Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Tuesday, Apkil 4. (Before His Honor Judge Williams.)

SENTENCES.

Robert James Thomson (42), who pleaded guilty yesterday to a charge of forgery, was brought up for sentence. Prisoner said he had nothing to say, only that at the time he committed the offence he did not know what he was doing. His Honor: The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for the space of two years, and kept to hard labor.

On Charles Coleman (22) being brought up, His Honor, addressing the governor of the gaol, said : Mr Caldwell, do you identify the prisoner as being the same person mentioned in these warrants and commitment. Mr CaldweU: Yes; there are seven of them. He is now undergoing imprisonment under three sentences of two months each, making in all six months. His Honor : The jury recommend you to mercy on account of your youth. The fact that there have been seven previous couvictions against you prevents me giving any effect to that recommendation; on the contraM» it will be necessary to inflict an exemplary punishment. Tne sentence of the Court is that you be kept to penal servitude in tbe Colony of New Zealand for the term of five years.

mottle's case.

Arthur Robert Moule was charged with forging a deed at Dunedin on April 11. Mr Aldridge defended. The Crown Prosecutor, in stating the case, said that, in order that the jury might understand the facts, it would be necessary that he should state certain circumstances which took place in Victoria as far back as 1858. In that year one John Kellett purchased from the Crown two sections of land in the Colony of Victoria, and the Crown frant for them was issued in the names of ohn, Thomas,.Edward, and Catherine Kelletfc, as tenants in common. Tenants in common of land were those individually interested in an equal undivided part—where there were four tenants in common, each has one-fourth interest in a undivided whole. John Kellett, having purchased the land, deposited the title thereto in the hands of Thomas Coker, in Victoria, as security for LIOO lent him by Coker. John Kellett having only equal undivided fourth interest in the land could not sell the interest of the other three, though the Crown grant passed with the transaction. Ultimately the deed came into the possession of W. R. Windsor, George W. Taylor, and A. R. Moule, as tenants in common. An advertisement was inserted in several papers for Catherine Kellett, and was answered' by Mrs Sarah Kellett, of Dunedin, who in 1869 had married one Xhomas Kellett, who came over from Victoria. So far it appears that the Thomas Kellett had nothing to do with the property mentioned in the Crown giant, and was in no way connected with the family in question. Moule then came over to Dunedin and got Sarah Kellett's son, a lad eleven years old, to sign the deed* the •bject being to get the name "Edward Kellett" attached to the Crown grant, and so secure the interest in the land. Mrs Kellett believing that there was something suspicious in the transaction, called on Mr Stewart, barrister, and ultimately information was given to the police. Accused then tried to smooth over the matter by offering Mrs Kellett L 25. Prisoner was charged under three counts—Firstly, for aiding and abetting Edward Kellett to commit the forgery; secondly, inciting and solieiting him to commit it; and thirdly, pri soner was charged with having committed a forgery though the agency of Edward Kellett. (Mr Haggitt explained at length the various counts and the definition of forgery.) The witnesses examined for the Crown were E. ff. Ward, Sarah Kellett, George Musgrove, W. D. Stewart (who characterised the transaction as "a deliberate swindle ") and Detective Henderson.

Mr Aldridee then addressed the jury, and after the luncheon adjournment. His Honor summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict.

TRTTE BtLLS,

The Grand Jury were discharged this afternoon, after returning true bills against the following prisoners :—Sin Shee, charged with obtaining goods under false pretences; Thomas Downey, stealing a watch at Bendigo ; and Martin Birch, on two charges of cattle stealing and two of sheep stealing.

STEALING PROM THE PERSON. Stephen Toomey, alias M'Carthy, was chargen with having at Dunedin, on June 13, stolen the sum of L 7, the property of William Reid. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Barton. The case was proceeding when we went to press.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18760704.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 4166, 4 July 1876, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
748

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 4166, 4 July 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 4166, 4 July 1876, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert