SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2929, 9 July 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tms Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.)

The Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court opened this morning, at ten o’clock. The Grand Jury were—Messrs R H. Gillies (foreman), W. 0. Ball, Alexander Bart! email, L. 0. Beal. Arthur Beverley, G. S. Brodrick, Column Burke, Daniel Campbell, J. L. But'Crworth, W. H. Cuttcn, Thomas Dick, Geo. W. Elliott, Charles Fiexman, T. S. Graham, John Hislop, Henry Houghton, Charles R. Howden, and Alfred Jackson.

In his charge to the Grand Jury, his Honor said Mr Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—l am happy to inform you that the calendar is not a heavy one on this occasion. There are seven prisoners for trial, two of whom are included in one offence ; and, on the other hand, ther.; are two indictments against one person for forgery, and three indictments against another for embezzlement. I find by the statistics published by the Registrar-General, that in the year 1870 forty-eight persons were committed for trial before the Supreme Court. In 1871 there were thirty-one during the year, but owing to a change in the time of holding the session, that year really included thirteen months ; so that the number of prisoners now on trial is about the actual average of each year. The eases do not require any lengthy remarks from me. There is a case against Ann Sutherland for attempting to commit suicide. It appears she was not very well treated by her husband, and in a moment of excitement she took some laudanum that was in the house— not procured for the purpose—in sufficient quantity to have killed her, but being taken to the Hospital, and treated by Dr Fates, she recovered. The usual way of dealing with these offences is for the Court to take some guarantee that the offences will not be repeated. The offenders are required to enter into sureties to come up for punishment when called upon ; and if there is no attempt to commit the offence again, they are never called. The only thing the Court can do is to bring some coercion upon their minds, and it operates as a warning. There is a case of cattle stealing which is very similar to one or two cases brought before the Court before. The prisoners are David Jones and Henry Francis. It appears they were sent out to look for catt’e, and so far were engaged in a lawful purpose. But they picked up a bullock that had not a proper brand, and there is some evidence to shew that they knew it was not a proper brand. The evidence is not very strong, but it appears they gave a contradictory account of the matter, which, to say the least, is a snsp'cious circumstance. But in dealing with that case, if you think there is suffic ent evidence to call upon the prisoners to answer you will find a bill. Tbe-e are two cases o£ larceny on which I need offer no remark. Then there is the case of Hyman Cohen. It is one of those attempts at forgery, which is sure to be found out—one of those foolish offences that one would fancy the certainty of detection would prevent a person committing. Hyman Cohen signed the name of Mark Cohen in one case to a bill, and in another case to a cheque. Both those instruments were made payable at the Bank of Otago, and therefore some little time wou'd elapse before the forgery was discovered. The signatures were at once denied by the pc: sou whose name was put to them, so that there would be no difficulty in finding a bill. There are two cases of embezzlement. The law regarding this offence is, that if money comes into the hands of a clerk or collector, and he neglects to hand it over to his employer, it constitutes embezzlement, for it was merely a fraud ; but latterly, by a long series of statutes, the offence has been made embezzlement. These are the cases you will have to investigate.

SENTENCE. John Ewing, who was convicted last session of shooting a Chinamen at St. Bathans, was brought up for sentence. Mr Stout, on his behalf, daew his Honor's attention to the evidences as to the character of the prisoner. On being asked if he had anything to say why sentence should not bo passed upon him, Ewing said : He bad nothing to urge why sentence should not be passed upon him ; but he had somewhat to urge why that sentence should not be severe. He came to the Province when he was very young, and had followed the calling of a miner ever since. By steadiness and perseverance he had accumulated money, and was owner of a claim in which he employed four men. About three month? before the 26Lh November, the robberies which led to the shooting took place. He told his neighbors and the police of them, and the news gradually spread until every claim-holder heard of them. All the claim-holders set watches, for they all found they had been robbed. He told the agent of the Bank. Although pure gold was pretty much all alike in its natural state, in his there was found a peculiar kind of sand. The agent showed him some gold offered by a Chinaman, which was mixed with sand of that description. The police went down and kept watch under arms, and repeatedly warned him of the dangerous character of Chinese thieves, who were likely to stab any one wLo attempted to arrest them. The men he had with him kept watch in turns. The man, however, who was on that night was one whom he had not trusted to watch but was at work. It was not quite dark, but hearing him call out lie seized the gun that was lying on his tent and thinking him in danger he fired. The ground was so rocky that ho could not see the Chinaman who must, however, have been within a few yards of him.

