SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2079, 14 May 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SITTINGS. j Tho half-yearly sitting of the Supremo Court, commenced at in Courthouse yesterday. Mi. Justice Donniston being on tho liencli. GRAND JURY. j Tho following Grand Jury «’«« empanelled: ' Rdwaid ® i.uilnt'l’ George Grant. George E. dut, R. J. Reynolds F. 1- *{ or 6“' A. R. Muir, v. A. Pyl«|, * • »• "' *' her, Fred. Parker, John Colonan (foreman), Jas. Wlunray, Win. J ettio, Richard Shorratt, AV. G. M . elanrin, David Kn'kpa trick, J.■ Kells, U. T. Symes, AV. F. Crawl old, A. L. Muir, C: P. Davies, hud .HI. Johnston. . j Tho Judge, addressing the Gianu Jury, congratulated tho district on tho smallness of tho calender. Nono of tho charges ivas ol a sorious nature. Ho especially congratulated the district on tho absence of charges of offences against wonion and children. The cases wore all ol u simple nature. His Honor touched on the evidence in each caso and lound in each that the course ol tho Giand Jury was clear. . True bills woro brought in m all tho criminal cases. UNNATURAL OFFENCE. Rutono, 14 years of ago, charged with an unnatural olfonco, appeared for sentence. , _ Accused, showing cause why sentence should not be passed said ho was not guilty ol tho ollonco, had not. attempted it and knew nothing of it. Ho had been persuaded at Port Awanui to plead guilty. A statement made ami signed by accused was produced. Accused admitted the signature was his. ' Jhe statement was his, ho said. In reply to the Bench accused said the statement was true. The clause in tho statement regarding the oflcnco was not true. In further reply to the Judgo accused admitted his intention of committing tho offence. Tho Judge said tlio proper sentence for the offence was a sound flogging and ho regretted lie could not order it. On account of his years, accused would liot ho sent to gaol or to a reformatory. Accused would he convicted aiul discharged, to come up for sentence when called upon, one security of £SO being required. ALLEGED HORSE-STEALING. Joe Riley (Mr. Stock) appeared to answer a charge of stealing a horse valued at £7. Air. Nolan (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the prosecution. , The following jury were empannelled: C. Blackburn (foreman), S. McConnell, J. E. McKinley, T. AlcConnel, E. AA'illiams, Robt. C. Miller, A\’. Allen, Tv. H. Humphries, Rees Jones, Percival Barker, Jas. Blance, J. J. Brosnalian, Jas. Campbell. Mr. , Nolan, addressing the jury, said the person who "owned the horse (Kirima Hikihiki) said he gave no authority to accused to sell the horse. The accused said he had/ got the horse in a gilt. There were two foals concerned and lie asked that they should be closely followed. The only question for them to settle was whether accused was really the owner of the horse and able to get rid of it by sale. Kirima Hikihiki, called by Air. Nolan, stated that he was present at the hearing of the case at AVaipiro'. Saw a black mare there belonging to himself. Owned the mother of this mare. Got the mother from Jimmy AValker. Before then the mare had been running at Tuparoa. AA'licu he missed the mare, heard that accused had i ta'ken the horse and summoned him. ■ Nobody had any authority to sell the ■ mare. Cross-examined: Got the mother from AA’alkcr a great many years a g 0 —.ho could not say how many. ' When bought she had a foal at foot. Alissed tho horse a fortnight before " he was told it had been stolen. There were many other horses running with the one in question: The horse was branded with witness’s brand. Presumed accused was present at the branding. Did not tell accused while the branding was going on that it was to be his (accused’s). Kerch; and accused broke in tho horse. Witness hud tho right over the horse, which was run in a common field. Accused may have been riding .the horse ever since it was broken, but witness had not given him authority so to do. Knew of nobody else who had used the horse. Witness allowed he had a poor memory—lie was old. Remembered lending the mother to T’amaliore, a nephew, for breeding from. Taniahere got two foals, but witness did not claim them from him. Knew Mr. Ludbrook of .AVaipiro, who paid rent for native land ho occupied. Witness had never claimed for rent which had already been paid. Air. Ludbrook always demanded that a native clergyman be present when rent was paid. This was because witness was forgetful. Re-eaxmincd: Was sure ho had not given the horse to accused or given him authority to sell it. Ahipene Aleka, for-the prosecution, said he saw the horse produced at AVaipiro Bay. That was the first foal after it got into Kirima’s hands. It was at foot when the mare was bought from Walker. Cross-examined: Saw the horse running at Tuparoa. " The horses in the paddock did not all belong to Kirima. Kirima handed thp horse to accused to break in. Could not s>.y that accused had a right to the use of the horse. Accused frequently used the horse in question. * Re-examined: . Could not say how long the horse had been broken in. By .the Bench: The horse was between three, and four years old. Abraham" Tamalicre, examined for the prosecution, said lie had a good deal to do with Kirima. AA’itness would know of any dealing in horses no had. Knew nobody besides Kirima who had any right to the horse. Knew positively the horse belonged to Kirima. Had seen accused riding the horse. Could not say positively how long the horse had been broken, but it was a considerable time. . By the Bench: Tho horse was between three and four years old. Cross-examined : The motlier had two since. AA’itness had a loan of the mother and bred two foals. Kirima once claimed tho foals from witness. 1 Kirima was very forgetful.

