SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2127, 1 March 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) The March session commenced to-day. His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o’clock. The Grand Jury, of which Mr Robert frillies was chosen foreman, were addressed at length by his Honor, who complimented them on the lightness of the calendar. True bills were returned in all the cases, except that of John M ‘Grath (horse-stealing at Oamaru), who was discharged ; and the Grand Jury were dismissed shortly after noon. LARCENY. Eugepe M‘Carthy and Charles Francis Le Grand were indicted for having at Kakanui, on the 19th December, stolen a box containing two brooches, six pairs vf earrings, three rings, and eighteen amber mouthpieces, the property of F. Lachmann Hayman. The pri-oners were undefended. The facts of the case, as stated by the Crown Prosecutor, were as follow : —The prosecutor is a jeweller in Dunedin. On the 15th December last he sent to Oamaru, by coach, a bo\ containing jewellery, addressed to Mr Jacob Beaver, Greymouth. This box was in the coach at the time of the unfortunate accident which occurred at the Kakanui that day. On the upsetting of the coach its contents wore thrown into the river. Mr

James Matheson, storekeeper and harbor master at Kakauui. was at the time sworn in as special constable to look after all things that might be recovered from the river. On one occasion Matheson and the two prisoners went out to search, and found certain articles that.had been lost out of the coach. On that occasion, Matheson informed the prisoners Unit he had been sworn in as special constable, and told them that if they found any of the missing things they were to bring them to h ; m. On a subsequent occasion they borrowed Matheson’s boat, saying that they were going to look after some of the missing things ; they returned the boat, out did not give him any of the articles they found. The police having reason to suspect hat this box of jewelry had been found, instituted enquiries, and Sorgt. Naden said that the prisoner M'Garthy had given to a man named Malh-w Cunningham, who resided at Oamaru, a riiur, which was subst-q -utL identified as part of the missing property. On searching the prisoner’s bunk, in a hut at the I . nding-stage at Oamaru, tiie sergeant found a portion ot the missing property concealed in his clothing. Both prisoners were subsequently arrested, and each made a statement to the sergeant. Le Grand said that they found the box on the morning of he Kith December. He and M‘oarthy divided the contents, and afterwards placed the box in a bole on the bank of the river, and covered it over with sods. The prisoner and a constable went to the place pointed out by the prisoner, and found the remains of the box covered up as described. M'Garthy stated that the box was picked up in the river, on the IGth December, by LeGrand; it was then broken. They therefore came to the conclusion that some of the articles it contained were missing, and were afraid that if they returned it m the state it then was they would have been accused of having stolen such of the rings as might have been missing. According to the evidence of the witness Cunningham, M'Garthy was under tho influence of drink when he came to his hut. Ho was not in a position to swear whether or not the prisoner M ‘Carthy lout him the r in<r; he believed he pn sented it to him. ■Sergeant Nadon stated that shortly before ho arrested M‘Carthy the latter threw away a ring, which was afterwards recovered. Lo Grand, in the statement ho made when arreateJ, said he had been advised by M'Garthy not to give tho things up until a reward was offered for the recovery of them. He also stated in that statement that some days before his arrest, he informed a Mr Campbell of the whole of the circumstances with reference to the finding of the jewellery. The prisoner Le Grand called as witness, George Campbell, landlord of the Kakanui, stated that on Christmas Day the prisoner Le Grand came to him and asked him for the loan of a horse. Witnsss asked what he wanted the horse for, and he replied to go to Oamaru to tell the police there that he had seen a man named Cunningham wearing a ring belonging to him, and that the property had been stolen. Witness asked him what property ho had ; and he replied tjiat ho had picked up the jewellery Inst from the coach. After observing that Le Grand should have given up the things before, and tho latter responding that he had kept them in the hope of obtaining a reward, witness' refused to lend him a horse, but offered to send information to tho police at Oamaru by a Mr Gills. The prisoner M ‘Carthy, on being called upon to address the jury in defence, said ho admitted having found the jewelry, but at the same time both had an honest intention to give up the ai tides when they found out who was the owner. On two occasions he had gone into Oamaru, and read the newspaper therewith the view of ascertaining that fact. His reason for not giving up the articles immediately after they were found were twofold. The first was, that at the time the box was picked up it was broken, and it appeared as though some of the things had dropped out, and they thought by waitincr a few days they would liiul a reward offered for their discovery. They were also afraid that they might he charged with having stolen those articles they supposed to have been missing. The second reason was, that Le Grand had been told by Crawford that a parcel of great value had been lost in the river, and if it was found it was to be returned to nobody but him, and he would then get a reward of 25 per cent. When they found the articles they did not give them to Crawford, for fear he should get the reward, and by keeping them they thought to get the whole reward that might be offered. As regarded Le Grand, he was wholly influence I by him (M'Garthy) in keeping the articles. It was to ensure each getting a portion of tho reward that ho suggested a division of the articles between them. On the 24th December, Le Grand, getting uneasy, requested that he should take the property to the police at Oamaru. He (M'Garthy) smarted with that intention, but got under the influence of drink while in Oamaru on the evening of the 24th December, when ho lent the ring to Cunningham. He denied having given it to him.

