SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2128, 2 March 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING. Tm« Day. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o’clock. assault with intent. George Haggerty, who was yesterday indicted on the above charge, was again placed in tbe dock. The jury, who had been locked up all night, were b,ought into co rt, and the foreman intimated that there was no chance of their agreeing. His Honor observed that tho jury having been locked up for twelve hours, he was justified in discharging them. The Foreman said that the jury desired to express their thanks to the Lhcriff for his attention. The Crown Prosecutor applied for an ord r for a new trial during t .e present session, and suggested that it should take place at tho conclusion of the cases aiready set down. His Honor pointed out that it would be bettor to have a jury chosen from a new panel. He would grant the order for a new trial, leaving the Grown Prosecutor to choose his own time for tho trial.

ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON. Edward Sutton was indicted for having at Moa Flat, on the 13th February, stolen a pocket-book containing L2l from the person of William Ross. The prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is a miner, residing at Moa Flat. On the 13th February last, in company witli the prisoner and others, he went to a place called M'Leod’s Hotel, where thev got drinking. They all got drunk, prosecutor being more so than any of the others. The latter went to a store adjoining, belonging to a man named Nicholson, where he lav down. Whi'st sleeping there prisoner took his pocket-book, which contained a L 5 note, two LlO notes, some LI notes, and two bills of exchange. When the prosecutor came to his senses, he asked Nicho’son whether he had seen the pocket-book. The latter searched the bouse for it, but did not find it; he then asked all those in the store, including the prisoner, to allow themselves to be searched, which they did, hut it was not found upon any of them. Shoitly afterwards prisoner asked Nicholson to charge a L 5 note, which ho hj id concealed in his boot. Nichol-on having heard that prosecutor had lost a L 5 note, thought the circumstance suspicious, and refused to change it; but retained the note, and asked prisoner a number of questions regarding it. Ho told prisoner that ho suspected him of having stolen the pocket-book, and he at onco confessed that he had taken it, and that the L 5 note formed part of its contents. Prisoner then took Nicholson outside the store, and about 100 yards distant, in a hole in a sod fence, he showed him the pocket-hook. It was taken out and handed to a po'ico officer, who, on opening it, found that the money had bo n abstracted. Piisoner was arrested, and the next morning, on being taken before a police magistrate, the constable in whose charge ho was, noticing that ho was moving off in the direction of the hotel, asked him where he was going. Prisoner said ho was going to point out something a man had planted. The constable went with him, and in a hollow in a Has bush pointed out by him. about fifty yards from the store, ho found the two LlO not s hid beneath a stone. On being taken before the Magistrate, prisoner made the following statement On Sun lay night (the night cn which the robbery took place) 1 was drinking with William Ross. We went down to Nicholson’s, and stayed there a while larking. Loss said to me, “ Have you got any money.” I said, “ No.” 11 Id him I "had two or three pounds, but Duke- bad it. He thee said, “Iwill lend you some.” He then lent me a 1-5 note. Wo went into the room together, and ho said to.me, “ I am getting very sleepy.” I then

took his pocket-book and planted it, intending to give it to him in tho morning. The prosecutor, in his evidence, denied that he had lent prisoner the 1.5 note. The jury without retiring, returned a verdict of Guil’y ; and the piisonor was si nteiicc 1 to two years’ imprisonment, with i ard Labor. EMBEZZLEMENT liV A J’OLU'E CONSTABLE. James Carter was indie cd for bavin : on tho 11th November, and subsequent dates, received monies amounting to LIT, the property of the Queen, and fraudulently appropriating them to his own use. Mr Barton def.-mh d. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case as follows ‘The prisoner, at the time of the eommiss on of the offence charged in the indictment, was a police-constable, and ha I been so for five years previous. Aft r oiling the Larceny Act, an I tho Police Regulation Act, 1562, to show that the prisoner was a servant oi the Grown, he stated that the lastmentioued Act provided that regulations may be made for the conduct aud management of the police force ; that all rules and regulations so made were to be published in the Provincial Government Gazette, and then had the force of law in tho Province. Under that Act regulations were so made and published as he would show before concluding the case; and his object in doing so was to show, that it was the bitty of a constable to obey the comma.ids of ids superior officer. About the mouth of September last, the Provincial Government thought proper to employ tho services of the people m the collection of tho moneys duo to tho revenue by persons brought out from the United Kingdom as assisted immigrants. Amongst other police officers appointed for that purpose was the prisoner. About the 13th .November, Mr Percy, who is a subinspector of police, stationed at Lawrence, and in whose district the prisoner was, sent a circular lett rto the constables in his district, asking them to collect the moneys duo to the Government, aud send to him a return showing tbe names of assisted immigrants resident in each district; what amount had been paid by each ; what -unis were -till due ; a d what arrangements had been made for the payment of ;he moneys due. One of these circulars was forwarded to the prisoner, and in answer he sent in a return in the form specified by Mr Pe cy, in which ho showed that cert .in moneys were due and uncollected in the district of Teviot, of which he had charge. That list included the several sums mentioned in the indictment, viz , a sum of L3O received from one Adam M ‘Keuzie ; LlO from one Angm M‘Phayle. and L 7 from one Woodhouse. On the 11th November prisoner received from Mrs M’Kenzie, the sum of L3O, giving a receipt to her, but the money he appropriated to his own use. The return he forwarded to Mr Percy was dated November 25th, aud in it he returned the sum of L3O, as being still due by M’Kinnon, aud in the column under tbe head of what arrangements had been made, he stated “ Amount to be paid in full ou the 15th December, 1869. ” The object of the prisoner in making this statement was clear enough. Prior to these moneys being collected a notice had been inserted in tho Gazette intimating that unless the amounts due were paid forthwith, legal proceedings would be taken for their recovery. His object therefore was to stop enquiries being made or proceedings being tiken. In the same way prisoner received a sum of LlOfrom M Phayle on Nov. 29, and for wh clthe did not account. With respect to tho thirdsumhe was charged with embezzling the prisoner gave a receipt for L 7 to Woodhouse. An arrangement was ma le by him under tho following circumstances : Woodhouse had married a person who had been assisted by the Government to come out here. When prisoner called upon him for payment of the amount duo to the Government by his wife, Woodhouse said Garter owed him Cls, and suggested be should write off L 7 against that amount, which was done, Garter giving a receipt for tho amount due to the Government. His Honor remarked that as no money had pissed, no embezzlement could be committed. Such a i arrangement was null and void. The Crewn Prosecutor intimated that he did not intend to off.*r any evidence on this point. As showing felonious intent on the part of the prisoner, he mentioned that it was the prisoner’s duty to enter in a book transactions of importance, but he had made uo entry of the receipt of the sums he was charged with embezzling, or of having forwarded them to Lawrence as he should have done. On Dec. Bth C,.rter was displaced, and Sergeant appointed in his place. • >n that day he proceeded to take charge of the station, and it being part of his duty to ascertain that all tho property belonged to Government aud accounts were correct, he asked prisoner what monies were duo by immigrants resident in the district and what wore uncollected. Prisoner then went over a list conta ning the names of immigrants, and stated that the monies duo by Mackenzie, M‘Phayle, and Woodhons * had been received by him, and forwarded in the usual way. Mr Barton made an ingenious defence, contending that the money alleged to have been embezzled had been forwarded through the post to tho police authorities, and that it had been delivered there without their knowledge.