SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 91, 26 April 1901, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. [ Before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly.] The half-yearly sitting of the Court at Gisborne commenced yesterday. . The following Grand Jury was cm panelled :—Messrs Jas. Macfarlane (foreman), W. A. Friar, W. Good, T. Holden, J. Whinray, E. H. Featon, R. H. Mason, W. Marr, A. F. Matthews, R. Sherratt, .1. B. Kells, D. Morice, Geo. Grant, F. T. Morgan, H. T. Jones, F. S. Desßarres, J. E. Foster, E. Murphy, -T. McKee, 11. C. Jackson, W. O. Sheet, J. Coleman, F. J. Shelton. In his address to the Grand Jury His Honor said: ft is in one respect a matter for congratulation that, although the period since the last sitting of the Court has been considerably longer than usual, there are only five eases for trial. Therefore, your duties will not he on this occasion so heavy as they have been sometimes after a shorter period. With regard to the delay of the Court in the sitting for a [period of eight months instead of the usual time of six months, that has unfortunately been necessary on account of there being now three sittings of the Court of Appeal; and it is rather difficult to arrange the circuit sittings so as to cause as little inconvenience as possible. I may mention that with regard to the additional sitting of the Court of Appeal, it might have been noticed that an additional Judge has been appointed ; hut. unfortunately. the time of that Judge will be so very much occupied for a considerable time as I'rcsidcut of the Court of Arbitra- [ lion that lie will not be able to render that assistance which had been hoped would bo , given to the other Judges in the ordinary work of the Courts. Therefore, it became 1 necessary on this occasion that the Court, j instead of being held at the usual time in < February, should be hold at this time. 1 But, as [ said before, it does so happen ' that there are only live cases for trial, [ and the inconvenience, if any, lias been J chielly caused with respect to the civil f business now before the Court. Of the . live criminal cases for trial, it is some- 1 what singular that four of those are s

against Maoris. There is only one ease in which a Kiiropean is clmrgotl with any crime of a siiiiiciently serious nature to he brought licfure this Court. In addition to those eases, 1 have to deal with a prisoner ■who, under a leeent Act, has pleaded guilty in the lower Court, and is therefore brought here for sentence. The Act appears to me to he an exceedingly valuable one. 11 freipiently happens that when a mail is brought before the Stipendiary Magistrate lie is quite willing to admit the oll'eiiee. If a prisoner is brought before a Stipendiary Magistrate, the prisoner is now ent itied to say lie pleads guilty, in which ease the trouble to the Grand Jury and the bringing of witnesses is avoided, and the accused person who Jias pleaded guilty is presented before this Court and is dealt with just as ho would June been after the linding by the Grand Jury of a bill, and after having pleaded guilty in this Court. There will he a considerable saving of trouble to Grand Jurors and a eon-.ideni.hle saving of expense to the colony. lam sorry to say, however, that, though the cases to he brought before the Court arc few in number, there are several very serious ones, and although the evidence may appear clear, those eases will require careful consideration at your hands. Uis Honor '■ hen went on to deal with the different

