SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3625, 5 October 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

* CRIMINAL SITTING; ' > /

Monday, October 4. .’ ' • < (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman.)

The quarterly session commenced at ten o’clock this morning. The following composed the Grand Jury Captain Boyd (foreman), Messrs Allan Boyd, Geo. Turnbull, John Adams, G. M. Aldrich' Jas. Bowie, Thos. Burton, J. E. F, Coyle, A. Dune, P. Grant, J. Houghton, F. Humffray, J. Kirkland, A; Mercer, N. J. B. M'Gregor, W. M‘Kenzle, J. Runciman, J. B. Thomson, J.- M'Neilj A. C. Purdie, D. Ross. P. Tresseder.

His Honor’s charge to the Grand Jury was 1 simply a recapitulation of the facts of the cases set down for trial. .There were eight' cases, all of which, with one exception, were for. various offences against property. The exception was that of a Chinese nained Lung Hung, who was indicted for a disgusting offence. The offences against property Were of various descriptions. There were two indictments against Baldwin for cattle stealing. One indictment was on the prosecution of Mr Holland, who has a station near Blacks ; the other on the prosecution of Mr Handy side, who also has a. station in that neighborhood. Mr Holland was unable him-, self to identify the steer that was stolen,! Though he spoke of it in general terms, and it had his station mark, he. could not distinguishthe individual beast; bub that was supplied by another witness—his shepherd or stockman—who was well acquainted with the animal, and identified it as Mr Holland’s property. When young, the steer, as all steers are, was a white bull, but when it turned up again, having -been missed from the station for some months), it was in the reduced condition of a steer. The shepherd had left several of Mr Holland’s cattle with a farmer named Atkins, with whom the prisoner bad also left some of his cattle. In. taking his own cattle away from Atkins’,: he took away this beast, at least that was ■ the charge against him, it Was presumed he took the beast, because he was found, dealing with it. Some short time afterwards) the prisoner sold a mob of twenty-two cattle

co a butcher in the neighborhood, and the nnmhec was the beiwtin ques.ion. Information to that effect watroceived, and the. butcher was /visited; he gave full explanatio 8 e c the manner in which he became possessed of' the beast, which was clearly traced to Baldwin’s possession, More than thfct, he hadjsussert d a iaghtpf property over it, - ;in by I a very eonspicupus tfpt, that was ti£»ay, he/pdt his own brand uppn tho bsastT each oases the law was—that-where-property recently stolen was fonhd-'-in the possession of a person, it was east npon that person to account how he obtained it. What defence might be set np, he (the Judge) did not know, nor was that a question for the Grand Jury to determine, because their ~3utycoon* slated of hearing the evidence the Crown was able to adduce against the prisoner, and to sty whether that evidence was sufficient to call upon him to answer. The other Indict* ment against Baldwin was for stealing a red bullock belonging to Mr Jlandyside, and the facts were nearly similar in their nature. Thereweretwo indictments, oneagnnst a person named Collins, the other against a person named Williams, for stealing from the person—one of stealing money,, and the other of stealing a watch. The evidence in both cases was so very simple—such as was often brought Jurors—as to render any unnecessary. The prosecutors in both cases were tipsy and fell asleep, and while in-that condition their-pro-perty was stolen from them. In the case of Collins, there was something in the shape of an admission ; and in the other, the watch was traced to the possession of William—rather he was found dealing with it, haling pawned it. There were two forgery .capes against a man named.'Welsh;, and onS of uttering against a man named Johnson, both arising out of the same transaction, which was a transparent and a foolish onto. . Ofte H. Moss, who keeps a shop -at Oatnaru, leas called upon on the 14th of August byfJohhson; who presented to him an order for goods purporting .to be signed by ons Jagkson. -' As Moss was in the habit of reodiflag orders of the sort from Jackson, -whieh hitherto had’ always been met, and Johnson was in the latter’s employ, noroek theorder and delivered the gbodsb'.. i There was evidence to show that Welsh wroteike cheque. The copkr at the inn where he was living saw the instrument writteri ©tit/W Welsh xh the inn parlor, ‘and Welsh hand it over' to ’ Johnson, Welsh attempts to excuse himself—.though it was not an excuse in the efeqf the law£-jby saying that Johnson told him JackeOn owed him money. Whether or not Jackson Johnson money did hot justify the forgery. It was not necessary to the completion 6f the offence that profit should be made out of the transadtion; it Was not inkjesiaryth'at money or goods should be . received; mention todefraud r! tvas-quite Sbffioient. After referring to Galt’s and Alexander’* Honor directed the Grand Jury to retire, and they directly afterwards returned into Court with a few true bills. • / THE OJAS'!) JURY. ' ''' The Grand Jury found true bills in allthe cases except that against William Williams. As the prosecutor did not. appear, the o&Bt was adjourned till Monday. ' * The Crown . Prosecutor asked that t\xo Grand «Tary .he discharged till Mopdw. Owing to ef a case hejw being in another Court—the charge of murder on. board the Oneoa—it was.desirable that tnermatter he dispowvof this seo3ioh, .for if hot |jbjxe lnt& roll xm&sesaion theownem o^hTvessel'would hendhjected to serious expense. . His Honor complied with Mr HaggittVre* quest. ", J * '

