prisoner's favour. Counsel stated that/TCoynojds was thirtyei;;ht years of age, -and resided with his mother at Taita. He was in business in Wellington, and. until he got into tho present trouble had hppn looked udoii as a respectable citizen. His Honour had said that morning that a defendant who mado a false statement on oath would forfeit his right to probation, and counsel considered that he had a right to claim benefit for his client, who had mado no denial on oath. There was no previous black mark ngainst his character, and the only, evidence that had convicted him was that of the girl. In accepting her evidence the jury had displayed that gallant spirit that was hereditary in us'all.

His Honour: I don't think so. I think that the jury pave the cvidenco very careful consideration.

Mr. TVilford submitted that no Rood could be done by the imposition of a severe sentence. Surely the man's clean record should stand him in Rood stead now. It would be easy enough to pet one hundred people in Wellington, who had had business dealings with him, and had met him in private life, and who would testify to his pood character. Counsel also referred to the prisoner's earlier career when ho had been "at- the head of tho athletic world," and asked if it could not be taken into account, that he had undergone considerable suffering during the four months that the case had been before the courts. The whole of the legislation of tho past five years had been in the direction of giving the first offender a chance. What good could be done by tending tho prisoner lo gaol for a long period? His Honour, in passing sentence, remarked that, if it had been possible, he would have been very glad to yield to the eloquent appeal made on behalf of the prisoner. But the crime was so serious that it was plainly his dutv to inflict a term of imprisonment. The fact that a penalty of life imprisonment had been provided showed what a serious offence it wa-. The prisoner was not a youns man, and, therefore, must have very deliberately engaged in an offence, which had nearly resulted in the death of the "irl The sentence must be' a substantial'one. He would be sentenced to five years' imprisonment and kept to hard labour. CASE AGAINST MRS. PETERSON. A NOLLE HIOSEQUI. "RelemnK to the caso against Jlrs. Peterson, Mr. iVeave remarked that circumstances were such as would justify the entering of a nolle proserin, and the Solicitor-General intended doing so. tfis Honour considered that as I'ho prisoner had been practically tried three times—the first rpsultin" in an acquittal by the direction of the Judge, imd the other two resulting; in disagreement^—llif course, proposed lo be adopted, seemed justified. Mr. A. L. llerdm.'in: J)oes that mean that the prisoner will be discharged, your Honour?

Mr. Neavo remarked that it was intended In bo the end of thn proceedings. ' His Honour (to Mr. Hercfman): Nothing more need bo said about it. PROBATION GRANTED, ITS KELATION TO I'EKJCKY CASES. .Arthur Frederick Charles Dnvios who, on Friday last, had been found guilly of receiving* a diamond ring well. knowing the fame to have been stolen, was brought up for sentence yesterday mnrning. The prisoner had been before,Jlr. Justice Sim on Saturday, when, in answer to a request for probation, his Honour remarked that Davies had gone into the box to commit perjury for the purpose of evading conviction, and ought, therefore, to forfeit his right to probation. However, his Honour was prepared to carefully consider the matter and, for that reason, the prisoner was remanded until yesterday morning. Mr. 11. F. O'Leary stated that Davies had a wife and chilli to keep and, if he were sent to gaol, it could ouly mean his wife would be destitute for she was unable to go out to work en account of the fact that her child was in delicate health. Mr. Ostler reported that Davies had previously borne a good character and the Probation Officer recommended probation on condition that the prisoner paid something towards the cost of the prosecution. His Honour did nol. consider that Davies could pay anything towards the costs, as he only earned Bs. a day, and no order would be made. In this case his Honour proposed to grant probation, but he desired to say that, in future cases, if he found an accused person going into the box and committing perjury, probation would not be allowed. Any accused person, however, had a right to plead not guilty and'let his counsel put forward the argument that the case had not been proved. Davies was admitted to probation for 18 months, and ordered to abstain from alcoholic liquors during that period.

FRANK COOTES-SECOND TRIAL. Mr. T. M. Wilford, counsel for the defence in the case of Frank Cootes. charged with assault and robbery at Otaki, has received notice that the Crown intend calling a number of new witnesses in the second trial of Cootes. Last week the jur.v aftor a. retirement of four hours, had failed to arrive at a verdict. THAT CROWN LANDS SALETHE BRIBE ALLEGATION. When the prisoners for sentence had been disposed of yesterday, the first case for trial called was that of Patrick Jaini-s Murphy, of Hihitahi, near Taihape, who was charged:—

That he did offer to accept money as an inducement to abstain from bidding as an intending purchaser of a license of Crown lands, jiamely, a pastoral run of about 1100 acres, in the Laketapauma Block, contrary to the forms of Hμ statute in such cases made and provided."