True bills were brought in in all cases,

common' .iuisy. The following were sworn as common jurors: -Edward File, F. F. Lootub, Jas, Harris, .1. .1. McLaughlin, .las. Craig, F. A. Ford, U. Nock, li. Kolirrtsou,] S. IJolonmn, K, Hepburn, >S. Williams, J. l)alrymplr, 11. Ilrvaut, F. Parker, E. N. , Sidebottom, C. Arnaboldi, Si. Williams, i das, (llassford, d. W. I’ricc, C. F. Adair, M. L. Foster, -lolm Lewis, Geo. Maxwell, ,'las. Atkins, .las. I frown, A. LI. Hepburn, I J. ('. F. Henderson, .1. S. Allan, W. Wil- ] son, I''. Scott, W. IF Willoek, F. Hates, I ,1. liiggar, K. Turnbull, 1L..1. Bonwell. . h. Dunne was granted exemption, being ( Over ti'd years of age. .1. <i. McLaughlin i was excused from service, being a member ( of the Fire Hrigade, AV. F. Stephenson ] because he was a hit hard of hearing, and j W . Vardley because he was a member of . the Gisborne Liilles. . SHNTKXt'Ii. I Wiremu Tangiwha, charged with cans- ' jug bodily harm to a person at Awanui. 1 was called, upon his own ' Mr DeLautour appeared for prisoner, who ’ Iv.d pleaded guilty in the lowgr Court, and for whom leniency was sought. . His Honor: Prisoner, ibis is a very shocking case. You have pleaded guilty to doing actual bodily harm intentionally. ‘ It appears as if there was a quarrel botween you and the other man on November .l ith ; that you assaulted the other man, dragging him by his beard ; then he 1 struck you with a stick, and you retaliated 1 with several blows. You were separated, mid the other man went away. After lie was gone you remained in the hotol, and ‘ stated there aloud you were going to have vour revenge. You followed him, over- I took him, and said that you would kill j him. You then had a Light together, and while on the ground you bit the informant, actually biting off a considerable ■ portion of his nose, a most disgusting and horrible crime, all caused by drink, for you say yourself you were very drunk. ’ There is no excuse at all —the act of a brute, and not of a man. Hut for your good character I would lmvc given you the ' full sentence allowed by law. but in consideration of that .1 shall only give you about half what I might have given you, The sentence of the Court is that you bo imprisoned in Auckland prison for hard labor for four years.” theft. Montia Pavatenc was arraigned upon a charge of alleged theft. Mr Lysnnr appeared for the accused, who pleaded guilty, Counsel asked for an adjournment in order to enable him to call evidence as to character. _ The case was adjourned until ten o clock this morning. J, ALLEGED BOBBERY. James Madder was arraigned on a charge of robbery. Prisoner was represented by Mr W. L. lloes, and pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs E. X. "Sidebottom. E. File, Cr. Maxwell. James Atkins, J. C. Bigger, J. S. Allan. S. Coleman, C. Arnaboldi, S. Williams. James Brown. R. Nock, AY. B. Willoek, Air James Brown was chosen foreman. i Mv Nolan, Crown Prosecutor, detailed the circumstances of the case. Charles Moicldoson. called* stated lie was a laborer residing at the Mahta, and lie remembered the 10th March last, when he was in Gisborne. In the evening he was in the main street. .At- about 7.00 o'clock lie was standing mi the footpath, and took out his watch to look at the time. A man came up and asked witness the time, and he (.the prisoner) said lid? thought ltis watch was too slow, and at the same time he sneaked his watch awaj from the chain. AA'ituess tried to get .hold of ltis coar and stop him getting away, when witness was struck in tlic face bv the other man. who ran away. Witness • van after him. and collided with a post, the result being that the man got away. On the following Sunday morning witness went to the police station, and among a number Of men picked out the accused as the person whom he thought had stolen his watch. AA itness w is not properly sure accused was the person who had stolen

his watch. The man was like the prisoner in stature, and had a black eye. 13 v Mr dices : When the man ran away {’.*olll witness he did so quickly. Could not say whether the man was drunk or "°W* H. Chrisp gave evidence positively identifying Madder as the man who was running away from the informant. Detective Henderson deposed that lie had arrested the accused on the charge of robbery from information supplied and description given by the complainant. On taking prisoner to the police station he placed him among six others and sent tor the complainant, who came to the station and picked the accused out from the other men as being the man who robbed him on the previous night. On being arrested and charged, accused said, “ I know nothing about it.” Had seen the prisoner at about ten minutes to 10 on the night of the 16th. He appeared to 1 have been linking, but was not drunk, So had a

black eye xvhich he liad had a couple of days previously—it xvas still badly discolored on the Sunday and for sex'cral days afterwards. When complainant came into the yard he xvent up to the accused and said, You stole my watch.” The accused made no reply. A man ought to be able to go from Dalrymple’s. doxvn Peel-street and round to Miller’s corner in two minutes —he thought it xvould be about 300 yards. When arrested, accused asked when the watch had been taken. Accused said, “ I would be inclined to think I xvas too drunk—l might have done it ; anyway, anything is good enough for me for getting on the booze.” By Mr Rees : He did not say the man had a moustache. In the loxver Court 1 heard the prisoner ask informant xvhether, in describing the man, he had not said he had a moustache. Informant said he did not think ho had said anything, about a moustache; prisoner said Constable Clark had told him so. Witness told him that in Constable Clark’s report there xx'as no mention of a moustache. It came out in the lower Court that informant had said that the accused lix-ed at Menzio’s. By Mr Nolan : Informant said that accused xvas a short, stout man with a black eye, and that he would knoxv him again—that xvas the ouly description given. By Mr Rees : Any person seeing the , accused and recognising him must hax’e ] seen him xvith the black eye. ' Witness : Yes, ho had a very black eye then. :