v ROBBERY. FROlt THE PERSON. f , - - John. Collins was charged with stealing the sum of L2 in money from Alex* on May 6.- - , _ . 1 Prisoner pleaded not guilty. . rThe facts shortly stated are these secutor was a seaman on board the SenyfU# and on the day in question obtainsdLlO from Captain; Best. In the evening hepTWas joined by prisoner and a man named Clinker. They -were drinkingtogether,and prosecutor being under the influence of liquor wont to -sleep on areofa in the Union Hotel, Stafford street. While sitting there prisoner put his -hand into proseontor’s pocket and was , seen by Clinker to take jorft two pound notch. On beikg questioned by Clinker he made an explanation' to the effect that he would mind it for prosecutor 'till the following morning. When proseontor asked him for the money next .day he had lost.it. The witnesses examined wefe : the prosecutor, David Clinker,. MaryCEUis (barmaid at the Union Hotel), LdWarii Lyons, and Sergeant Sevan. - - i; i Prisoner, in .addressing the jury,saidthftt spite was the only cause of thp charge N&g brought against him. He had been in aft. secutor’s company on many occasions smoo the alleged jobbery, and the latter hadfrequently asked lor the loan of money, bnfche had been unable to give him any. Oh the day before he was arrested he wju[ with prosecutor and., others, and,, a , fight occurred, prosecutor and another man being arrested. Because he (prisoner) got free, prosecutor had h«a arrested on.this charge next day, ’ The jury, After five minutes’ defiberahob, returneda verdict of “ Not guilty*” And the-prisoner was discharged; ■ MAUCIOPSLY WOUNDING. ,n Robert Galtwaa charged with maliciously . wounding a calf on August 30. i' ‘ Prisoner pleaded guilty, but said that the killing was accidental. His Honor explained that that was equal to a plea of “ not guilty.” Prisoner stated .that he threw an axe, bnt did not intend to kill the calf. « Honor said he had looked through the depositions. . Seeing that the prisoner had pleaded guilty, he regarded it as an exprearegret, and therefore,he would not visit the offenee very heayfly.The of the .Court was that prisoner be imprisoned - and; kept to hard labor for six. calendar months, though he,had rendered hvpißelf liable to penal semtude for a long timft bsd the offence been accompanied with great malice. /; • Prisoner stated he was nineteen years of age. . , ) ■ His Honor then said that, -under the circumstances, prisoner would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, bnt without hard labor. He gave the gaoler discretion iln dealing with him, se that he might net be associated with other criminals. Ho could not overlook.the offence entirely, as theije was an element of ornelty in the killing. -r>i FRAUD. Sydney George Alexander Was charged with obtaining the sum of Lid from Daniel Sinclair, by means of false on August 15. ' Prisoner was not defended! The facts of this case were fußy reported When the matter waa inveßtagajbed' In the lower Court. Prisoner was stopping irt the Criterion Hotel, where the prosecutor was Waiter, and on the date mentioned, When'S ■ bed, he asked the latter to lend him whit money he could, adding that4ießad- lilfcß6« m the Bank of Australasia. Believing hia story to be true, Sinclair lent him LiA -but it afterwards ? transpired that prisoner never had an account with, the bank m quastiem/ Prisoner, in addressingthe jury, said tint a more false charge could neve* have 'tm brought into a Court of justice., As profeontor had commenced his statements falsely, he had carried them .odt in the same way, for the purpose l of getting a J charge against appointment at net fitting the gitoatfcft of

manager of an betel at Oamaru, as he had anticipated. He commenced hia fa’se statements by saying that it was on tVe 17th of August when he had first spoken to prosecutor about the hotel at Oamaru. This he distinctly denied, for it was prosecutor who first put the idea of the hotel specu'atiou into his head. Inspecting the loan—for ht; solemnly asserted it was a loan, and nothing else—prosecutor volunteered to lend him wh-Vt money be required. Prosecutor had sworn that the sum lent was Lls, while he (prisoner) solemnly declared that he only received two L 6 note s. The whole of the statements made by prosecutor were false. • He had never mentioned that he had an account in the Bank of Australasia, nor was it likely he should do so ; for he knew that the chief teller of that bank occupied the next room to prisoner at the C riterion, and consequently knew that prosecutor could have asked him if he had an account at that bank. There was no proof either by documentary or confirmatory evidence that he had received the money, and although he could have repudiated the loan had he so desired, he did not. do so, as he only wished to show the false statements made by prosecutor. His Honor addressed the jury at length, and pointed out that the whole matter turned on the belief which they put in prosecutor’s evidence. If they had any reasonable doubts as to the credibility of Sinclair, they should give prisoner the benefit of them. The jury .returned a verdict of “ not guilty.” ;; ' ' FORGERY. Patrick Walsh, indicted for forging an order,., for the delivery of goods,-pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. 4 * o '!' PACING A FORGED ORDER, Edward Johnson.(2o), pleaded guilty to a ghatge of passing the order forged by Walsh. Prisoner ’was' sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, * J -.'’a* 1 1 r, %kNATURAt^OFFENCE.' Mee Ching -Woh was charged with attempting & commit the above offence. Mr defended.* H The case was being proceeded with at four p.m. .