SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2080, 15 May 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SITTINGS.

The Supreme Court resumed at 10 oc’clook yesterday morning. SENTENCE. David Blytlio McEwan, who hud been found guilty the previous evening on ft charge of stealing a hens > saddle and bridle was put) forward lei M ’mi' U, \V. L. Rees, oil accused’s behalf, urged that tho- offpnoo was liuiiulv tlio result of diinking . . • Accused lmd boon in gaol ioi “W 1 " months, as ho could not got bail. lj gentleman in Carterton who had 1. " viously employed accused was willing to take him back to liis sorvico. His Honor said that m »‘iy ™ » ho would havo treated tlio oilonco as a first one, and in view, ol tho tacts that so long a torin in gaol had been served and that tho jury had recommended ’ accused to morcy the Court would inflict no further punishment. Accused was convicted and discluuged, to come up for sentence! when called upon. , . ~ , His Honor, ill closing, mentioned that ho thought Magistrates should commit prisoners to places whore a sitting of the Supreme Court is hold soonest after the hearing by the Magistrate. ALLEGED THEFT FROM THE PERSON. .

Joo Riley was put forward to answer a chargo of having stolon a cheque for £7 from Hono Hoke at luparoa in January, and of having received the money. Accusod pleaded “Not Guilty.” , The following jury was empanncllod: Herbert E. Johnston (foreman), Alex. Martin, Pcrcival Barker, John D. Harries, Samuel McConnell, Geo. Honzlor, Win. Lewis, Edward O Neill, Tlios. Baker, Alex. H. Clark, Rees Jonhs and Chas. E. Olding. Mr. Nolan appeared for the Crown and Mr. Stock for accused. Ilono Hoke, examined by Mr. Nolan, said he was a laborer residing at Tokomaru. Prior to January had been working for Mr. Williams. Lelt work oil January 25th and went to Waipiro. Got a cheque for £9 from Mr. Williams. At Waipiro went into Mr. Murphy’s hotel, and requested ’refreshment's for himself and Ins friends. Tho change given consisted of a cheque for £7, and the rest in silver. After awhile witness and some of his friends left for Tuparoa. At Tuparoa witness fell off his horse. Tho accused took witness to his (accused’s) kainga. When he arrived there he was oft'ored food but he refused it—he was not desirous of eating. Accused made a bed for witness in his kitchen. Witness slept soundly all night. When he woke in the morning ho felt for his cheque and found it was gone. He had put it in an outside breast pocket of liis coat Went to accused’s house, being under the impression that some of his friends had tho cheque. Left accused’s place and went to Waiapu. Found one of liis friends here, but he (lid not have the cheque. Sent a telephone message to Mr. Murphy, and got from him the number of the cheque. Had the cheque when lie arrived at Tuparoa. Did not give it to accused, who had no right over it. Cross-examined: Was drunk when he arrived at Tuparoa and when his liorso stumbled he fell off. When lie, fell off none of the friends who were with him helped him, hut olio went with him to the cook house. Was led or assisted along to tho cook house. Did not ask for food, sayiiiy lie was hungry. Saw accused’s wife preparing food. .This was offered to him hut lie refused it. Did not want to eat, and therefore did licit notice what the food was. Did not insistently tell accused that ho would not have pawn, but must have meat, lie was very drunk. Accused and lie did not converse much. In the cook house did not- take out the cheque and ask accused to buy a tin of meat. Accused and liis wife and other persons whom witness could not remember were in the cook house. In the morning accused called witness into his wliare. Acccused did not say it was wrong for witness to get drunk because of his youth. Accused said nothing about tho cheque which had beeou handed to him. At a race meeting' on the following Saturday met accused, who was calling out the items on the programme. Acccused did not on that occasion ask witness if he wanted any of his money. Oil tlio following Monday witness and a friend went, to accused’s house, but did not see accused or his wife. Re-examined: Never told accused that the money had been lost: Accused never spoke to witness about the money.-: To Rata, Native constable at Tuparoa, examined, said ho wont to Stoko’s Hotel on January 29tli to search for the cheque which Heke said he had lost. After getting the cheque witness and Constable Baker went to accused’s house, and asked him where the cheque was that be had cashed. Accused had endorsed the cheque when lie' cashed it. Accused denied that he had written the endorsement. Constable Baker got accused to write his name in his notebook, and this and the endorsement were identical. Accused denied having cashed tho cheque but; admitted doing so after his signature was taken. Witness then asked where the balance of the change was. Accused said lie had spent £4 and banked £3. Witness told accused that the cheque belonged to Heke. Asked why lie '• had not returned fleke’s money accused said Heke had given him tho money to buy meat and other articles. Cross-examined: Did not ask accused if ho knew Heke. Asked accused if he hail cashed a cheque of Hoke. Told accused that tho cheque belonged to the young fellow who had fallen off his horse and been taken to accused’s cook house. Then accused admitted cashing the cheque.. It was only when he knew lie was cornered that accused admitted, the act.

