SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3547, 6 July 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING.

Monday, Judy 6. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman )

The Quarterly Criminal Session of the Supreme Cbjirt opened this morning at ten o’plock, Messrs Robert Anderaoii, Arthur Beverley, Jaipes Bpwen, John Boyd, Allan Boyd, William Burns, Fred. H, Evans, James Galbraith, David Grant, Edward B. Hammond, David Hutchison, A, R, Livingston, William McLaren, Samuel Nasymth, George Proudfoot, Charles H. Street, and Louis Tbonemaa were called on the Grand Jury. Mr C. H. Street was chosen foreman. The Grand Jury having been sworn, his Honor addressing them said : There were twelve prisoners on the list for trial, but inasmuch as two prisoners were charged with separate offences, there would be sixteen bills of indictment placed before them. The cases required very little comment from him, as they were all very short, and, as far as he could see from the depositions, very clear, so that very little time would be required on their parts. The first was a very singular case. Louis Baisson was charged with attempting to murder his wife. They had been married upwards of two years, and living somewhat unhappily together, she left him, but after a time was induced to return. On her going back to him he showed some marks of affection, and did not repeat his ill-conduct to her. On the occasion in question, the night the occurrence took place, he persuaded her to take a large glass of porter prior to her going to bed, and she stated that, after taking it, she felt drowsy and went to sleep. Shortly afterwards she was awakened through pain in her throat, when she found her husband leaning over her with his fingers down her throat. He used some expressions which ehe.will relate, and, continuing his she

became insensible. After a while, recovering consciousness, she found her husband was gone, and, she reviving, two doctors were sent for— Dr Burrows and another - who would give evidence that her throat exhibited very considerable marks or violence, and the injuries were capable of being committed in the way she described. It would be for the Grand Jury to say whether the evidence was sufficient to nail upon the prisoner to answer to the charge before a petty jury. Another case of offence against the person was really of a serious nature. Thomas Conley, alias Thomas Langley, was charged with a grievous assault on a police officer ihe assault complained of was that he bit on the end of Constable Rooney’s nose. Ihe e was some sort of a drunken row at the Immigration Barracks, in which some women were concerned, and Constable Rooney was sent te arrest them. He arrested them, and Conley, ' or Langley, with two other men, succeeded in rescuing the wemen from the hands of the police. One was re-arrested; the other was carried off, and nothing more' heard of her. Constable Rooney returned, and, accompanied by the barrack-master, went to search for persons who had no right to be there, and arrested the prisoner, who was an interloper. He was taken off by the policeman, and at first went very quietly, but when he got into the Caversham or South road, as it was called, he attempted to escape, and threw his arm around the neck of the policeman. A struggle ensued, and both f n ll, the policeman being uppermost, who tried to keep the other down in order to secure him. After a short time Rooney felt

the man’s teeth had hold ef his nose. There was another case of assault, on Mr Stephen Hutchison by Robert Goodison, on the Anfier e sop’s Bay road. The accused was on horseback, driving some cows, among which were some calves belonging to Mr Hutchison, who claimed them. Some words ensued’, and Mr Hutchison said unless they wore given up he would give Goodison in charge of the police for stealing them. Mr Hutchison was also on horseback? and after saying this they separated. Very shortly afterward* Mr Hutchison saw Goodisep nding fuhously towards Kim, and, when the horses came together, he struck him (Hutohi«°n) with a heavy riding whip, and repeated hie plows. They separated, and immediately after? wards Mr Hqteqison went ihtp the Bay View Hotel pn the Andersens £|ay tpad. The landlady would describe the condition in which he arrived. He was bleeding, fi'ad outs op hi* forehead, apd wps in a fainting condition. H» (his Honor) was not aware bow the indictment was framed, but he supposed the evidence wap sufficient to sppport the charge of wounding and doing grievous bodily.ham. If so, all he had to say bn the subject was that whenever the skin was separated by a weapon, the separation constituted a wound. The term wound meant separation of the skip by arms. There would, therefore, be no difficulty in the All the other nine prisoners were charged with offences against property. He was sorry to say there wore no less nine cases of forgery-a crime that had much increased in the Colony, not only in this district, but, he saw by reports of the charges of other Judges, in all parts tf New Zealand. Morrison was charged with not less than four offences of this description. The whole of the four cases were so similar as to enable him to characterise them together. In one case ho presented a check purporting to be drawn by another person. When the check was presented it was returned, there being no account. In another case he tried to obtain money

by presenting a check- which was returned, marked “forged,” There was presumption, always, when a man presented a cheque with a forged signature that he himself had forged it, but if the petty jury were of opinion there was no sufficient evidence of forgery on bis part they might find him guilty of uttering. There was a oass of forgery with which Maurice O’Connell was charged. He also appeared under another name, that of Alexander Gillon, which was probably his true name, and that be represented himself as Maurice O’Connell in order to obtain the money : the true Maurice O’Connell being the prosecutor. The circumstances were that Manriqe O’Connell, the prosecutor, went tp the branch Bank of New Zealand at Oaraaru, and got a draft for LIQ.- . Hemihsefi the draft shortly after, and qeyer saw it atPPfi until be was show n it ja the hands of the police, Nothing was heard o! it until Alexander Gillon presented it at Blenheim. This coming to the knowledge of the police, Gillon was arrested at Oamaru and committed for trial The charge was that he forged the name of Maurice O’Oonuell, not being his own name; and any writing

