SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTING.

Evening Star, Issue 6725, 6 October 1885, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTING.

Tuesday, October 6. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and . ' a Common Jury.) LARCENY. Maria Scanlan was charged with stealing one dress skirt, the. property of Mrs Annie White. There was a second count charging her with stealing a dregs-skirt belonging to Mrs John Duthie. ' • The Crown Prosecutor explained that some time ago Mrs White ordered from Mollison, Duthie, and Co. a dress, which was sent to her house* The body of it suited well enough, but the skirt required some alteration. After keeping it for some weeks Mrs White' sent it back\ to get it altered. The alterations were made and the skirt was sent back to Mrs White on September 19 by the parcels-delivery boy. When the boy got to thehouse, he found that there was no one in and in pursuance of instructions he put the parcel, en a basket of clothes in an- outhouse at the back of the house. When Mrs White returned she found no parcel there, and as it had been promised to be sent that night, she assumed that it had not been sent. Some time afterwards, when searching for another purpose the place where the prisoner resided, Detective Bain saw the dress, which was identified by Mrs White and Mr Duthie. .. . . . In dross-examination Mrs White said she could identify the dress by a watch-pocket which she put on it herself. Elsie Patillo, dressmaker at Mollison and Duthie's establishment, said that the dress produced was made there. It was sent back for some additional trimming, which witness put on herself. This was on the.l9th September, and she next saw it on the prisoner in the Police Court on the 29th of the same month; William illooper, messenger at Mollison and Duthie's, deposed that he was sent to Mrs White's with the dress. Mrs White was not in, and, according to her instructions, he left it in a shed at the back of the house. Detective Bain stated on the 25th ult. while searching the house of accused's parents for stolen property he found the dress in question. He asked the prisoner's mother whose it was, and she replied that it was prisoner's. The latter also said it was hers, and added "that she got it at the Drapery Importing Company's establishment. Witness arrested her on another charge, and she put on the dress before she went to the police-station with him. T Cross-examined: Witness did not say, in giving his evidence at the Police Court, that prisoner said the dress was hers; he was not asked what she said. Mr Farnie submitted that there was no evidence to show that prisoner stole the dress—it" was simply-found hanging up in the house in which she lived, and when she put it on to go with the detective to the police-station, the inference was that she did so in order, as it was a good dress, to look as well as possible when being arraigned on a charge. No witnesses could be called on her behalf, inasmuch as she unfortunately belonged to a family a member of which was addicted to stealing, and if this member should have stolen this dress it was not to be expected that the thief would give evidence incriminating herself. His Honor, in summing up, said that if the jury were not satisfied that the dress produced was Mrs White's there was an end of the case; if, however, they came to the conclusion that it was the same, then, as it was found in the prisoner's possession, they would have to conaider if she had given a reasonable account as to how it came into her possession. If the detective's statement was correct the prisoner's assertion that she got the dress at the Drapery Importing Company's must be untrue, because it had been identified as coming from Mollison and Duthie's. Then, even if the prisoner had not said that the dress was hers, she stood by when her mother said it was, and did not contradict her. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His Honor deferred passing sentence until a second charge against the same prisoner was heard. ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON. Charles Moxham and John M'Lennon were charged with having on August 6 stolen from the person of Joseph Campbell the sum of L3O inljank notes and a pocketbook. Mr Farnie appeared for the prisonorMoxham; Mr Solomon for the prisoner M'Lennon. The Crown Prosecutor said that the prosecutor was formerly employed on the Nenthorn railway contract, and on August 5 he came to Dunedin. In the evening he met Moxham, whom he had known before, and the prisoner told him that he was hard" up. After they parted prosecutor had his pocketbook, containing L3O in notes, in his possession. Next day he met the two prisoners, and they went to several hotels together. At the National Hotel they played several games at cards together. They then went into George street, and as they were passing the Sussex Hotel the prosecutor felt slightly unwell, and said he would go into-the hotel and have some soda-water. Before going into the hotel prosecutor went round to the urinal, and whilst there he felt Moxham put his hand into his pocket and take out his pocket-book, saying at the same time, " Come on, Joe, let's go." Prosecutor said " Hold on now, you've got my pocket-book." Moxham went "away, and prose3utor attempted to follow him. M'Lennon, however, came between them and said : " Hold on now !" Prosecutor replied " He has got my pocket-book," to which M'Lennon answered "That's all right, you'll find himin thehotel,"and then wentaway after Moxham. Prosecutor went into the hotel, but could not find either of the prisoners. Prosecutor eventually gave-information to ..the police... He never saw the prisoners afterwards, until they were arrested. There was nothing remarkable in this case, it being simply one of those which were usual at almost every session. Joseph Campbell, prosecutor, gave evidence as to the circumstances of the robbery. _ - '„ Patrick Daly, licensee of the National Hqtel, Great King street, remembered prosecutor and the two prisoners coming to his hotel on the 6th of August, and playjng cards for drinks. Witness's evidence was merely, a repetition of that given in the Court below. : r " : Constable Gray, Mq,y Ballinger,"and,X)eteotive Bain also gave evidence for the prosecution. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Solomon submitted that the case as to the accused M'Lennon should be withdrawn from the jury. There was no evidence that could convict.him. He was charged with being a principal, and counsel-submitted that the evidence not only did not support that charge but contradicted it. The only position he could occupy was that of an accessory after the fact. ; " : "' His Honor said that th«re was evidence to show that if there was no previous arrangement between the accused at all events M'Lennon aided Moxham to escape by immediately stopping the prosecutor when he attempted to follow him. That surely was the part of a principal. Mr Solomon submitted that it was not. His Honor said that according to the evidence M'Lennon was present there aiding and abetting. .>■ ~ Mr; Solomon asked His Honor to reserve the point, but ; H i, , His Honor replied that he did not think there was any necessity for it. ',_'': '•„_ Mr Farnie haying ..addressed the jujry onl-. behalf oi the prisoner'Moxhamj,' i Mr Solomon followed on behalf M'Lenroru ~ -;, ~ .. ,v " "'■'-[.'-r ',^» His Honor summed up, .and the jujry aftef, a retirement of about twcnty-five'mlnute'B