His Honor said lie had no reason whatever to doubt the truth of the statement. He dare say that his animosity against the Chinese, perhaps encouraged by previous prejudices, might have been excited by their pilfering habits. No doubt the man was guilty of pilfering, for he had been convicted before by the Magistrate, therefore there was every reason to believe the statement; Imfc .the prisoner must be aware that he ought not to take the law into his owu hands. Although the ground was broken, it was not dark; aud the evidence of Leonard shewed that he was strong enough to capture aud bind the Chinaman aud drag him along. There was, therefore, no justification for firing. He would take the recommendation of the jury into consideration, as well as the testimonials as to character. No doubt there was provocation, but not sufficient to justify an act of that description, although the fact of its having been done suddenly was in the prisoner’s favor. It was part of our law not merely applicable to the Chinese

but to all foreigners, that when they laa.bd here they were subject to our laws and under their protection. He should not inflict a heavy punishment, but it was necessary the law should be vindicated. The sentence of the Court, therefore was the prisoner be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for a period of eighteen months : practically that meant twelve months. STEALING HIDES. Joseph Capstick was indicted for stealing eight hides, the property of William Bridgman. The short facts of the case were, that Mr Bridgman bought of Mr Wilson, of Maori Hill, a number of hides, which were carted away by his carter, and put near a waterhole on his premises. On the following morning they were missing, and were traced by the police to the premises of Messrs Murray, Heberts, and Co., who had bought them of the prisoner at 16s each The prisoner, in a cross-examination of the carter, endeavored to show that he had bought the hides of him. He was sentenced to imprisonment, with hard labor, for twelve calendar months. ATTEMPTING SUICIDE, Ann. Sutherland pleaded guilty to having attempted suicide. After a few words of admonition by his Honor, the prisoner entered into recognisances to appear when called upon, and was discharged. FORGERY. Hyman Cohen, charged with forging the endorsement of Wilson and Maddox to a bill of exchange, and uttering the same with intent to defraud, pleaded guilty. Sentence was deferred. EMBEZZLEMENT.

Henry Stuart M'Coll was charged with embezzling the sum of L 5 16s lOd, the property of the General Road Board. There were two other counts, one charging him with embezzling money the property of Stoney Creek Road Board, and other money the property of the Chairman and members of the Stoney Creek Road Board. Mr Taylor appeared for the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor, instating the case, .«aid, the prisoner was appointed clerk and collector of the Local Road Board in August, 1871, and afterwards as collector at a salary of L 6 a week. The amount of rates collected was only L 35 7s 3d. On the 10th October the General Road Board granted permission to levy a rate of 2d per acre, and a precept was issued authorising the prisoner to collect it. He received a cheque of the value of L 5 16s lOd from a ratepayer named Bryce, which, instead of paying over to the B nk of New Zealand, he appropriated to paying an account for stationary which he owed in his capacity of schoolmaster. II e was requested to pay the money by the Board, and time wtis given him for that purpose; instead of doing so, he resigned the office of schoolmaster, tried to borrow L 25 to pay his out standing debts, and stating his intention to go to San Francisco, left Stoney Creek. He wa-3 arrested at T?ort CKalmers.

J, Powers, settler at Stony Creek, and a member of the Local Board, said prisoner was clerk to the Lscal Board, and a schoolmaster as well. Prisoner was instructed to collect the rates under the precept named, and at a meeting held on the 9th of April was ordered to hand over to the treasurer the amount collected. Prisoner did not pay the same, but witness a few days after received a letter from prisoner, dated from Dunedin, resigning his office, and stating he would pay certain suras to the credit of the Board at Balclutha, which he never did. In cross-examination, witness said prisoner was allowed to purchase stationery for the use of the Board, and deduct it from the amount collected.

John Brice, a ratepayer, proved paying a cheque of L 5 I6s lOd to M Coll for rates. T. Nicholas, stationer at Tokomairiro, said he received a cheque from prisoner in the beginning of March for stationery and books supplied to prisoner. The cheque was the same as that produced, and the amount due by prisoner to him was LI 15s Sd, which amount witness deducted, and paid prisoner the balance. Mr Taylor, for the defendant, said the whole of the evidence went to prove that the account between prisoner and the Board was simply a debtor and creditor account. The Board allowed prisoner to pay debts owed by the Board out of the amount collected, and they bad no right to expect him to account for any specific sum which he collected. In fact, the Board allowed prisoner to deal with their funds, and there was no denial that money was received. He trusted the jury would also remembev that the Board owed prisoner LG for salary, and it was sought to convict him for embezzling the sum of L 5 I6s lOd. Also that his former character had been so excellent that the Raad Board, in appointing him to the office, did not require of him the usual security they expected in making such appointment. His Honor, in summing up, drew especial attention to one point, and that was with reference to the salary alleged to be owing to the prisoner by the Board. He wished the jury to bear in mind that it could not be allowed that a person employed by another was at liberty to help himself to his salary even if it were due, but whi .'h in this ease it was not; the prisoner not having collected the amount which entitled him to the salary which he was to bo pail. The jury then retired, ami, after half an hour’s consideration, gave a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the manner in which the books sf the Road Board were kept. Sentence deferred. THE GRAND JURV. The Grand Jury found true bills against all the prisoners; and his Honor thanked them for their services, and discharged them.