By the Bench: Kirima told, some people at one tinio to take the mother and the two foals,, but witness objected to that action. Witness claimed that the foals were his . Re-examijipd; Kirima had said nothing about the matter since. Constable Chas. Melsopp, lor the prosecution, said he was stationed at I'ort Aiyanui. Had dealings with accused in January hist- Bought the horse produced at the Waipiro Bay sitting.v First saw accused oil January 29tli. Ho was in charge of the native constable. He was admitted to bail, and rode away on the horse in question. Later saw acciiood at Te Horo and accusefl asked him if lio wanted a horse. Witness replied that he did and accused'offered him the liorso lie was riding. Accused said it was his own horse, having beeiß gii en to him by his grandfather Kirima. tic stated that the native constable knew it belonged to him. Cross-examined; Accused said he wanted money to defend his Court case. Accused' stated Kirima gave him the horse when it was broken. George Kirk, examined for the .prosecution, said 1)0 was g storekeeper at Port Awanui. Remembered accused coming to the'store in February last with an order for Bom Melsopp. His. wife was with bun. M it ness asked if accused would pay something off his account, but said the horse was his wife’s: The wife signed the receipt lor the money. Mr. Stock, opening Ins case, saul lie could leave the case with the jury because the evidence for the prosecution was so weak. „ . . The accused >y‘as flip first witness called for the defence, He W!* l ttefc when Kirima bought the, mother she was in foal. Heard she-foaled tnice weeks after being bought. Kmma was a grand-uncle of witness, \\jicn the foal was being branded lvirnna toid witness to brand it as ms own. Kirima’s brand wiis "ri pair of O s on the cheek. The liorSp pjir flri.f Bon was branded oil the shoulder ftjid |h£ O’s were one above the other, making an S. This was done to show trie horse belonged to witness. About eight. months after branding, started to tame the horse, and eighteen months after that cpmm&pced -jjdnig the horse. -Had been riding U for the past two years up to the time ol sale. Kirima Fad never interviewed witness about* the matter from the time of ijrauilang. Gave the horse to his wife. ißiO'.been jnarried about a year. Gave {he horse to ms about four mbiithsjafter Ins marriage. Witness opened negotiations ioi trie sale to Wiispßl?,,bis wile to Hie sale. After tjie S3f? KB came to witness’, anil asked wnj m had sold ."jii.s .(Kirima- s) borse, witness replying that he ownec. vh.e liorso. '— ; Cross-examined: When negotiating with Melsopp told, him lie had given the horse to his wife. Was mained at Tuparoa by. Moari custom. IDs wife’s parents ii'ed at luparoa _ ? did not pome from the Maikato. ■ Constable'Bakvr that if the horse had been Kirinia’s property he Ifpuld no have sold it but as it Svas his rig sold it. Was .handling the horse foi about six months .riefore he startc l to break if. He bad three horses ° f Apikira' 1 examined, said

slit) was present when tlio horso was 'n-undod. Ivirinia’s brund was an 0 >n each cheek of the animal. At the minding Kirima • told accused to mind the hoi.se for himself. Cross-examined: Accused was her ion. Did not think Ahipeno was present at tlio branding. The horse in question was the one dropped son .after the purchase of the horse by Kirima from Walker. Jack Grace, junr., examined, said ho was present at tho branding of the horso, and assisted in tho operation. Kirima told accused to brand the horse for himsolf. Witness was a distant rolativo of accused. Both belonged to tho same liapii. Cross-examined: Tho only ones present at the branding wore witness, accused, Ahipeno junr., and Apikira. Attended at tho branding on tho invitation of Kirima, who said tho liorso was to be given to accused. Did not toll tho Court at Waipiro oliat Kirima said the horse was to be branded for accused. Forgot to tell tho Court at Waipiro that Ahipono junr w./s present at tho branding. Had not now forgotten tho names of any others who wore prodent. Constable Melsopp, recalled by Mr. Nolan, said accused told witness the horse belonged to him. Ilis wife was present, and accused asked her whether he should sell the horse. Ahipeno Melca, recalled by Mr. Nolan, said ho was not present at tho branding—Ahipeno junr, was. Mr. Stock, addressing the jury, said tho only question for discussion was whether accused had an honest belief that Kirima had given him the liorso. The evidence for the prosecution showed that when the horso was bought there was a foal at foot, while accused said it was in foal when bought. The evidence supporting tho fact that Kirima was forgetful was