SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1443, 2 May 1905, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor, Mr Justice I3^®& The half-yearly sitting of the Suprot Court opened yesterday morning befc Mr Justice Edwards, when the orimir business was taken. GRAND JURY. The following comprised the gra jurv : —Captain Tucker (foreman), Dickson, J. H. C. Boyd, L. Clayton, Foster, A. F, Mntthews, R. Johnston, Clark, E. Cbrisp, J. Coleman. G. Grant! O. McLauriD, G. J. Winter, W. F. Ora ford, F. T, Morgan, A. H. Wallis, C. Davies, W. Pettie, J. W. Bright, G. Eli< T. HoldeD, A. F. Kennedy and Vf. Adi W. Coopor and F. Parker were excui from attendance owing to illness, and B Willock on account of being a witu in one of the cases. HIS HONOR’S ADDRESS. In the course of his address to theGri Jury His Honor pointed out thataltboi the cases before the jury were not m* in number they were more or less o serious nature. Tbe first was agains man named James Bennett, who * charged with shooting with intent to 1 and it was for the jury to Bay whet there was sufficient evidence to send accused for trial. The evidence certai appeared to be weak as to whether the cused had discharged the weapon at person or not. It was not for the jury try the case, but if they were clearly opinion that there was not sufficient eence they should throw the bill out. most serious case on the calendar wa charge of murder against a domestic vant. It appeared that the accused, be on the eve of being delivered of a cb had taken a drive with a young mad. 1 left tho vehicle far a time and being c fined close to tbe roadway left the chili perish. To su bst antiato the charge of mm it was necessary that tbe child should h been born alive. According to the dence of-two medical men and anot witness who heard tbe cry of the cl the child appeared to have been born a; and it would ■ be their painful dnt; return a true bill. Whether such offence merited tbe penalty of death not a question for himself nor the jury decide. They had no discretion in matter, and could only leave the carr; out of the sentence, if the acoosed \ found guilty, to tbe higher power Governor-in-Council. It was neither the jury nor himself to determine matter. Another case to come before jury was against a yonng man of twi years of age, who was charged with hail ad carnal knowledge of a girl thir years and nine months of age. As jury were aware, it was an offence fc man to havo sexual intercourse wit girl under sixteen yearß of age, whe she consented or not. That tbe girl i sented would be no defence, although doubt if the girl were fully develops! might mitigate the punishment. It shi not, however, in the slightest degree ai the grand or the common jury, remaining cases on the list were of ordinary character, and would not pi difficult for the jury to deal with..... TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned true billi all the cases excepting that against Ja Bennett, who was charged with shoo with intent to kill.

SHOOTING WITE INTENT." . In the case of shooting with intent, foreman asked for His Honor’s directi pointing out that there was hardly"& thing to show that the accused intendec do harm. Had be intended to shoot man aimed at, he must have done so. His Honor replied that if the jury w satisfied that there was no intention, shoot anybody, it was their duty to thi out the bill. The point was one that i recently been dealt with by the Cour Appeal. After a brief retirement, the jury'’ turned no bill against the accused. COMMON JURORS. Tbe following common jurors w sworn :—Messrs W. O. McLean, T. Ef T. Howarth, J. H. Hill, G..H. Monaco. Larsen, M. Morgan, J. B. Joneß, O. Boland, W. Bell, F. W. Jones, J. E. Hi ton, E. A. Sidebottom, H. J. Busbnejl. K. Pasley, E. Harris, R. T. Seymour, Rushbrook, E. H. Featon, A. Thelwall, McFarlane, C. S. Haiues, W. Jones, Eade, T. McConnell, M. Foster,- G. Kells, C. H. Ambridge, W. A. Friar, F» Muir, G. Sheridan, M. G. Nasmith, J. Gittos, A. Dewing, T. Jackson, G. E. Bi B. T. Smith. ALLEGED MURDER. A yonng woman named. May Hoen was oharged that,on' the. 30th Noveml last at Waimata she' did murder a certi female child. Mr Nolan appeared for the proseentiand Mr Stock for the accused. j ' In answer to the charge accused, \w was weeping most bitterly, replied, “ \a guilty, lam guilty.” . , g)i Counsel for the defence, after' cdnferrii with the accused, asked for the pleas’ guilty to be .withdrawn and one of n guilty substituted, and this course w adopted. Tho following jury vwas empanelled tT. B. Sweet, R. Thelwell, M. Morgan, „V C. McLean, T. Jackson, J. R. Joneß, I Rushbrook, W. Jones, T. McConnell, I J. Buahneii, T. Elide, G. Morrice. Sevo other jurors called were challenged, ihre by the prosecution and four, by counsel fo the defence.. ■ , ■ • - - The evidence in the case was similar t that given in the Magistrate’s Court, am no good purpose can be served by repeat mg it.