In opening the defence, Mr Rees said that accused bad boon xvith the Salvation Army, xvhich had, among its many good works, done him good. But on St. Patrick's Day he had come in and taken liquor. He had met the Salvation captain at Miller’s corner, the captain giving him good counsel. That conversation lmd taken time. Captain Hill (of the Salvation Army) xvould tell them that Madder xvas so drunk as to be incapable of running, and also that ho had a clean shave. The evidence given xvas all quite fair ; but be would submit that Mr Chrisp bad been mistaken. He xvould call Capt. Hill and Constable Clarke, it having been said to the latter that the accused had a moustache.

Ernest Hill, Captain of the Salvation Army, deposed that he had known the accused for about a month before the alleged robbery. During that month he believed the prisoner xvas trying to lead a sober and honest life. He had seen accused on Saturday, the 16th March, at Miller’s corner, at half-past seven. He fixed tho time because he had loft the barracks at 20 minutes past 7 to xvalk down to the corner, three or four blocks down. Lfe had gone straight to tho corner, winch he reached a minute or txvo before half-past 7. As lie came doxvn tho street he passed Toxvuley’s corner. There was no disturbance at the time, or crowd collected there. Ho first saw tho accused at Miller’s corner; ho xvas there when xvitness gut there. Tho Army service had not commenced at that time. Accused was drunk. Witness remonstrated xvith him

about his conduct. Accused was with the Army till about 8.45. From where they were at Miller's corner he could not see whether there was any commotion at Townley’s corner. Accused did not appear to have been runmug or taking any excessive exertion.

- Mr Fees : Was he in such a condition hat he could not run ?

His Honor: I always understood it was common law that a man might not be able to walk, but yet run ? (Laughter.) Mr Fees : I don’t known. I never tried it. (Laughter.) His Honor : I always understood that to be common law. (Laughter.) Mr Fees said he would base his point on the fact that the prisoner showed no evidence of exertion.

In reply to a further question, witness said that accused had no moustache. By Mr Nolan : Accused was in the ring all the time. The army walked on the footpath to the firebell, and then walked by the side of. the road. Madder was in the ring all the time. Constable Clarke deposed that informant had met him on the night of March 16th, and said he had been robbed. He gave no description of the man, nor had he said anything about the man having a moustache. He said he had seen the man staying at Menzies’ some time previously, and that he would know him again if he saw him.

By Mr Nolan : He could not say if accused had ever stayed at Menzies’. Mr Fees then had the prisoner put in the witness-box.

Accused deposed that he had never slept at Mrs Menzies’, nor had a meal there in his life. He had heard the evidence as to his taking the watch, hut' had no knowledge of it whatever. Ho was drunk on that night, and had been drinking all that day. Ho did not remember having been with the Salvation Army that evening. He had awakened on the Saturday morning, and found he had a black eye. By Mr Nolan : Did not know where he was at seven o’clock on the Saturday night. He had a slight recollection of being in the Argyll Hotel at a quarter past seven, but ho could not say how long ho stopped there. Ho could not remember anywhere else that he had boen that night. He had called the barmaid of the Argyll to prove in the lower Court that he had been at that hotel at 7.10, and had called Mr Martin to prove that later on ho had been at the Gisborne Hotel. Mr Nolan : You remember the accused? Yes.

Mr Nolan : You had a lucid interval then ?

