SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3472, 9 April 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. Wednesday, April 8. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman) GOLD STEALING. Richard Todd was charged with having, at Tinkers, on the 23rd l lecember, 1873, stolen loz. 12dwts. 4grs. of gold, and with having, on the 25th January, stolen 3ozs, 4dwts. in two quantities, the property of James Hill and another. Prisoner, who was [not defended, pleaded not guilty. The facts shortly stated were that prisoner was working for James Holmes and James Hill at Tinkers, and was charged with having stolen three quantities of gold. On the last occasion he was found out, having asked a man named Smithson, to sell the gold for him, and having then offered him LI for his trouble, which aroused Smithsou’s suspicions. Two receipts for having sold gold and addressed to prisoner were found, and as he was only a laboring man working for Hill, he was charged with having stolen the gold and sold ill* Prisoner, who was found guilty on the third count only, was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Thursday, April 9.

Honor took his sent on the Bsuch ten o’clock. SENTENCES. John Blair (19) who pleaded guilty, yesterday, to a charge of stealing L 99 odd, the property of the Government, in whose employ he was, was brought up for sentence. Mr W. D. Stewart, who appeared for the prisoner, said he did not intend to call witnesses to character, as his client had only been in the Colony for about eleven months, and had no relatives here. He was very respectably connected, and had been employed in the Government service. Shortly after his arrival here he became acquainted with persons who were given to gambling, and they succeeded m gaining his company, and a great deal of the money which he had taken was lost through his acquaintanceship with those persons. His

salary in the Government service was small; and under the circumstances the case was one with which he (Mr Stewart) submitted his Honor might very well deal leniently. The prisoner, since he had been in gaol, had shown signs of contrition, and was apparently very anxious to do well in the future. He (Mr Stewart) desired to bring under his Honor’s notice Tribe’s ease, tried here during his Honor’s absence, in which Judge Ward, in consideration of the prisoner’s youth and previous good character, and in view of a case before dealt with by Judge Chapman, decided to discharge the prisoner oja. his father entering into recog- I n>s!M'css for ids good behaviour for twelve

His Honor: He must have been very young. Mr* Stewart : About seventeen. The prisoner is, I think, a little over eighteen, booking at the fact that there is no classification of prisoners in the gaol, that the prisoner has no relations in the Colony, and that he shows signs of contrition, the case is not, I submit, one calling for very severe punishment. His Honor : It is an offence I cannot look over. In the case referred to, the boy was very young, and the offence a paltry forgery of five shillings or something of the sort, in which there was some negligence on the part of the employer.—To the prisoner : The remarks made in the case referred to by Mr Stewart do not apply to your case at all Your age is nineteen, and you are quite old enough to have known better. You had a comfortable situation, which might in time have led to farther advancement had you not yielded to the temptation of bad company. Yours is an offence which the law cannot look over, and if you had been older I would have passed a much more severe sentence than lam about to do. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for twelve calendar months. Joseph Lundon (32), who yesterday pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny at Cromwell, , was sentenced to eighteen months’ hard labor. MCINTOSH’S CASE, On the application of Mr Barton, with whom Mr o‘Meagher appeared for the accused, the trial was fixed for Friday, the 17 th inst., and by a special jury.

UTTERING VALUELESS CHEQUE. William Henry Bruce (32) was indicted for obtaining money by means of a valueless cheque from Mr Alexander Bartleman, manager of the Dunedin branch ef the National Bank of New Zealand, on the 10th ult. Mr Branson defended.

The Crown Prosecutor stated the case, from which it appeared that on the day mentioned prisoner went to the bank with Mr John Maclean, of Messrs J. and A, Maclean. That gentlemen introduced him as “Dr Bruce, of the West Taieri,” and told Mr Bartleman that prisoner wished to do some business with him. Prisoner then said he was a customer of the branch of the same bank at Oufcram, and after some conversation drew a cheque for L2O on that branch, which Mr Bartleman initialed and the amount was paid to prisoner. On the cheque being forwarded to Outram it was returned, marked “no'account,” by the manager there.