very strong. In view of the fact that Kirima personally admitted his memory was very bad, how could the jury believe him as against the witnesses on tlio other side, who swore positively that at the branding Kirima gave tlio liorso to accused. Tho brand on tho horse was also strong proof that it belonged to accused, and tho assertion that he had presented it to his wife was also well supported. Mr. Nolan said that tho evidence seemed strong that the horse in.question remained the property of Kirima all the tinio. The two foals which the Maori clergyman bred Kirima allowed were not liis, but as soon as lie found this horse had been sold he lint tho matter in tho hands or the police. It was highly improbable that Kirima would be allowed by lus friends to bring a charge of theft unless the- were all convinced that Knima owned the horse. It was haid to believe that accused handled the horse when it-was under eighteen months especially on a six thousand acre run. It was not until accused wont to Kirk that the wiie s ownership was mentioned. It was worthy of note that three witnesses for the defence made Kirima. give the horse to accused in the self-same sentence. To liis mind it seemed that the sentence bad been learnt by heart since the hearing at Waipiro. His Honor, addressing the jury, said there seemed tho Question of. a mistaken holiest belief in the"ownership of 'the horse. If accued’s story was true lie was justified in selling the horse. Mention of Kirima’s lack of memory had been made, and tho jury had to decide whether it _ was likely Kirima would forget the gift to accused tluee years previously of a liorso. As for the direct evidence was that of Kirima against tho witnesses for the defence. From -the face that accused sold tho horse as liis own it was open for tho jury to deduct that the wife had no property in it, and when the order was presented at tho store there was a potent reason -why accused' should say the horse was his wife’s. After a short retirement tho jury returned a verdict of . IL Not guilty” and the accused was discharged. ALLEGED THEFT. D. Blythe McEwan was arraigned on a charge of stealing a lurse, saddle and bridle valued at £l4, llie property ol David Morrison. The following jury was empanelled: G. K. Pasley (foreman), Wm. S. Fisher, Win. L. Mitchell, Frank \\ . Pettio, J. It. 0. Parker, Aicbibakl Kirk, Wm. Lewis, David Lougher : Arthur J. Cooper and Ohas. E. Hiding. Mr. W. L. Itces appeared tor accused, and Mr. Nolan represented the Crown. Mr. Nolan, opening the cate, tan accused was a canvasser for a life insurance office. Accused wished tc make a journey, and received a loai: of a horse, saddle and bridle from Dr, Morrison. While tip the i. ::att accused got rid of the horse, saddle and bridle. The first witness for the prosecution was Dr. David Morrison. H< | said the representative of the . insurance company introduced accused tc witness for the purpose of getting witness to lend him £2O to enable liin: to go to the country so that ho might do more business than he could ii: Gisborne. Did not feel disposed tc lend tlio cash, hut bought a horse saddle and bridle for £l4 and leni accused the remanent £6. The cone pnny’s representative said he would [bo responsible for half of .any loss occasioned. After paying for the goods and handing £6 to accused heard nothing more until he saw that tiie horse was up for sale. Cross-examined: Wished to assist accused when he asked for a loan. The company representative gave witness a promissory note for. £lO when the horse was sold. This was only-a security. His idea in personally buying the horse was to have some security for ids loan. He had now the horse, saddle and bridle in his possession. The horse had since been sold. Before the jnirchase of tho horse might have said to accused that lie could pay for the horse when he returned from the coast. H. R. H. De Costa, examined, said that in January last lie was Gisborne representative of the A.M.P. Society. Accused had been hanging about Gisborne for some time and witness thought he should go up tho Coast and do something. Accused and lie met Dr. Morrison and came to the agreement detailed by the previous

