LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1984, 14 February 1914, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT, SIESTA IN AN HOTEL GARDEN. THE SLEEPER ROBBED. Four prisoners were dealt with' in the I Supreme Court yesterday, two of them being charged with theft and two with oftences against females. His Honour the Chief Justice was on the bench, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassoy conducted the prosecutions on behalf of the Crown. Frank Collins, a man past middle age, was charged that on January 8, at Featherston, he stole a sum of' ill from the person of Harry Furlong. He was also- charged on alternative counts with simple theft of the £11, and with having received the money knowing it to havo been stolen. Mr. D. R. Hoggard appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. . Mr. Maeassey said that, the man Furlong, who was a wool-classer, had met the accused on the morning of January 6. in the Royal Hotel at Featlierston. Furlong then had in his possession a roll of eleven one-pound notes, and Eome other money, ana there would bo evidence that the accused had no money whatever. Apparently the two men had too much to drink, and they went out into the garden behind the hotel, where Furlong went to sleep. It would bo suggested that, while Furlong was asleep, accused took the money from his pocket. There would also be .evidence that accused was seen bending oyer Furlong in the garden. On the same day Collins got away from Featherston by train, but was arrested at Upper Hutt. Harry Furlong was the, first.Crown, witness. He stated that while in. hi 6 company Collins had ' spent no money. It was not a fact that he had. given Collins any of his money. - To Mr. Hoggard: He had been very weak when he arrived in Featlierston, but ho had not been drunk., He had a distinct recollection of what, had happened. ' John B. Gray, labourer, stated lie had noticed Collins and Furlong in tho orchard behind the hotel. Furlong was lying on his back, apparently asleep, and Collins was hanging over him. After Collins departed Witness awakened Furlong, who then complained that he had been robbed. , • . To Mr. Hoggard: Collins was not under the influence of liquor. Clifford Garrett Kennard, barman at tho - Empire Hotel, said tnat' accused had been employed at the hotel-as porter. On January 6 Collins left, the hotel about 10 o'clock in tho morning, and returned about 2.30 p.m., under the influence of liquor. • lie then demanded his wages, apparently tried to pick a quarrel with the proprietor, and finally refused to take the wages 'offered him, saying that the monoy was not enough. ' , . Constable Mahoney gave evidence ; cf the arrest at Upper Hutt. When told that he was suspected of having robbed a man named Furlong at Featlierston of £11, . accused replied that ho had not robbed anyone, but that Furlong had given him some money, to liim. Collins then produced three', new pouncl notes,, and ;one .other note and some silver.' The new nates, he said, wore those that Furlong had given liim; the other money was his own property. When asked how much Furlong had given him, accused said that he did not remember,' because they were , both'drunk at the time. Collins had also said that he bad found one of the notes blowing about in the road. To Mr. Hoggard.;.; Collins was "not, exactly sober' w,henrarrestfcd. , Mr. Hoggaid dicl not call evidence for the defence. He merely put. it to the jury that the evidence did not justify a conviction. Furlong had been drinking. So much was admitted, but ho (Mr. Hoggard) suggested that ho had been drinking very heavily.. In such a state certain men were ready to press their monoy on anybody, and Collins had befriended him in taking some of tho money to look after it. Then Furlong, waking up comparatively sober, after his sleep, with no recollection of what had occurred, thought that he had been robbed. After a retirement of ten minutes the jury returned, with a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was remanded for sentence until" Thursday. STOLE A CHEQUE. AND PROCEEDED TO THE RACES. Charles Vivian Portcous, a young man, was charged that on-November 27, 1913, he fraudulently omitted to account for a cheque for £44 and £1 in cash received by him from one -Thomas Dennis, on terms requiring him to pay the money to Walter Percival Carter. He was further charged with the theft of the moneys. Mr. H. T. O'Leary. appeared for tho accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Maeassey said that accused had been assistant to a mail named Carter, a storekeeper at Paokakariki. Carter had advertised a billiard table for sale, as he was leaving Paekakariki, and an offer for it was received by. letter from ono Dennis, a storekeeper at Hihitahi. Accused conducted the negotiations for Carter, who had, in the meantime, sold out and left Paekakariki, and' finally Carter instructed him to complete the sale for £4u!' Portcous was hot empowered, however, to receive any money, but was instructed to see that Dennis forwarded the cheque for payment to