Alexander Bartleman gave evidence to the above effect, and in cross-examination by Mr Branson said he suggested the prisoner should draw through Mr Maclean. The latter said prisoner was a customer of the bank at Outram, in the presence of prisoner. Witness did not cash the cheque on account of prisoner wanting to open an account with the proceeds—nothing was said about such a purpose—but because he thought by his statement thac prisoner had an account at Outram.—Mr Kerr, manager of the bank at Outram, said the cheque in question was forwarded in the usual routine of business, and he returned it dishonored, as the prisoner never had an account there. Prisoner had, four or six weeks previously, asked witness tO' cash a draft on nis father, but witness declined, unless be found a good endorser. To Mr Branson: Witness did not refer prisoner to Mr Bartleman; would swear it, and would swear that no clerk was present at the time of the conversation.

Mr Branson, addressing the jury, said it was most unlikely that a medical man, recently settled in a new district, would have the temerity to act as stated by the prosecution. The prisoner’s version of the matter is that he told Mr Bartleman he wanted the cheque cashed so as to open an account at Outram. Which of the versions (asked Mr >Branson) was the more credible and the more plausible !'■ s ' * Hugh Inglis, qualified medical practitioner at the East Taieriy said he knew prisoner, and that' he had attended patients in the West Taieri district. -To the Crown Prosecutor : Prisoner was not a registered medical practitioner.

His Honor said the case was so simple that he need scarcely address the jury ; still a defence, of a description, had been set up. This, however, though ingeniously put, would not bear inspection. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of Guilty. There was another indictment charging the same prisoner with obtaining goods under false pretences, but Mr Branson intimated that he would withdraw prisoner’s plea of Not Guilty to this, and plead Guilty. He Was sentenced, on the first indictment, to twelve months’ hard labor, and on the second to six mouths’—the sentences to be cumulative. PERJURY, Henry Edward Augustus Campbell, a man of color, was indicted for committing perjury at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Outram, in a case in which he was defendant, on February 23 of the present year. Prisoner pleaded “blot Guilty,” and was defended by MrStout. The Crown Prosecutor said prisoner was charged with denying his signature to a promissory note, which signature two witnesses would prove who saw him write it. The offence -was committed in court before Messrs J amea Fultou and Andrew Todd, Juatices of the Peace, and the former, on prisoner saying the signature was not his, requested him to write his ordinary signature on a piece of paper. This was done, and he (the Crown Prosecutor) would produce both this signature and the promissory note, which the jury could compare, and he thought they would have no doubt as to both being written by the one person. P. M, Grant, plaintiff in the original case, said he saw prisoner, who was sitting down in the store at the time, sign the note produced, When witness sued prisoner for the amount of the note the latter swore that the signature was not his. To Mr Stout: Witness had another colored man as a) customer, as well as prisoner. The words “store account” were not on the note when prisoner signed it, but witness filled them in afterwards.—Henry Amridge, clerk to the trustees in the estate of P, M. Grant and Co,, said he saw prisoner sign the note produced, in a room off from the store. Prisoner was standing up when he signed it. W hen the action was brought, prisoner, on oath, said he had not signed it. To Mr Stout; Witness was asked on that occasion if he saw prisoner sign the note, but was not then certain as to his identity. He was now, however.—James Fulton, B.M. and J.P., said the original action was tried before him. Witness administered the oath to prisoner, who, when asked if the signature to the note was his hesitated, and then swore it was not. Witness asked him to write his name on a piece of paper, which was that now produced. Prisoner did so, but ou being asked to do se again, some time after, he refused. To Mr : Pri soner admitted that he owed plaintiff in the case a certain amount, but witness could not remember how much.—Mr Kerr, manager of the Outram branch of the National Bank, said he considered the handwriting of the note and of a letter written by prisoner to be the same.

Mr Stout, in defence, said if a prisoner were found to have committed perjury inadvertently, it would bo a very different thing to committing the offence wilfully. They had an instance in this very case, for Mr Grant had sworn in their hearing that prisoner was sitting down when he signed the note, while Air Amridge swore that he was standing up. Now one of (hose gentlemen

must have unintentionally committed perjury. • there was also absence of motive, fop hnXTL+u d admi . fcted owing money to the holder of the promissory note. His Honor said the strain of a case of this been very properly put byMr Stout as being whether the perjury had been committed wilfully. It was fo J the jury to decide as to the presence of ttfat wilfulness. The prisoner was acquitted. EMBEZZLEMENT. The trial of George Sturrock, for embezzlement at Tokomairiro, concluded a little after 4 p. m. in the prisoner’s acquittal. Mr Stout defended. Two young men who applauded the verdict were sent to gaol for 24 hours for contempt of Court.