SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4243, 2 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Monday, October 2. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

The quarterly session, for the despatch of criminal business, was opened this morning by Mr Justice Williams, who took his seat on the Bench at ten o’clock.

The after-named gentlemen having been tw->rn of the brand Jury—Messrs T. S. Graham (fireman), C. H. Street, Thoa. Austin, Wm, Baird, Chas. F. Black, John > oyd, Samuel ('layton, Joseph F. Jones, A. Living-don, Rabert M‘Daren, K. Ramaay, John Reith, and James v coula , his Honor delivered the following

CHARGE. Mr Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: The offences charged in the present calendar are, with one or tw.> exceptions, of the kind usually met with here. As usual, we have cases of forgery, a ermine of exceedingly common occurrence in the Colony. Time after time various judges have commented upon the facilities afforded for the commission of this crime by the culpable negligence with which persons are in the habit of taking cheques from utter strangers without hj quity. Ton will have a glaring instance of this brought under yoir notice to-day. It appears that about nine ©clock on the evening of the 2nd of September last, some person went to four different drapers* suops in the town of Oamiru, and at each shop he bought goods, and tendered in payment a forged cheque. In every case the cheque was taken, ana seve nl pounds were given in change. The man who presented the choqnes was entirely unknown to the persons who cashed them. In no caao does any inquiry appear to have bean made, although ohera were circumstances enough to have excited the strongest suspicion. Three of the persons who changed the cheques say that they noticed that tAe man who presented them was disguised with faise whiskers, and had his hat drawn on;- Is face, while tho fourth says that ho Wj.s the worse for drink. There arc two cases of outrages op children. In each case the ovttjuge appears to have been committed underveiy yraii.l iv cirqiuns' gnees. You will h«ve an opportunity of judging from the demeanor of the witnesses as to the credibility of their testimony Inere is a case of larceny of a horse and cart. It appears that accused obtained possession of the horse and cart under written agreement. The effect of that agreement is that tho accused,.was to pay LSO by instalments as purchase-money for thebawa Clod cart, btjt that fchp saado* was to have the right to take possession of them if any instalment was not paid. Before the instalments were completed tho aepused sold thehovaeand cart. Aa IjUe t $ thq

aoaased was to return the hone and cart, but that he waa to pay the pur* chaso mc.nay, I think the remedy of the proseeStS hill Th «f« d / :mdf^ at y -’ u COttldnot Mdatroe si?* Tfa-ro is a case of perjury. This crime diffen from all others in requiring more than one wituces 't is not ludced seces *ary that there should be two witnesses to disprove the fact sworn to “y the defendant, but that there should he some other material circumstance proved by another witness in confirmation of the witness who gives the direct testimony. There is a case of libel, with respect to which I should like to make a few observations. As it is a case in which the religious feelings and opinions of a number of our fellow* citizens appear to be involved, it the more behoves all those who are called to adjudicate upon it to consider it altogether apart from any religions bias, and to view the matter in a legal aspect only. I need point out to you that the Homan Catholic religion is, in this country, not merely tolerated but is in the same position as any other sect of Christians, and that the same principles of law would apply to all sects alike. A person may, without being liable to prosecution, attack tbe doctrines, principles, or practices of any sect whatever with the limitation that, he mnst abstain from blasphemous attacks against the Deity, the Christian religion, or the Scriptures. If, however, he should not only attack s Church or a sect, bntsnoald g* on to attack in print or in writing the individual characters of particular members of that sect, he would be criminally liable. So also he would be liable if he should reflect injuriously on an aggregation of certain members of a sect, as on thenuus In a convent, or on the clergy of a particular locality. What, therefore, I shall ask you to determine in the first instance is, whether the words complained of have a tendency bring into hatred, contempt, or ridicule, any individual or body of individuals, or whether the words impute moral blame to any person.' If you think that the words can be reasonably said to have such a tendency, or that they contain any such imputation, yon would find a true bill. This explanation by no means exbansts the subject, but I think that it would be more conducive to The ends of justice to leave any questions on which there can be the slightest doubt for argument if necessary hereafter. THE GRAND JURY Pound true bills in all the cases except Regina v. Eawthore, for larceny as a bailee ; and Kegina v. Bell, for libel, Mr Stewart had his fine remitted.

LARCBKY. John Mason, who was undefended, was indicted for having, at Dunedin, on May 16, stolen L 24, the property of John Hornby, The facts, shortly stated, are these:— Prisoner was engaged as cook at the house of the prosecutor, the Anchor Hotel, Maclaggau street. On the day in question, Mr Hornby, being called suddenly into his bar, left on the table of the sitting-room the sum of L 24, and on his return no trace of it could be found. Prisoner was the only person in the room at the time, and suspicion fell on him, but he denied having taken or seen it. On two separate occasions that day, Mrs Uornby told the prisoner that the money was found and returned, nothing would be said about the matter; but three days after it was lost, when she said in his hearing that the matter had been placed in the hands of the police, he took her to his bedroom, and from the inside of the mattrass of his bed he took the money and handed it to her.

Prosecutor, in his evidence, said he did not m ke any inquiry of the prisoner for some hours after he missed the money ; and Mrs Hornby said when she got the money she told prisoner she would stop the prose cution, but Detective Heudersou : s evidence was that she told him prisoner ought not to be allowed to escape. Prisoner’s explana tion was that he found the money, but lost and refound it subsequently. The jury, after a short retirement, returned a'verdict of “ not guilty,” and prisoner was discharged. LIFTING, Thomas Griffen Green (undefended) was indicted for having at Port i halmers, on Joue 26, stolen twelve pairs of trousers, the property of one John Miller. On the day named in the information a package of trousers that had been exposed outside of the prosecutor’s shop were stolen, and some days afterwards the police discovered that two pairs of them had been sold Ll by the prisoner to a fisherman named Andrew M‘Donald, and two other pairs to one John May, otherwise known as “ Cairngorm,” for a similar amount. The jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of “Kot guilty,” and the prisoner was discharged. BESTIALITY. James Robertson (undefended) waa indicted for committing this offence at Shag Valley. 6 The jury found him guilty of attempting to commit the offence. He was remanded till to-morrow for sentence. FORGERY, John Lewis Horne, against whom there were four charges of forging and uttering at Oamaru on September 2, was placed in the dock. He pleaded guilty to the uttering in each instance.

His Honor : In this case, as prisoner has pleaded guilty, the witnesses have not come before the Court, but I do not feel inclined to allow the expenses of those witnesses who cashed the cheques on account of the gross negligence they appear to have been guilty of. Of course I have formed my judgment on the depositions. Before deciding finally, one would like to have some explanation from the witnesses.

The Crown Prosecutor; They are witnesses in the case of Bee, charged with being an accessory to the forgery. His Honor : They will come before the Court in that case. INCITING TO FORGE. Robert Dutton Lee was indicted for having incited prisoner Lee to commit forgery in the before-mentioned cases. Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not gnilty. TEEJURY. James Dickenson surrendered to his bail on a charge of committing perjury in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Dunedin, on August 3, before Mr Bathgate, R.M., daring the hearing of the civil case Miller v. Dickenson. Mr Denniston defended prisoner, who pleaded “ Not guilty.” The facts shortly stated are these;—On the date mentioned prisoner was defendant in a case in which Charles Miller was plaintiff. Defendant willingly forward to give evidence on his own behalf, and Laving been sworn it became a question whether plantiff had lent him L3O; and with reference to that, the indictment alleged he stated, “I was not in the Kmpire Hotel on the sth April, 1875, with the plaintiff. I have not been there for eighteen months. I never borrowed L3O or any money whatever worn the plaintiff, and if he and Bolton (a witness giving evidence on behalf of plaintiff, and who was barman in the Empire Hotel on that date) say that they saw money pass between plaintiff and myself, I will contradict them ; and it is a big story that any money passed between plaintiff and myself.” These statements were false, inasmuch as they were in the hotel togetner, and Miller did borrow L3O from the said Charles Miller. [Left sitting.]