returned a verdict of " Guilty " against both the accused. ROISBERY WITH VIOLENCE. John Atkinson (22) and Daniel M'Larcn (27) were indicted for having, on the 21st of August, assaulted and stolen from one Ah Young the sum of L 9 2s. —Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr D. M. Stuart defended them. The facts were fully reported when the ease was heard in the Police Court. [Left sitting.] CHRISTCHURCH. Walter Edward Terry, false pretences, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labor ; George Pearce and Henry Barrett, assault with intent to rob at Lyt-. telton, were acquitted. John Devery, larceny as a bailee at Ashburton. was acquitted. This concluded the session. WELLINGTON. Judge Richmond congratulated the country on the alteration of the law in allowing accused persons to give evidence. No bills were returned against John Smith (larceny) and J. J. and Sclim Moore (administering poison to John Scaramelli). Charles Jiuoca, larceny, was sentecced to two years' hard labor. Charles Edward Watson, larceny ; John Alexander Gordon, larceny as a bailee; and Edward Price, horse-stealing, were found guilty. Charles E. Watson, for receiving stolen property, two months' imprisonment; J. A. Gordon, larceny as a bailee, six years'; E. Price, horse-stealing, six years'; J. Cummings, larceny, three years'. AUCKLAND. The Grand Jury threw out the bill against Michael Kearney, and a petty jury acquitted George Jones. These were cases of alleged impersonation in connection with the Tauranga election. Maude Edith Churton, for smashing a plate-glass window, was fined L2O, and bound over to keep the peace for six months. Accused said that she had smashed the window because her husband was inside the shop courting another woman.