Constable G. T. Baker, stationed iit Waipiro, gave evidence of taking possession of the cheque. Stokes did not know, who had cashed the cheque —it had been cashed on race day. Went to accused and when asked if lie had cashed any cheques during the jiast week accused said lie had not. Got accused’s signature and when it and the endorsement were shown to him together accused said tho writing on tho back of the cheque was liis, though lie had previously denied it. Accused also stated that ho had cashed the cheque on the day of the races. He said ho had banked £3 that morning. Did not mention Heke to accused. Cross-examined: Did not ask accused if be lia deashed a cheque of iTckc’s. Did not' hear any reference to the cheque as belonging to the young man who had fallen off his horse.

Re-examined: Accused could speak and understand English—-he was an old Te Auto boy. Accused, examined on liis own behalf, said that on the evening of January 24th, just as they were finishing their food the children shouted out that somobody had fallicu off his horse. Some of the younger ones went to the assistance of -the fallen mail, who asked to be shown accused’s house. Witness brought tho man to the house. He did not know his name but knew him by sight. Advised Hdko to stay for the night as ho was inebriated. Heke asked for food and witness’s wife started to prepare some. When Heke saw it was only pawn he said lie ' could only relish soup or meat of some sort. Witness said he bad no meat. Hpke asked witness to buy some meat from tlio store, but witness said it was closed. Heke then took out a cheque and told witness to buy a tin of meat, have a drink for himself and return the rest. Then Heke asked witness to take charge of tlifi cheque as lie was a friend of hisj. When witness got the cheque, lie wrote his name on the back of it—his mother had previously lost p £lO cheque. Wrote his name on flip cheque to make sure he did not lose the’cheque- Heke kept on asking that the cheque be cashed. Witness got the meat and the drink and went home again. Said to Heke, “Here is the balance of your money.” Heke said that he wished witness tp take charge of tlio money. Witness took charge of the money. Witness’s wife was-present at the time... His wife and liis mother were present when Heke insisted on having meat: On the Friday morning Hekp was passing witness's window and lie came in when witness called lifru. Witness chided him for drinking so much and asked him if he remembered the money he had left with him. Heke N suiil ho did, but would not take it, saying that he would leave it with witness' until the sports on the following Saturday. At the sports witness asked Heke if he wanted any of liis money but he said he did not. Te Mate Whitu was present when this occurred. Witness had the money with him at the sports. On* Monday intended to see Heke regarding the'moiiey. but his saddle was in disrepair. Heke sa\V witness’s wife on Monday. On Tuesday witness put £3 in the bank and tlie balance of the cheque was left) in Ins Sunday, coat pocket. When the police arrived their first question was whether he knew Hone Heke and witness replied that lie did not. They then asked witness if he had cashed a cheque of Helve’s ai;d' ho replied in the negative. The police , tneii ftskpcl him to "write his name in a note-book. They then aSjsed him if he remember-

ed tho young man who had fallen off liis horse and boon taken into wit- ; ness’s kitchen. Witness replied that , In know such u person, hut did not - know him as Heke. AVitnoss then told tho polico he had cashod tho chc- ; quo. The constables then asked : where tlio change was, and witness said £3 odd was in his Sunday coat pocket. - - Oross-oxamincd: Hollo fell off Ins horse oil Thursday. Witness 'saw liinv early on Friday morning and again oil Saturday. Spoke to Hoke only once on Saturday. When calling to him on Saturday did not mention Hoko by name lint mado a motion towards him: Tlioro was horse-racing nfc tlio sports hut no betting. Tlio lining of his suddlo had boon torn on Sunday by a dog making it unfit) for use on Monday. Tlie saddlor took from 11 o’clock to 4 o’clock to ropnir though ho did not work on it all tlio time. Intended to visit Mangahania oil Monday to see some friends, and expected to seo Heke there, bocauso ho had told witness lie would bo tliore. When tho police searched f witness they found 16s on him—his own money. Bolero ho was searched was not allowed to change liis clothes. Was arrested in the mooting liouso, his private wliare, whore the bash was, being ton chains away. The polico had never asked witness to hand over tlio money. Was at present) wearing his Sunday coat. Tlie cash was not in the pocket. Tlio inonoy was given to a distant rolativo to look after. The cheque was cashed on the same evening as Hoko fell off his horse. More Parae, wife of accused, examined, said slio wont out to Heke when ho fell off his horse. Heke asked for accused, and witness took him to accused. Witness corroborated her husband’s account of Hoke’s insistence on having meat. Hoko took something out of liis breastpocket and gave it to accused. Next morning Hoko came into their bedroom, and accused asked him if lie remembered what he had given linn on tho previous evening. Heke said lie did. hut loft the money with accused, saying lie would get it when ho wanted it. A few days afterwards asked for accused when lie was not at homo. . Cross-examined: It was in tlio kitchen that Hoko gave accused what witness took to ho a cheque. Gould not say if it was usual for accused to have a fountain pen behind liis ear just after tea-time, hut ho sometimes had it about him. Accused Gould have the -pen on liis porson tUmewhore on the occasion in question, hut did not see him writing with it. Accused always put liis name on the back of his cheques. When accused was taken by tile police he was not wearing liis Sunday coat. Apikira, mother of accused, examined, said she saw Heke fall off his horse. Witness corroborated the accounts given by the two previous witnesses. Te Mate Whitu, examined, said lie was present at the sports at Tuparoa. Saw Heke there. Heard a conversation between accused and Heke. Accused asked Heke if ho wanted money. Heard no reply. Was no relation of accused. Cross-examined: Heard no more than he had stated. Constable Baker, re-callcd, said the accused said ho had spoilt all the uionoy oxcopt what had been banked. After searching accused he was allowed to go home and change liis clothes before proceeding to Awanui. Mr. Stock, addressing the jury, said that accused’s endorsement of tlie cheque was strong evidence of his honesty in tho matter. Mr. Nolan argued that one way or the other tho money was only given to accused to look after. His Honor said accused was charged with stealing tho cheque and not tho money. The question to be decided was whether or not the cheque was stolen. Tho second charge of Hqceiving might only bo one of failing to account. Mr. Nolan submitted to the jury that, the evidence for tho defence showed that Heke was in a fairly sober state. It should be noted that although accused had every opportunitv of making restitution of tlie dasli he hold in hand ho did not do so. Without retiring the jury brought in a verdict of “Guilty.” Mr. Nolan stated that accused had onco previously been convicted of falso pretences. His Honor said tho offonce was ail impudent one, and tlio only more impudent thing was tlie defence set up. Accused would be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

