SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3702, 4 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. Monday, January 4, (Before Mr Justice Chapman ) The criminal session of the Supreme Court was opened this morning. The following composed the Grand Jury : Messrs J. Reith (foreman), J. Blakely, S.ColImson, John Findlay, Alex. Ford, D. Grant, Alfd. Rhodes, R. Haworth, T. Moodie, G. O’Brien, Geo. Proudfoot, J. Reany, J. Scoular, l\ Taylor, R. Turnbull, and T. W, Winchester.

His Honor, addressing the Grand Jury, said he should not detain them many minutes, for the simple reason that the cases were, with one exception, of so ordinary a character as to need no . remarks from him. There ‘were thirteen prisoners for trial, .and of those no less than ten were larcenies of an ordinary character. With respect to those larcenies, the only observation he need make—and that was almost unnecessary, because Grand Jurors now must know the point as well as he did—was that tire principal evidence was possession of property recently stolen ; but as they were aware it was generally speaking confivrned by other circumstances. A h e re possession was the only evidence it wnsufiicient—that was to say, where property stolen was either seen afterwards or iueetifie.; and found on the person of another, the law cast it upon him to account for it; and if be could not, the presumption arose that he whs uie thief. Of course that presumption was pne that was cabable of rebuttal, but that rebuttal rested on the prisoner. He found that the number of prisoneis—thirteen—was in point of fact about theaverageof last year. At the four quarterly sittings of last year there were tried eight, sixteen, twelve, and twelve prisoners—forty eight in all, making an average of twelve. Now, from the great number of new arrivals and the large increase of population—not only from abroad but from outside the Province: a good many be fancied being attracted hither from other parts of, the Colony— one might have expected a slight increase of crime, and he thought he might congratulate the Grand Jury on no such increase having taken place. Moreover, it was only fair to recent arrivals to say that in the whole list there was only one recent arrival, and he happened to come from Tasmania, and the. others were all persons long in the Colony, while four or five of them were old offenders. I here were two cases of forgeryjof a very simple character. The Grand Jury would have no difficulty with, and he would not expatiate upon them. There was one case of arson from Tokomairiro. The evidence was a little complicated; and the only observation he thought it necessary to make was that the place burnt down was described as a tent, and as the Grand Jury were aware a tent might be a dwelling-house in the eye of the law ; that was to say, if a person lived and slept habitually in a tent it was a dwellinghouse for the purposes of arson certainly, and also for the purposes of larceny! The Grand Jury would have no difficulty upon that point. The only case in which he thought it necessary to make any observations was that of a woman who was charged with attempting to commit suicide. It was hardly worth while for the Crown Prosecutor to send a bill before the Grand (Jury, though it had been drawn, because the only witness was the woman’s husband. The policy of the criminal law excludes the evidence of a husband against his wife, or that of the wife against her husband. That was the general rule of law, but there were some few exceptions, arising obviously out of the necessity of the case. ° For instance, where a woman was assaulted by her husband and cruelly beaten or ill-used by him she was a good witness against him. On the other band the husband was a good witness against the wife under similar circumstances. Were this not allowed very great and grievous wrongs might occasionally be inflicted by a husband on his wife, or by a wife on her husband, without either having any 1 egal remedy. In cases of high treason the evidence of the husband or wife could be taken. That, however, seemed to be an indefensible policy, but it had never been abrogated and was law to this day. There were some other cases, stated exceptions, but hardly deemed so—bigamy for instance. ' The so-called second wife could be examined as a witness against the man. but that arose from the fact that no wrong was committed against her, as in point of fact she was no wife at all. There was another apparent exception—where the marriage was perpetrated by force or fraud; there the wronged party could give evidence,’ on the ground that the marriage was no marriage. With these few exceptions the husband could not give evidence against his wife. However, the Crown Prosecntor could in his discretion send in a bill, but if he did there was no evidence for the Grand Jury to find a true bill.

.THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury found true bills in the following cases Samuel Gibson, theft; Isabella Lyle, theft; Charles Fowler, stealing from a dwelling-house ; George Jones, arson at Tokomairo ; Cornelius Carey, theft; James M'Cormack, stealing from a dwelling-house; Samuel Gibson, obtaining money under false representations ; James Fraser, forgery. The jury threw out the bill against Mary Morcombe who was charged with attempted siucide, and were discharged till next day, when the following cases will be considered John Levi Goldberg, Jane Anne Henderson, Ellen Power, alias Burke, and Henry Pearce—all for theft. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Thomas Green (30), was charged with having on December 16, at Uamaru, forged and uttered a cheque for the payment ot money in the name of Thomas Barr, and drawn on the National Bank. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and in answer to the usual question, said : I have only to beg for the mercy and consideration of the Court. His Honor having told him that he was liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for a long time, said that he would not put him on the roads, in the hope that his plea of guilty was a sign of contrition. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. James Fraser pleaded guilty to two charges of forgery aad uttering at Oamaru, and sentence in each case was deferred. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Samuel Gibson was charged with stealing on October 16, 1873, one gold watch, one Albert chain, and one locket, the property of James Hickey. Prisoner and prosecutor were working together at Strath Taieri, on the station of Mr Humphreys’.at the time mentioned. Prosecutor had a watch which wanted repairing, and prisoner said that be was going to town- for three days, and would get the repairs done. He, however, never returned, hut had appropriated the property to his own use, and was not seen till November last, or twelve months after the alleged appropriation. Prisoner said that he lost the watch; and the jury, after retiring for twenty-five minutes, found him “ guilty.” His Honor reserved sentence till a second charge against the same offender was disposed of. The prisoner was further charged with having, on October 14, 1873, by means of falsely representing that money was due to him by Wm. Ed. Humphreys for work done, received from one Wm. Grey a cheque for the payment of L 5, with intent to defraud him of the same.

Prisoner and prosecutor in this case also were working at Mr Humphrey’s station, Strath Taieri, and the former stated that his employer owed him money, but that he did not want to draw on him. Prosecutor, not doubting his statement, advanced him L 5; but it afterwards turned out that only a trifling amount wafe duo to him, The intention to do-

fraud was twofold : firstly, the false statement made by prisoner when borrowing the money; and, secondly, his Laving the station next day and not returning to it, prosecutor finishing lus uncompleted contract for fencing part of the run.

For the drfunce, Jane Steadman was called, but she failed to prove anything ; and the jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of “ guilty.” Prisoner said he had been in gaol three months awaiting his trial. His Honor, in passing sentence, said that there was .a previous conviction recorded against the prisoner for assault, and it must have been a pretty serious one, the magistrate having indicted a punishment of six months’ imprisonment. Now there was no doubt that a man might commit an assault, yet not be disposed to commit larceny or false pretence; the offences being very distinct fr m one another. However, the two offences could not be overlooked, and from being committed together, it seemed that when he left the employ of Mr Humphreys he must have made up his mind to get hold of what he could and go away with it. ■ m the first indictment he was sentenced ‘o eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard labor, and to twelve months’ on the other—the one sentence to take effect on the expiry of the other, 1 STE'LING FROM THE PERSON. Isabella Lyle (21) pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing a watch from the person of Edwin Goudy on December 1. The facts were fully stated by us when the case was before the inferior court. Prosecutor had been drinking on the day in question, and at five o’clock in the morning went to sleep in a house in Walker street occupied by one Robinson, a man of color. Prisoner, who was in the house at the time, took away his watch, and Robinson returning shortly afterwards, learning what had occurred, followed her, and afterwards gave her in charge. When in the lock-up she gave the watch and chain to Sergeantmajor Bevan, saying that she took it from a manat “black Robinson’s” because he owed her some money. Prisoner had nothing to say. The jury, without retiring, found her guilty. Upon the verdict being recorded, prisoner fell down in ■He dock and cried bitterly, whereupon bis Honor ordered her to be removed till next day. STEALING FROM A DWELLING-HOUSE. Charles Fowler pleaded guilty to stealing two diamond studs, of the value of LlO, the property of Dr T. G. Carr, from the Comraerdal Hotel, Lawrence. Sentence was deferred. James M‘Cormack pleaded guilty to stealing a cash-box containing L3O from Watson’s lining-rooms on October 27. Sentence deferred. STEALING A WATCH. Cornelius Carey was charged with stealing one watch and one albert chain, the property of David Gulland, on December 27. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and sentence was deferred. The Court then adjourned till ten o’clock next day. ____________