In bis address on behalf of acoused. Ml Stock pointed out the responsibility thal rested with the jury, stating that in the event’of a verdict of murder' being returned the judge must sentence accused tc death.

His Honor said ' that he would direct he jury to bring in averdiet for no higher crime than manslaughter. Mr Stock further contended that tne mental condition of the girl after her confinement prevented her from knowing the consequence of her aot. In summing up Hie Honor direcSed»iha jury to bring in a verdict on the lesser charge. Counsel wished to urge that the youDg woman was not conscious of her" actions at the time, but this was hardlv tbe case. The witness Shellard stated that tho girl was only quieter and paler I when she returned to tbe trap, but otherwise there was no difference. Accusedwas also able to tell other witnesses what had happened. If the jury found that accused left the- child on tho roadside, intending to kill it, they should find her guilty of murder,- but if they , found that she merely abandoned it with the saving herself, they would return a verdict [of manslaughter. It was not desired to make the matter hard for the unhappy ; young creature, and his Honor considered the ends of justice would be met if a ver- t diet of manslaughter were returned. * The jury retired at half past two and at three o’clock returned to Court, returning a verdict of not guilty. '

| ALLEGED HOBSE-STEALING. I A stoutly built young native, named Wi | Paki Koroie, alias Matehaere, alias Wairemate, was arrainged on two charges c>i horsestealing and fatso pretences. Accused, who was cot represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty. t 5 The following jury was empanelled:— I W. Bell, F. W. Jones, W. G. Pasley, E.j Harris, G. Bull, M. L. Foster, O. EL Am-' bridge, J. B. Kells, F. P. Muir, A.: Tuohy, J. H. Gitfcos and W. A. Friar (foreman). Te Kani Pere, farmer, residing in Gisborne, stated that in November last ho hod a brown horse running at Tho horse was missod from the paddock, and he next saw it runniDg in a milk cart belonging to Mr Willan. Witness learned from Mr Willan that accused had sold V him tho horse.

James Lewie, laborer, gave corroborative evidence.

Greenwood Willan, farmer, rememberedaccused coming to him on November 18th ' y last. . He brought a brown horse which he offered to soil. At first witness would not

bay the ghorse, but finally arranged an exehangi, giving acoused ;£! and another horse. Acoused gave witness a receipt and went aA’ay. The horso was afterwards elaitned by To Kani Pore as his property. IBobert Norik, storekooper, residing at Waiobika, deposed that accused wont to bis store and'NdJered a horse for sale, fitness afterwarQß caw the horse Io the '’’ l"- I fjV.'S--'--''- > J ..

Court yard. It was the same horse a: that claimed by Te Kani Pere. Accused elected to give evidouco on hit Own behalf. Ho said : " I do not koow abont the trouble. - I did not sell ct&e flnrße.” The jury, without retiring, roturnod a verdict of guilty. His Honor said tho accused appeared to bo a bad young Maori. Ho had served 14 days for theft, and afterwards 12 months for forging and uttering. It was necessary to put acousod somewhere whoro ho would not bo ablo to do thoso tbiogs for a timo. Tho prisoner was sontenoed to throe years’ imprisonment with hard labor. In a seoond charge against tho acoused no ovidenco was offered.

THEFT FROM THE PERSON. Two natives, named Ngatai Wanon am Panikena Carr, wore ohurged with thof from the person. Acousod wore defendec by Mr W. L. Roes. Ngatai’ ploadoc not guilty, and Panikona guilty to stoalinf the ohequos, but not tho rnonoy. Tho offenoo took . place at To Rahui, in the Waiapu distiiot. Tho following jury was empanelled : E. N. Sidobotoom, Cl S. Haines, J. E. Newton, M. 3. Nasmith, J. Maofarlane, J. Larsen, T. Hay, E. H. Featon, R. T. Seymour, T. Howarth, J. H. Hill, and W. Bell. Mr G. Nasmith wa3 elected foreman.