Cross-examined: Declined to advance the whole of the money. Dr. Morrison personally bought the. horse —it was his property. Did not hear Dr. Morrison make any statement abont payment for the horse. Had since paid his share of the loss. I'ho horse was sold by Dr. Morrison for £7 5 s. John H. Stoddart, examined, said that he sold a horse, saddle, and bridle to Dr. Morrison for £l4, and on his suggestion made the receipt out in his l'ayor. The same evening as the sale took place handed the whole over to accused, Cross-examined: Dr. Morrison said something about accused being able to pay for the horse when ho came back from the coast. Joseph James Fry, travelling representative for Common, Shelton and Coy., said he saw accused in Tolaga Hay in March, 1906. Accused was sneaking to one Jamieson. Wetness suggested that instead of Jamieson taking over the horse on account of money owed, accused should be allowed to return to Gisborne and got rid of it there. Accused and .witness returned to Gisborne. Accused owed witness money'. Three days alter they can’io to Gisborne accused stated that lie had no money, and tlujt if a receipt was given for the amount ow•jng witness coitld liave the horse. Duo of the proprietors of the British Umpire stables bought the saddle and liridlc. , . . ' Alexander Harry Clark, proprietor of the British Empire stables, examined, said bo bought tlio saddle and bridle. . , , . Accused was examined on bis own belialf by Mr. Decs. He understood that tile horse bad been bought lor him. Some days previous to seeing Dr Morrison witness .had approached Stoddart about getting a horse. Made the ■ agreement detailed by. Dr. Morrison. Quite understand that there was a loan of £2O and that the horse was bis property. Dr. Morrison said, when negotiations were finished that repayment might he made when he (witness) came back. ' ■ Cross-examined : Did not understand that I)r. Morrison bought the horse and'leiif it to him. Stoddart at first wished the receipt made out in favor of but Dr. Morrison asked that it he made in liis favor. Air. Rees, addressing the jury, said the only question to be decided was whether accused was justified m the belief that the' Jiprsj? was his to illsnose of os he.wished, .fo his .mind it was not inconsistent with the contention that the accused thought £2O had been loaned to linn . that Dr. Morrison had taken steps to have -a security. The. action pf accused in selling' the horse in the town where Dr. Morrison lived' showed that lie thought lie was acting honestly. Air: Noiau said the evidence clearly showed that the horse had been bought by Dr.‘ Morrison, and that accused’s subsequent use • of the. horse was [lie.result of a loan ol tl« horse from Dr,'Alorrlson, F,otJi All. De Cotta and Dr. Morrison had refused to make a loan of money to accused. It was noteworthy that the cash advanced was not claimed for. - His Honor, summing up, said that all the evidence showed that Dr. .Morrison took some care to see that lie retained property ju thg horse, lo substantiate the ’contention that tliere was a loan ot £2O it would be necessary to prove that all parties so

understood and that tho horse was bought by aeousod. The question ior the iury to decide was whether ac “ oiusocl could reasonably presumo that ,the horse was his own property. After an adjournment of about three-jciiiactors of an hour, the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty, with a recommendation of mercy. bentonco will bo passed this morning. Tho Court then adjourned.

ProBS Association, WELLINGTON, last night. In tho Supremo Court the grand jury returned no bill in the case or Matilda Morris, .charged with child murder at Otaki. George Ernest Kelly, who has been previously convicted of boing an idle and disorderly person, pleaded not guilty to being a rogue and vagabond, and tlio consort of reputed thieves. .l’’ l y returned a verdict of guilty. Ibe prisoner, who had been in gaol awaiting trial two months, was sentenced to four additional months. Ada Smith was found guilty with a recommendation to mercy on a charge ol receiving stolen property, and lemanded till to-morrow. CHRISTCHURCH, yesterday. In the Supreme Court 1 homes Coogan! charged with breaking and entf'ri’mr a dwelling was found guilty, lent mice was deferred. Lewis Smith nleadod not guilty to assaulting and robbing Polly Money o nhoard the s.s. Wai'kare on March 29. Accused uas alleged to have entered the woman s cabin at four o’clock in the morning, assaulted her, and stolon her jiuise. The hearing is proceeding. CHRISTCHURCH, last night. At the Supreme Court to-day 1 homas Coogan, for breaking and entcrjnjr was sentenced to 12 montlis. Walter Lewis Smith, for aßS j?i^H lfe ’og jrjr] oil the s.s. Waikare on> Miaicli 2J and robbing her of £3 8s 6d, was sentenced to three years haul laboi. The accused had served sentences foi assault in Australia. Andrew Edward Ward was found guilty of obtaining sums of £5 and £U -fromin woman by false pretences. As. there was another indictment against the accused, the Judge deferred passing sentence. The Grand Jury found no bill in the oases of manslaughtei against AVilliam Barnard Rhodes Moorhen so and Edith Matlieson Alalzard.