on a draft that altered its character so as to render it a full and complete negotiable instrument constituted a forgery in the eyes of the law. Even a much less than had been made would to considered tiforgery, Another rery serious set of charges—throe against one man—would be presented against John Campbell Abernathy, for embezzlement He was clerk to Messrs Brown, Ewing, and Co., and, although it was not his special dnjy tp receive phoney, money was sometimes paid to Him on apcouiap pf the firm. In order to constitute embezzlemehtj a pferapn must ifcceive money in the capacity, of clerk or servant to another and appropriate it to his own use!! Those two conditions being fulfilled! the crime of felony was complete. Two customers handed in cheques at different times for the amounts of Ll3 10s, and Ll2 to Abernethy, the clerk, which he appropriated to his own use in a way that left no doubt as to the fact of appropriation. Sometimes there might be a doubt, as in cases of

error pfacqount; but in that case there could be no (ttkjbt. f He owed a sum cf money tc Mr grocer, and paid 'it With otte*6f those checjues. He also owed another sum to another tradesman, apd took change tp thp amount of LQ against the cheque, which sum he put in his pocket; so that no difficulty would be experienced in that case. There wag another charge against him of uttering a valueless cheque on the Bank of New Zealand on a form of the cheques of the Bank of New South Wales, altered. It was for LB. He obtained L* for this cheque : whether he the- other L 4, lie '(the Jqdgq) did not know. When the cheque; was presented at the Bank of New Zealand, the ansfwer Wai there was no account and never had been id that nsme, Jn all cases pf the sort the mer§ presentation of a valueless cheque signgdby the ma Q himself constituted a ' false pretence, although no words were spoken at the time. It was a false pretence, by action, as it were. It must be obvious to the Grand Jury, if a man presented a cheque and obtained money for it, it was a decided representation on his part that it was a genuine one, and that he had a right to Mtter it, If he had not, it was a false pretenpe, perhaps not in words but by action. The other offences were larcenies of the ordinary character and required no comment. Lucy Leighton was charged with stealing from tHe person; Elizabeth Wills for aiding and abettmg to commit a felony, and Samuel Wills with receiving stolen property. The Grand Jdry retired and shortly afterwards returned True Bills against Alexander Gallon, Willihm Smith, and James M‘Gwyn Abas John Waters, Elizabeth Wills, Lucy heighten, Maurice O’Connell, Thomas Conley abas Langley, John Campbell Abernethy, John Morrison, John Jenkins. TJie remaining cases are not yet decided. PLEADED guiltv. Thomas Conley, charged with assaulting a constable at Caversham ; and J. C. Abernethy, accused of embezzlement at Dunedin, pleaded guilty.

FORGERY AT OAMARU. Alexander Gillon, charged on the in for* mation of Maurice O’Connell with forging his name to a bank draft, pleaded guilty and was remanded for sentence. STEALING FROM A LIGHTER. William Smith and John Waters were charged with stealing from the lighter Thames two bottles of ale, six brushes, aud » jar of acid on 26th May. The lighter was alongside the Asia, from which vessel two cases of a.e were received slightly broken. About mue o clock in the evening Constable barter met the prisoners. Waters was carryiDg a bag, and the constable, observing ho wished to avoid recognition, arrested them. Gu examining the contents of the bag the articles were found, and they corre? ponded with the brands of goods id the cases oa k° af d the'lighter, which, on examination, - were found 'cUlicient, Both prisoners pleaded “.Not Guilty.” They badbeen is

the employ of the owner of the vessel, and were left in charge of it» The stolen property was found in the possession of Smith when arrested, and afterwards identified The jury found the prisoners guilty, bub the foreman said they wished to add as a rider that great negligence appeared to have been shown by the master of the vessd in not seeing that everything on board was safely locked up. Great temptation had thi a been thrown in the way of the piisoners. His Honor ; But the prisoners, gentlemen, were his servants ; and if we cannot rely upon our servants, upen whom can we rely ? The pri soners were each sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for twelve calendar months. ARSON, John Jenkins was charged with having set fire to the dwelling of John Donoghue, at Waihola, on the 31st May. Mr. E, Cook and Mr Taylor tor the prisoner. The evidence of Catherine Donoghue, prosecutor’s wife, and ef William Hayes, inason, went to show that on the day named, while Donogbue’s wife, Hayes, and the prisoner were drinking and talking in the prosecutor’s house, the prisoner, without any apparent reason, there having previously been no quarrel or disagreement whatever, raised a candle until the light touched the thatched portion -of the building and then said, “I’ll burn you b a out.” Another witness, named ffibalmer. stated that when he arrived on the scene he heard the prisoner remark that “ that was the only way to get rid of them but, according to the evidence of Hayes, the prisoner afterwards attempted to extinguish the fire by t'&lPwipg tygiter on it. His efforts, however, were of no avail, for the building, being cqnstncted of light andfeasily consumed materials, was soon burned to the ground, and Donoghue’s two children, who were in bed, were rescued by Hayes only just in time to save them from injury. Mr Taylof was addressing the jury for the defence when our reporter left. "