James Boyoe, proprietor of the Teßahui Hotel, stated that the cheques produced, together with a purse containing 18s, • wore stolen from him on April stb. The oheque? had been given to him by his wife before she left for Waipiro. Shortly before dinner he wont into the yard, and remembered nothing further until he found himself lying on the couch in the sitting room. To Mr Bees: Ho could not recolleot anything that took place from the time he went out in the yard until he found him self on the sofa. Amy Boyoe, wife of the last witness, deposed that before leaving for Waipiro she gave her husband two cheques for £7 and £2, and the sum of £7 13s in money. The cheques produced were those she gave her husband. She was sure of tbis because I she did all her husband’s writing. The aooused were present when she put the j cheques in her husband’s inside pcoket. On one oheque she omitted to write the date, and this had been filled in in the cbeqne produced in Court. Okemati Aspinali, widow, stated that she was engaged as assistant at the Te Bahui Hotel. Ou the day in question she J/.’went to oall Mr Boyoe to dinner, and found ' him lying on the lawn. With the assistance of a native she carried him into the sitting room. She oould not say what was the matter with him. He was not drunk, but looked funny. Half an hour after she took Mr Boyoe into the sitting room, she saw the accused with him. Aooused afterwards rode away in the aireotion of Awanui. By Mr Bees : After she took Mr Boyoe into the room the accused went in. She did not see them come out, nor did she see them nntil they went away. Mr Bees asked for the witness’s depositions in the Magistrate’s Court to be put in, as her evidence that day did not ooineido with the statement previously made. John Norman Leslie, saddler at Awanui, remembered the 'accused coming to his shop on April stb. Panekena Carr purchased a pair of leggings, and tendered m payment a cheque for 117. Witness refused to take the oheque, because the date was omitted. He told Panekana to take the oheque back to Mr Boyoe and get him to insert the date, but not to do it himself. Tfiomas Benge, barman at the Sea View Hotel, Port Awanui, stated that 'on April 6th the accused visited the, hotel and oalled for drinks. Ngatai-Wanoa tendered in payment a cheque for’ £7. It was about four o’clock in tha' afternoon when aooused came in. Witness oashed the cheque and gave the money to Ngatai. Pironi Wahu, a native residing in the Waiapu district, deposed to seeing the accused at the Sea View Hotel. He saw Ngatai Wanoa oash a cheque for £7 and afterwards saw them dividing the money. To Mr Rees: Accused wore partly drunk. Panikana told witness that he had given Ngatai the sum of fifteen shillings

Te Kori Kirikahu deposed that he was at the Rose Hotel in company with the accused.' Panikena gave him a cheque foe £2, remarking, “ you shout for us and give mo the change," as I owe something in the hotel.” Witness did this and afterwards gave the change to Panikena. ■David Watt Duff, proprietor of the Rose Hotel, gave corroborative evidence. Constable W. Kelly deposed to obtaining a cheque for *£2from the last witness and one from the witness Benge. He afterwards saw Ngatai, who admitting receivI ing a cheque for £7 from Panikena, but stated that he did not know where the latter got it from. Later witness interviewed Panikena, who denied having given Ngatai the cheque. Ho showed Panikena the cheque and accused said that he had never seen it before. In addressing the jury Mr Rees pointed out that the defence of Panikena was that he knew nothing about the cheques being stolen, and only tendered one of them at Panikena’s request. Panikena Carr, one of the accused, stated that ho had pleaded guilty to the theft of one of the cheques. Ho remembered drinking in the hotel at Te Rahui. He saw Mrs Boyce give her husband the cheques, which she placed inside his waist- . coat. Witness went and took the cheques ifrom Boyce when ho wa3 asleep. His Honor: The inference is that he was drunk. It is a matter of public interest to know whether he was drunk. Mr Rees : It is clear upon tho face of the depositions that such was tho case. To the wiiDess : 'Was Boyce drunk or sober at the time you took the cheques ? Witness : I cannot say whether he was drunk or not; ho was sleeping. To Mr Nolan : He did not buy leggings from Leslie because he considered them too dear. He did not koow anything abont tho. date being wanting on the cheque, nor remembered Leslie telling him that he mast take the cheque back to Mr Boyce to have the matter put right. He did not toll Ngatai where he got the cheque from nor anything about it. There were a great many natives at tho To Rahui hotel. He could not remember how much ho spent at the hotel. He had £9 in notes given to him by Apirana Ngata. He may have spont a few shillings in paji ig' for a jug of beer. Witness took some of the notes to Awauui. He did not see Boyce carried into tho sitting room, but heard that ho had fallen down and boon taken in. Witness left Te Rahui with Ijlgatai, as they were returning homo together. Tho accused Ngatai Wanoa was also called.by Mr Rees. He stated that he remembered being at the To Rahui hotel on April sth with other natives. The first time ho saw the cheque for £7 was when he handed it to witness to eash at the Sea View hotel'at Awanui. He did not know how Panikena come by the cheque. By Mr Nolan : He was outside the Sea View Hotel when Panikona gave him tho cheque. He remembered beiDg at Leslie’s and seeing a document passed to Leslie, but he could not say that it was a cheque. Mr Rees contended that there was no evidence to connect Ngatai with the theft of the cheques excepting that of Mrs Aspinall, and this could not be relied upon owing to the contradictory statements which she had made, for which reason he had asked for tho depositions to be put in. Mr Nolan replied at some length, pointing out that the jury were asked by Mr Rees to believe the evidence of men who hod themselves admitted they were drunk rather than that of respectable witnesses. The evidence of Mrs Aspioall, who was herself a Maori, was worthy of every consideration, for she at least was sober, whilst the accused were too drunk to look after their own money, and therefore gave it to other people. He contended that it was unreasonable to suppose that Ngatai Was not connected with the theft. His Honor, in Bumming up, said that there was not much evideoce against Ngatai, although the circumstances might afford snspioions. The accused had made explanation in regard to how came to change the cheque, and it was Afc the jury to be satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was connected wish the theft before they convioted him. Personally, he advised the jury to acquit the prisoner.' Commenting on the evidence of the witness Boyce his Honor said that it WOS palpable that the licensee of tho hotel was drunk at the time. Had bo any doubts upon tho evidence of the witness Mrs Aspioall convinced him of the fact. It was plain that-the' man was drunk. He