Mr. H. H. Ostler conducted tho prose cutioii, and Mr. T. M. AVilford appeared lor the accused, who pleaded not guilty. ■the prisoner was indicted under Section 09 of the Land Act. which provides that every person is guilty of an offence who (directly-or-indirectly) offers, or proposes, to accept or receive money as an inducement to abstain from bidding at a sale of Crown lands, which have ten adveitif.od for sale by public auction. In order to provo that the sala was adverUsed, Mr. Ostler produce;! two papers. Mr. Wilford pointed out tliai under Section G9 there had been no offence, uiiiass tho land proposed to Is fold had been . advertised" for sale by public auction, as provided for in Section 07 of the. Act. This section providH that notice of tire sale should bs published in tho Gazette, and also in a nev/siiaprr circulating in the district 'not less than ono inontli before the sale was to take nlnce. .Ihe naners put in fo provo the sal." were dated February 13 and IS, and tin sale was advertised to take place on February 20, 1911. The sale" was, therefore, not advertised in a paper circulating in the district a month before, and, in any case, there could not have b?en an auction sale on February 29, because there was no such day. Mr. Ostler maintained fl, a (. j] le „]„ ]ir ,,i boon advertised, and that was-sufficient for purpose?; of the pnwnt prosecution. If his Honour ruled against him on the point raised, he could then consider the question of taking Hie d?ci*ioi of th= Court of Appeal on'his Honour's ruling. ,™ s £ononr was of opinion that jrr. H , 11 fords objection could not lio successfully answercd,/but decided to let the easo proceed, and reserve the point. i the prisoner was fouid guilty, the law could be decided while, in tho event r a verdict of not guilty, the nsccssitv wonld not arise.

_ The evidence for >lie prosecution wa? U the effect that Edward Willwrforw bnooncr, farmer, near Waiouru. had ~- curetl a seven ye%rs least of VM acres of a pastoral run in the Wellington land district and county. It w.ip a portion of the KaketaDauma Block. Ho had obtained 4 lease from the Government at an up?et rental of £}a per annum. His lease would expire on February 28. 1912, and it had been advertised for sale by the Crown.

. On February 28 Hst (the date memtioncd in the. information), Spooner, in company with a Mr. Shalders, was at tho office of the Commissioner of Crown Lands in AVpllingtoT for the purpose of bidding for the land advertised. Murphy approached him, and nskod him to shake hands. Spooner replied that he did rcare about doing that. Then, a few minutes later, Murpliy said, "If you won't sfe-iilce hands with me, will you condc.*cend to speak to me for a few minutes?" a,nd Spooner aereed. Murphy paid: "Yon are. a man with a lnr.ee familj-, -and (?o am I." and then asked Spooner to give him his cheque, for ,£2OO or he would ftivo Spooner his cheque for £!f)0, to re-! frain from bidding. ' Murphy also fai<! that Spooner must not. appoint, anyone, to bid ou his behalf. The latter replied that ho would havo uothing to. do'with such a proposal, and then went to the Commissioner, and reported the matter. Subsequently, Spooner asked Murphy if he would still accept the .£2OO, Murphy replied in the affirmative, and the matter was reported again to the Commissioner, with' the ultimate result that Murphy was indicted on the above charge. i Mr. Wilford called evidence for the defence to the effect that Spooner h.vl asked accused if he would accept .£2OO. to stand out of the bidding, and *l> latter had replied that he would. The offer had 'been repeated a second time, and tho same reply given. Accused denied ranking any offer to Spooner, and stated that the negotiations were commmced by the latter. <■■.>■..■

The jury, after, a very brief .retirement, broucht-in— a - verdict -of-- "Not -guilty," and tho prisoner was discharged.

ALLEGED CRIMINAL ASSAULT. ■ Jolin Maloncy pleaded not guilty to a charge- of criminal assault on a little girl eight years of age. The offence vn? alleged to have taken plnco on March 11 Inst. 'J'hn |ea=e. which had b?cn standing over from the last criminal sessions, wns heard with elo-ed doors.

Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared for the Crown, and Mr. E. J. Titzgibbon for Die .accused. .

After partial hearing tho Court .. ad journed until 10 o'clock this 'mornijig. The prisoner was admitted, to. bail.