SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 266, 6 August 1919, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINALS PUNISHED

TEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT

The Supreme Court criminal sittings were resumed yesterday. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer was on the bench. Before proceeding with the trial of prisonore His Honour passed sentence_ on three prisonors who woro found guilty of offences the .proviouß day. Patrick Charlton M'Gill, who was convicted of the theft of a handbag containing £\o, was the first put forward for sentence. Mr. P. W. Jackson, who appeared for the prisoner, said that M'Gill was a married man with two young children. His trouble might be directly attributed to his drinking habits. When not in drink there was no better worker. Mr. Jackson asked His Honour ia take that into consideration, and further that prisoner had been waiting trial for two months. His Honour said that ho could not overlook the fact that when in drink the prisoner was more or less a black.guard. lie had been convicted of a very impudent theft, but His Honour, waa willing to believe- that the offence was to soma extent attributable to the prisoner's drinking habits. It was absolutely necessary in the man's own intereet to put him beyond tho reach of obtaining liauor for a tinio. M'Gfll was omtensed to six months' imprisonment. William Fenton and Bert. Aiding, who had been convicted of being roguee and vagabonds in that thoy were found on enclosed premises at night,' and whom tho jury recommended to mercy ou account of their youth, were represented bv Mr. P. W. Jackson.

'Mr. Jackson eaid Hint both prisoners were very young. Tlioro was nothing previously known against the lad Aiding, whoso people lived at Dnnnevirke. He enme to Wellington with Fenton to got work. There was no criminal intent on the prisoners' pai't; tfyey lind no money and nowhere to go. Fenton's futlier lived at Palmerston North and was a bush contractor. The father was willing to have the boy'back and to look after him. '

His Honour remarked t,liat Fenton's record v;ns not a good one. He had 'been previously convicted of breaking and entering ami theft. Continuing, His Honour said ho was always willing to give effect to tho recommendation of the jury, buit he did not. think ho could do 1039 than placo Fcnton under control. His father wns unable to control him, for tho. two previous, convictions occurred when the lad was umlev the control of his father. It was rather in tho boy'e own interest that ho should have a term of reformative treatment. Fenton wan sentenced to two years' reformative treatment.

With respect to Aiding, His Honour said that the lad hud not been previously convicted of any offence, and the probation officer's report was favourable. His Honour.was disposed to send Aiding hack to his people in Dnnnovirke, and to enable the pronation officer to draw up suilablo conditions of probation Aiding was remanded until this morning.

A CHARGE OF ASSAULT. Joseph Martin Gillespie, for whom Mr. 11. F. O'Leary appeared, pleaded not Ruilly to having assaulted Robert Harvey Butler, a waterside worker, so ae to causo him actual bodily hnrm.

Jfr. E. Tjoeoek was foreman of the jury.

The mcdicnl evidence was to the effect that Buller had sustained severe dislocation of the left humerus.

Eobertillnrvey Butler snid that he had known tho necuspd by qifjht for some time, but did not know his name. On .Tune 2 witness travelled in a tramcar ns far as John Street, where ho alighted. Before alighting lie noticed the a.ccu?ed in tho car, but did not speak to him. After alighting from Hie car witness proceeded m> the street, and -when he'had gono a short dislnnca he was suddenly attacked from tho beck. ■ He was knocked down 4)y a Wow, and os soon as. he got up he saw Gillespie going away. Witness said to tho latter, "What did you do that for? You've broken my arm." Witness went to his home and lator. went to tho Hospital. He made a complaint to the police after he had visited the Hospital. A day or two later ihe went with two policemen to the accused's house. Gillespio said, "Is that tho man? What, a pity it wasn't me that dono it. I would do it now if you were away." Witness was absolutely certain that tho accused was tho man who struck him. '

• ■ Constable .1. Quiiin gave evidence similar to that: given in the. lower Court. When interviewed Gille?pio said, "What would you <lo if ft man snkl your mother was a ?"

Joseph Martin Gillespie, tho accused, said that ho was a Russian Pole, and the way to spoil his name was "Gclcsbi." Ho hftd been 20 years in New Zealand, and for about 16 years had hcen in Hie employ of the City Corporation. He was a married man with a family. He did not know the complainant by name. He did not fpo Butler in the car on the doy in question. When the complainant canio with the police witness said: "It is you! What a pity it wasn't me that stoushed you!" Butler had his arm in a sliug. Tho policeman said he might have died. Witness said that .Butler find no mark on him, and if ha (witness) had struck him ho would have carried a mark. Witness then raid to the policeman, ''If yon will leave him with me for five minutes I will show you that when I strike a man I leave a mark." Witness absolutely denied assaulting Butler on June 2 or at any other time. About twelve months . previously in Willis Street while a procession txds passing witness hear:! Butler say to another it\an. "You ought to be eshamed of yourself working with a Dutchman. All Dutchmen ought to be exterminated."

To Mr. Macassoy: Wiln?ss absolutely denied having; assaulted Butler. He did say to tho police that if they gave him a chance, he would prove, that if lie struck Butler he would leave a mark. He would not have struck Butler on that occasion because Butler was crippled. Fe hud no intention of striking Butler.

Edward Hi-:<:ock said he knew Butler by sight. On Hie occasion of a procession in Willis Street witness was standing with Gillespie whoa Butler came up ami said, "1 nm surprised nt you working with a Dutchman." His language was most insulting, and wa.3 intended for Gillespie. Tho lattor could easily have struck Butler, but did not. do bo.

.After a short retirement the jury brought i» «■ verdict of not guilty and tho accused was discharged. TEN YEARS' IMPIUSONMENT. Julian Huggens, wlio was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty to .1 charge of iutlecont assault on n boy on June 18. Mr. K. Bococlc was foreman of the jury. After the hearing of the evidence for tho prosecution lind concluded, the fnther of tho lad -asked permission 1 tft make a statement, >)>iit His Honour promptly refused, censuring tho man for interrupting the proceedings. The jury without leaving their seats found the accused guilty. Mr. Mneassey stated that tho prisone* was convicted in 1910 for a similar offence mid received a term of imprisonment.

In nnswev to His Honour, Huggcns said ho was til years of ago. \' His Honour said Hint (lie prisoner liart boon convicted of a filthy offence, and were it not for his ago Hin Honour would have lind to seriously consider whether lie should not give the prisoner sonic punishment: additional to imprisonment OoutinuiiiK, His Honour said, "You arc a dirty, filthy beast, mid I will sentence you to ten yean' imprisonment."

INDECENT ASSAULT ON A MALH. Unracc Ilpiijaniin Martin, a gardener, for whom Jlr. 1 , . .1. O'JJegan appeared (by assignment of the Chief Justice), ploudcd not guilty to 0 charge, of indecent, assault on a buy, also of attempted indecent nssaiift on tlie same boy, and indecent assault.

Mr. Thomas il'Nco was foreman of tho jury.

The court was cleared during tho hear in;,' of the Oii?c.

'Jlii! jury after a short retirement brought in a verdict of guilty on the ■wnd count (of attempted indecent assiiulO.

His Honour deferred pawing sentence until Friday morning; 'li the mcanvliiol Ihe prisoner is to k> examined by the gaol surgeon.