I oortainly would not have boon robbed had [ bo been sober as a lioonseo of an hotel sbonld have boon. By being in this condition he had aided tho crimo and put tho country to groat oxpouse. If tho jury had any reasonable doubt as to tho guilt of tho aocusod it was thoir duty to acquit him. Tho jury aftor a short deliberation returned a.vordiot of not guilty, and tho accused Ngsitai was discharged. Sentence on Panikona Carr was deferred. HORSESTEALING.

A native named Honaro Waititi plead guilty to a ohargo of horsestealing at Pc Awanui, and wos remanded for sontonoc FALSE PRETENCES. .Henry George Lomax, describe as a shock-dealer,. on two charges t false pretences, pleaded guilty, Mr \V> L. Rees appeared for Ik rtcused, and stated that lie desires Co place two or three points bcfori CJis Honor in mitigation of the sen Of tllO Court Tho SIPIMIROf

iLLLc ui mu vuui 0,. iiiuu aiuuhuu. had business transactions with. a local t,rm,: the lirst two of which had proved satisfactory to both parties. Other transactions followed, the firm advancing first the sum of £l2O and afterwards £750. Tho idea suddenly dawned ‘upon the mind of the prisoner that money’ was , very plentiful in .Gisborne, and he could Obtain it in this way,. The sums J mentioned had been paid to the credit I

much money seemed to absolutely overcome him. The cheques were cashed ini Gisborne, but tho greatei I j-Gition of .the money had been refunded by accused prior to bis arrest. A." representative of tlie ‘firm in question, hearing that tho accused had cashed a cheque for a large amount au'd left the town,, followed him and recovered in cash over £700.' .Counsel submitted that there was not in .tho first instance when the money, was advanced the slightest intention on the garb jf accused to embezzle it, hut tho possession of such a large sum :iad completely, turned ‘accused’s : 'riir* rvivlv. nrnm*. I

at tee the possession of the juoney, when the temptation proved .too strong* /I3je accused, by. the ‘.untrammelled possession of something aver £BOO seemed to have suddenly brought about) his own ruin and constrained him to yield ,to the temptalion ,to hold money] pot his own. Counsel added that ne hardly ‘veil-

lumed to ask for probation, but he trusted tho circumstances, mentioned would .w.eigli in the mind of His Hicnor when passing , sentence. His Hopor asked. for the report , of the probation officer, receiving the I reply that accused was a stranger in this district, anfd Nothing so far had been, ascertained in regard to him. I A? statement could bo-furnisjbod in a I Hay or ssoi" i-”’ j •The accused .was remanded for sen- I terce until .to-m6rrow. : j

I ALLEGED CARNAL KNOWLEDGE .Ai young main named William Henry frozen was • charged iwich ‘carnally, knowing a child of thirteen) years and nine,.months. Thb following jury was empanelled : Messrs Ce Sheridan (foreman)*, ■W. ‘Jones, H-, J. BuishnelX, C. <l. Boland*. T. Eade,' T. Jackson, H- Rushbrook, W. O. McLean 1 , M. L. Foster, J, U Gittos, T, McConnell, and G. 11. Morice. The _heari : ng of the case was adjourned until this morning*