SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2129, 3 March 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) SENTENCES. Eugene M'Carthy and Christopher Le Grand, convicted on Tuesday of larceny at Kakanui, were brought up for sentence. Neither made any answer to the usual challenge, and both were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Edward Charles Young (23), convicted of embezzlement, was placed in the dock. Mr Macassey observed that he had been instructed on the prisoner’s behalf, and had to address a few remarks to the Court, and to call some witnesses as to character. Before calling these witnesses, he might state that the prisoner had desired him to assure the Court, that, from the first moment that he realised the position in which he was placed, he deeply deplored the act that led to it. Although of course very great weight could be attached to such a circumstance, the Court would, in passing sentence, treat with distinction the case of a young man who, for the first time, strayed from the paths of rectidude, and that of a man who had experience in life. Since the day of trial a memorial, signed by a number of residents of Oamam, had been forwarded te the prisoner ; and he would produce several certificates of character. The witnesses who would be called had come forward willingly to speak to the prisoner’s former character. He thought that the circumstance should not be lost sight of that the salary the prisoner had been in receipt of was a very trifling one, and such as to be of great temptation to the prisoner, being pressed as he was and in debt. He called James Ashcroft, who stated that he had known the prisoner for some time, he having been employed in the establishments of Messrs Royse, Mudie and Miller, and others at Oamaru. He had never had cause to doubt his uprightness. W. J. Stewart, editor of the Oamaru Times , stated that the prisoner had been in the employ of the Oamaru Times Company fourteen or fifteen months ; he came there highly recommended by Mr Miller. During the time he was in the company’s employ witness had no reason to doubt his integrity. He received a salary of L2 per week, and 2 per cent, commission on all monies collected. He desired to state that the prosecutors wished to recommend the prisoner to mercy on account of his youth and previous good character.

His Honor, in passing sentence, said the prisoner was fortunate in having had highlyrespectahle witnesses to speak to character, and also in receiving a recommendation to mercy at the hands of the prosecutors. He had pleaded guilty, which was a sign of contrition, and he had no doubt that whatever sentence was passed upon him, be would never occupy such a position again. He must not, in passing sentence, lose sight of the fact, that in one indictment prisoner was charged with three charges, [and one in another. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he felt that he should not be justified in passing a less sentence than nine months imprisonment. Alex. Wiseman (33) pleaded guilty to two charges of embezzlement. Mr Ward addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner and called Messrs H. S, Fish, and H. F. Evans, who spoke to his previons good character. On being challenged, the prisoner said that it was his intention to refund the money to Mr Fish, after deducting what was due to him, the day after he left his employ. His Honor remarked that he had before stated that where a person embezzled or appropriated to himself any portion on moneys entrusted to him on behalf of his employer, whatever his intention as to restitution might be, the crime of embezzlement was complete ; and although such intention were carried out, it might lessen'the wrong done to the employer, it did not diminish one whit the criminal act. He was sorry to see six charges against the prisoner. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner be kept at hard labor for twelve months. FORGERY. Henry Charles Eichards was indicted for having, on the 25th November, forged an acquittance, with intent to defraud. Mr Barton defended.

The case, as stated by the Crown Prosecutor, was as follows : —For some time past the prisoner had carried on Lawrence, calling himself a law and mining agent; and among other persons for whom he acted in that capacity was a Mr Griffen, who formerly carried on business as a butcher at Lawrence. Griffen died in August last, and among others the prisoner was one of his executors. The co-executors were Dr Halley and Mr John M ‘Donald, both of Lawrence. At the time of Griffen’s death prisoner was indebted to him in the sum of L 27 4s 2d, for meat supplied to his family, and a claim fer the amount was made upon him by the other executors. Shortly after Griffen’s death prisoner produced to the executors a document purporting to be a release of all debts due by him to Griffen up to that time. This document was produced in the prisoner’s house. At that time, his co-executors being well acquainted with Griffen’s handwriting, expressed their opinion that they doubted the genuineness of the signature to it. Subsequently legal proceedings were taken against the prisoner to recover the amount of this debt, and on the occasion of the trial he pleaded a set-off. The acquittance which he had previously shown to the executors, he put in as an answer to the action brought against him. On the occasion of this document being first shown to the executors,

they took possession of it, and retained it up to the time of the trial at which they had notice to produce it. It was produced, and the prisoner adopted it as part of his defence to the action. He swore that it had been signed by Griffen in his presence, and that the signature to it was genuine, and he claimed on the strength of it that the action by the executors must fail. The magistrate, after hearing the evidence, gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and stated in open Court that, in his opinion, the signature to the document was a forgery. The prisoner did not offer any explanation on the subject, or express any suprise that such an opinion should have been expressed by the magistrate. Immediately afterwards he was arrested, and on being told that he was charged with forgery, he said, “ Well, all I have to state is I have not committed “forgery. ” The person whose name was on the document being dead, the Crown had to rely upon evidence, as the deceased’s handwriting. Numerous witnesses well acquainted with the deceased would be called, and they would swear that the signature to the document was that of Griffen. There were some peculiarities in that signature which the witnesses would speak to especially. In the lirst place, Griffen invariably wrote his name “ W. Griffen,” while the document referred to bore the signature of “ Wm. Griffen.” Griffen also wrote the last letter of his name with a flourish, “r” like. There was another circumstance. The magistrate who tried the case at Lawrence distinctly recollected the prisoner stating that he saw the deceased cancel the stamp by_ placing his initials upon them. The “W.G.” on the stamp in no way corresponded with the usual initials of the deceased. A large number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Nearly all of them stated that the signature to the document referred to was not that of Griffen, It was also stated by one of the Bank officials at Tuapeka, that Griffen always signed “W. Griffen;” and had cheques bearing the signature “ Wm. Griffen” been presented, payment would have been refused. Dr Halley and others, deposed that for some months prior to the date of the document, Griffen was physically incapable of writing in such a style as that exhibited on it.