Carter at. Christchurch. This instruction he disregarded, and,-when he received tho money, he did not forward it; or account for it in any way.' Walter Percival Carter gave evidence in support of thts statement. He stated that he had befriended accused, and lent him money, but'that lie had never received tho cheque from Dennis. He certainly did not owe accused any money. • < To Mr. O'Leary: He had no documentary evidence of having paid Porteous any money as wages during the nine weeks that Porteous worked for him. Porteous took goods such as clothes, boots,' etc., instead of some of his wages. From time to time he applied for money, and it. was given to him, but there were no regular payments. Witness kept a loose-leaf ledger at Paekakariki, and he had found since the Court proceedings began that the leaf containing particulars of transactions with Pcrteous had been abstracted from the file at Paekakariki. He personally had not removed the sheet, and Porteous had been in the room at Paekakariki where his (Carter's) books and papers were stored at least three .times since witness left Paekakariki. To Mr. Maeassey: Since he had sold out_ accused had received from him various amounts totalling £23 3s. 2d. It waß absurd to say that even beforo this accused had not heen paid in full for his work. Witness could not remember all the goods which accused had received, and now the record was destroyed. Thomas Dennis stated that he had purchased tho billiard table from tho accused, who, he understood, was acting for Carter. / i Constable. Doggett statod that he arrested the accused on. December 29 at Blenheim. Accused stated that ho had had £45, tho proceeds of the salo of the billiard table, and had spent it in paying debts and in, attending the Auckland and Feilding races. Ho alsb statod that he was surprised at Carter taking action against him. Mr. H. F. O'Leary did not offer any evidence for the defence. It was admitted, ho said, that tho accused received money, but it was suggested tliat Carter was a consenting party. Porteous was collccting money for Carter, I and ha had in fact collected one amount

of £8 in Wellington and spent the money. Carter did not object to this amount. He would urge that money was duo from Carter to Porteous, ana that the fact that I'orteous held on to certain nionoys collected for Carter, and had dono this with Carter's consent must bo accepted as proof of this. It might be that. Porteous now oiycd Carter some money, bnt thero were other processes, outside of tho criminal courts, which Carter could take to recover tliem. There, was the further fact that Carter wanted 1 tho evidence of Pofteeus in divorce proceedings which ho thought of taking .against his wife, and it was fair to assume that Carter was willing to keep Porteous supplied with the money which he needed until tho case came on for hearing. It was only when Carter decided' to drop his divorce proceedings' that hi. decided to tako criminal proceedings against Porteous. The difference between. Darter and accused was, he urged, one of Accounts merely, which should not foftn the basis of a charge of theft-. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but they added a recommendation that on account of his youth and previous good character His Honour should'deal leniently wiEh.him. His Honour said he would accept the recommendation, and see frhether he could admit the accused to probation or not. Prisoner was then remanded for sentence -until Thursday. OTHER CRIMINAL TRIALS. "YO.UNG CHILDREN OUT AT WOKK." ■ Bernard Smith, alias Haulstein, a middle-aged man, pleaded guilty to a charge of having criminally assaulted a little girl aged four years and a half at Wellington on December 26. Prisoner w;as charged also with a more serious offence based oii tlis same, set of facts, but the Crown did not press this'chart®. Prisoner, for whom Mi\ V. B. Meredith appeared, was remanded for sentence until Thursday. Mr. Macassey said that prisoner had been convicted in 1 1909 of a certain assault, and had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Hci had been released from prison in February last. Tliomas_ Coffey, a young man, was charged with having committed a- serious offence against a female. The offence was alleged to have been committed at Wellington on December 3. The girl was 13 years of age. _ Mr. H.'F. O'Learv appeared for the prisoner, who pfeadetl not guilty. The Court was cleared while the case was being heard. The jury found the prisoner guilty on two of the three counts in the indictment. In stating the jury's decision, the foreman expressed the opinion of the jury that parents generally exeicisefl too little control, and that it was a great pity that such a young child -as that concerned in the present ease was sent out amongst su.ch .temptation. .(The girl was attacked in a boardinghouse, at which' she was employed.) .His Honour said that no doubt this would always happen where people were poor, and under the necessity of putting young children out to workPrisoner was Tcmanded' for sentence until Thursday. i ■