CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4096, 12 April 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tuesday, April 11. (Before V. Pyke, Esq., J.P., and R. Paterson, Esq., J.P.)

Alleged Fraud. —Arthur Robert Moule was charged, upon the information of Sarah Kellett, of Dunedin, widow, who complained that she had reason to suspect that “ Edward Kellett, of Dunedin, confectioner’s assistant, on this eleventh day of April, 1876, at Dunedin aforesaid, did feloniously, with intent to defraud, forge a certain deed pur* porting to be a conveyance from the said Edward Kellett to William Richard Windsor William Taylor and Arthur Robert Moule, of certain real estate in the colony of Victoria, and to have been signed, sealed, and. delivered by the said Edward Kellet, and that Arthur Robert Moule, on the day and year last aforesaid, did feloniously aid, abet, counsel, and procure the said Edward Kellet to do and commit the said felony against the statute in such case made and provided." —On the complaint being read by the clerk, Mr Pyke said it was necessary, as a matter of form, that the boy Kellett should appear to bo charged.—lnspector Mallard mentioned the fact of the boy being of tender years, and suggested that on that account ho would hardly.be responsible for what he had done.—Mr Pyke ; What is hie age?Kellett (who appeared in Court along with his mother): I have just turned eleven.— Mr Pyke; it is a question this Court cannot - decide as to whether the boy is responsible. Under the age of seven the law

i ,V>

holds that infants cannot he. held responsible, between seven and fourteen it holds they are capable of being held responsible. The question of responsibility is one for a jury, and it is for them alone to say whether the child had sufficient knowledge of what he was doing to constitute a guilty intent. Ido not see how you can fairly punish an accessory without joining, if it is only formally done, the principal in the indictment. I think that will be held to be good law by the Crown Prosecutor.—lnspector Mallard requested that at the present stage the boy might not be so placed.—Mr Pyke : Then the information must be altered.—lnspector Mallard pointed out that under the first section of the Accessories Act of 1867 an accessory before the fact could be indicted as a principal.—Mr Pyke did not think the principal could be left out. Jf there was any doubt about the matter, it would be wise to adjourn the case till to-morrow.— The Inspector remarked that the accused had already applied for an adjournment, to enable him to employ counsel. So far as the boy was concerned it was only a formal matter.-—Mr Pyke observed that it was a Magistrate’s duty before granting any summons to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case; and, to use an expressive Scotch - phrase, he “ procognosed ” the evidence yesterday. By that means he was perfectly well acquainted with the fact that the boy could not have been aware of the wrong thing he was attempting to do. He still thought it was necessary, as a matter of form that the lad should be charged as principal. He should he sorry to take a false step which might vitiate the whole proceedings. He would remand the ease till to-morrow and look up in the meantime the point whether an accessory could be groceeded against without the principal eing charged. The accused, in making application to be admitted to bail, said that when he beard that proceedings were instituted against him, he threw no obstacles in the way, but gave himself up to the police.— After consultation, the Bench refused to admit the accused to bail. Evading Toll. —John Stringer was fined 5s and costs.

Neglected Children. Mary {aged twelve), James (nine years), Alexander (six years), Elizabeth (five years), and William (four years), M‘Naughton, whose mother is in gaol undergoing a two months’ sentence for larceny, were sent to the Reformatory for terms ranging from three (in the case of the eldest) to seven (for the youngest) years, to be brought up in the Presbyterian faith.