His Honor, in summing up, pointed out that the facts were not disputed. It was quite clear that the box containing the goods were in the coach when the accident happened, and was lost from it, and that it was found by the prisoners. , The rule of law was—lf a man found goods actually lost, and appropriated them or intended to take entire dominion over them, and really believed that their owner could not be found, it was not larceny ; but if on the other hand he took them, and there was reasonable cause to suppose that the owner could be found, it was larceny. It was perfectly clear that in this case the owner of the jewelry lost could be easily ascertained. The jury, after a short retirement, found the prisoners guilty. They were remanded for sentence. rORCIERY. James Nicholas was indicted for having, on the 24th December, 1869, forged and uttered a cheque for L 3 10. He was undefended On the day named in the indictment. one Daniel Brown was lessee of the Waitaki Hotel. On that day the prisoner came to the hotel, and after some conversation told the landlord that he had been working on the Pareora and Totara, stations, belonging to the Hon. M Holmes, and producing a* cinque for L.'l 10a, purporting to be signed by that gentleman, asked him to cash it. Believing the statement of the prisoner was corr •■ct, he cashed the cheque ; the prisoner leaving the place immediately afterwards. A month or two afterwards the cheque was discovered to be a forgery. The prisoner, shortly after passing the cheque, left the province, and the police weio unable to ascertain his whereabouts until December last.

The jury returned a verdict of “guilty on the second count of uttering ; and the prisoner was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, with hard labor. APH.WLT WITH INTENT: George Haggerty was indicted for having, at Hindon, on the 24th November last, committed this offence- Mr Barton defended. 'l'hc (Town Prosecutor, in addressing the jury, said that the c ise which they had to try was an exceedingly painful one, because the prisoner was charged with committing the offence described on the person of his own daughter. The girl was 14 years old, and on the day in question she left her home in company with her father to go to Hindon to deliver a message from a Mr Webb to a Mr Anderson, who lived in the neighborhood of that township. When they got a short distance from the house, the prisoner sat down and asked the girl if i-he had told her mother the previous evening, that he did nut like to go to the house. She replied that she had. She then ran a short distance a head of her father, who followed her. He called on her to stop, wh ch she did; and he then told her to go back to the place where they first halted, and bring him to ids swag which he had left there. 1 h'3 she did, and on returning to him he beat lu r, dragged her by the arms some distance off the track, and committed the alleged offence. _ The reason assigned by the girl for making no resistance was, that her father was much stronger than herself, and any resistance would be unavailing. She travelled on to Hindon in her father’s company, and delivered her message, and returned home. On reaching home she told her mother what had been done to her, and she gave information to the police. Referring to the indictment as framed, the Crown Prosecutor pointed out that no capital offence had been committed. The prisoner had been charged with the minor offence, indecent assault; and evidence corroborative of the girl’s statement would be given by Dr Hulme, who had examined an article of underclothing. The prisoner on being arrested on the station at Hindoo, on which he was working, was told the charge by the arresting constable. He begged of him for God s sake not to tell the station hands of the charge. The c ;, n-table then took him in custody, and brought him down to the Taiori river, which had to be crossed in a boat. The constable, the prison- r, and the latter’s wife got into the boat. While in the boat, the prisoner asked his wife if she had given him in custody, but she made no reply ; but she subsequently said in answer to a remark made by him, that I)r Inglis had said no such thing [meaning a capital offence] had occurred ; but that it would be better that the matter should be cleared up. When the boat was a short distance from the opposite shore the prisoner jumped into the river. He sank, and a short time afterwards he came to the surface. His act leading to the conclusion that he was determined to do away with himself to avoid the consequences of his offence, the constable put off in the boat and caught him by the whiskers, and kept hfs - head above water, until he was taken out. While he was in the water, prisoner struggled much, and so endang red the lives of those in it that the constable threatened to use his revolver; whereupon the former said, “ For God’s sake shoot me; put an end to me, that’s all I want.” The girl, in her evidence, denied that she bore any illwill to her father. On reaching Hindon she stopped at two houses, but did not tell the persons there what had happened. She had known one of the persons for five years. Dr Inglis deposed that he had examined the girl, and found that no assault of a criminal character bad been made on her. On a subsequent occasion he examined a piece of underclothing, said to be worn by the girl at the time of the alleged _ assault, which only bore evidence of an indecent assault. The Court was left sitting. ARRAIGNMENT^ Edward Charles Young, late collector to the Oaviarn 'Times Company, limited, pleaded guilty to two charges of embezzlement. Sentence deferred. Alexander Wiseman, on being arrainged, pleaded guilty to a charge of embezzlement, but having intimated that he should like to consult with counsel, his Honor permitted him to plead anew when his case came on for trial.