Accused : I might have had a dozen. Mr Nclan: Your mind is an oblivion as to what occurred after half-past seven that evening ? Accused: Yes. In addressing the jury Mr Fees asked what had become of the watch ? It did not appear that either accused or informant was drunk. If a man had stolen the watch why had ho not ran off into the darkness ? The principle evidence was that of Mr Chrisp, who was an impartial, sincere, honest, and disinterested witness; but he urged that a mistake had been made. Ho dwelt at some length on this view of the evidence, and then set against it the evidence of Captain Hill, which he claimed disposed of the other. Captain Hill had deposed that accused was drunk, and that he had no sign of exertion. There was an old adage about giving a dog a bad name, but he hoped that it would never happen that a British jury

would convict a man on that. His Honor: There is no evidence that the man has a bad character—you seem to admit it. Mr Fees: I do, but that should not allow a man to be convicted because there

were suspicious circumstances. Ho went on to say that the accused had spoken very fairly. If Mr Chrisp had been so well able to identify the man surely he would have seen the black eye. If they

had a doubt they should gjve the accused the benefit of it.

Mr Nolan said that all the prosecution

asked for was fair play to the prisoner, and there was a suggestion that there had not been fair play. He did not think there could be a doubt that a watch had been stolon. There was nothing inconsistent between the evidence of Captain Hill and Mr Chrisp; the whole thing depended on the question of time. The only one who was precise about the time was Captain Hill. Mr Chrisp or Captain Hill might be out a minute or two in time, but it was quite possible' for the man to have taken the -watch, and to have been at Miller’s comer at the time stated. Mr Chrisp, w'ho had known accused about the town for years, could not possibly have been mistaken in such a man, of peculiar build and size. The fact that he had not noticed the black eye did not count for anything, as it was likely that the black eye was. on the off side from Mr Chrisp. Even if the accused had been at the Argyll at 7.15 he could still have been up in time to commit the offence. His Honor, in summing yip, said that tliero were two counts —robbery and theft, the one being with violence and the other without. They could accept Mr' Hill’s evidence as perfectly correct. Mr Chrisp was quite positive that prisoner was the man, whom he had known well. The prisoner was conspicuous on account of his small size, and Mr Chrisp’s evidence would be conclusive on that point. The curious thing was that Mr Chrisp was equally positive as to the time, and the only way they could account for the discrepancy was by the fact that Mr Chrisp had been mistaken by a few minutes. If the robbery happened at 7.80, accused could not be the man. Nothing could be said against Mr Chrisp’s integrity or impartiality, but a doubt was cast , by his his positiveness as to the time. The prosecutor had evidently been in a muddle as to the actual place of the robbery, while Mr Chrisp was very clear on that point. It was quite certain that

on that evening someone had robbed the

informant of a watch, that the man had run down Peel street, and that *tho in-

formant chased him, and ran against a post. They had [positive evidence as to identity. Counsel for the defence said there must be some mistake; he said it was about the man, while His Honor would submit that it was in regard to the time. It was for the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If there was a small mistake as to the time, and not as to identity, the jury would have very little difficulty in arriving at a decision. The jury retired at 10 minutes to 4, and returned with a verdict of acquittal.

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. An elderly native named Bawiri Haua was charged with attempting to carnally know a girl under the age of twelve years. A second charge of indecent assault was also preferred against the accused. The accused was pot represented by counsel. The following jury was sworn : —Francis Bates, Mainland L. Foster, James Glassford, Robert Turnbull, Edward 'Williams, James Craig, James Dalrymple, Robert Hepburn, James C. P. Henderson, James Harris, Eobert Robertson, Walter Wilson, Francis Scott. Mr Foster was elected foreman of jury. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Mcriria Mutu, a native girl ten years of age, Rawinea Ohuroa, John Morris, and Constable Farmer. The accused made a statement to the effect that the child was a relation of his, and they had often occupied the same apartment. He denied all knowledge of the assault, and claimed that the evidence of the witnesses was in his favor.

His Honor, in summing up, said that the accused had made no defence at all. He thought that the jury would find himguilty on one count, and that could hardly be the charge of attempting to carnally know the child.

The jury, after a few minutes’ deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty of an indecent assault.

His Honor, addressing the accused through the interpreter, Captain Ferris, remarked : “ I address not only you, but all such men as you. These indecent assaults upon young children are becoming alarmingly prevalent. I think it necessary that they should be put down, by severe punishment. But for my own intense objection to the imposition of flogging, I would order it to you. I never have inflicted that punishment, but really in cases such as yours, it will be a question for me to consider as to whether I shall not have to do so. Thb* sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the Auckland prison and kept to hard labor {or five years."