The Court then adjourned till 2.15 o’clock.

ALLEGED FORGERY AND UTTER ING.

Jack Ferris was charged with forgery and uttering at Tuparoa on or about September 13th, 1906. Accused pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr. Nolan appeared for the Crown and Mr. W. D. Lysnar for accused. The following jury was enipannelleil: Edawril Williams (foreman), J. It. C. Parker, Alex. Mcßeatli, John E. McKinley, Kenneth Campbell, Kenneth H. Humphries, Jas. Campbell, Wm. S. Davidson, Win. Allen, Win. H. Craig, David Lougher, Frank \V. Pettie. Oil tlio motion of Mr. Lysnar witnesses in tho case were ordered out of court.

Kenneth G. Williams was the. first witness examined for the prosecution. Accused was among some men who took a lnisli-felling contract from witness. Remembered accused bringing in an order. Accused said there was £2O for himself and £4 for liis wife. Cross-examined: Could not remember receiving the order in a sealed envelope, and breaking the seal. It might have been in a sealed envelope. Iliiora Wliomia, examined, said he was a mate of accused in a felling ■contract for the last witness. There were a number of them in tlie contract and worked for some time. In September accused suggested that he might withdraw from the contract as he was ill. He would not consider taking a. short spell and coming back to work as lie felt too ill. They went into accounts and found there was £l7 due to accused and £4 to liis wife, who had done work in the cook house. Accusod made out an order for the amount and road it out to the others. The order was not the same now as when he signed it. The difference was that some legs had beo-i put on tlie figure one, making it a four. The alteration was discovered when the filial settlement was made. Cross-examined; When the order was made it was about seven weeks before tlio 'contract was completed. Accused had been laid up for about three days before he asked to be relieved. Could not speak for the others, but he personally had not complained to accused’s wife about him laying up. .That: was tlie first discussion about accused leaving tiie contract. His mates did not think accused was shamming. It was agreed to allow accused tb withdraw. Tlio amount due was discussed previously. They were all assembled in ‘.lie 1 itchen on the morning on womb Ihe as half the bush was down accused should be given £l7. Accused made some calculations, hut did not say he would not take tlio amount as it would not give lffm 6s a day. Accused did not say the amount given' him was unfair, and say that he would consult a solicitor. The whole of the persons on the contract were in the kitchen when tho negotiations were going on. Witness did not stop alone in the kitchen witli accused and offer him a further £3. There was no reason for the woman calling in tho others to verify the agreement, as they were all present at the time. All of them were present when the order was read out by accused to the whole of them. The order was made out in English. Saw the accused fold the paper but did not see him put it into an envelope. Eriki Tumera, examined, said he was with accused in the hush-felling contract. Witness corroborated the facts mentioned by " previous witnesses.

Cross-examined: It was nearly two months after accusod withdrew that the contract was finished. Was satisfied at the time that accused was really ill. In the evening was the first discussion about accused’s withdrawal. The. rest decided to go into the matter and fell accused in tlie morning what would be allowed him. In the morning all were gathered in the kitchen, including accused’s wife. Accused mado no objection to the sum proposed to be allowed him. Did nob hear accused say that the sum did not give him 6s a day, and did not hear him say he would instruct a lawyer to act in the matter. After the amount was mentioned the whole of them stayed in the kitchen. 'Was present when the order was written out. Pino Taewai, examined, corroborated the evidence of preceding witnesses.

Cross-examined : Accused made lio complaint about the amount. After the sum was mentioned to accused witness and the others did not leave the’kitchen. Was not present when the order was made out. He went out while tlie order was being made out and came back when ' lie had to sign. When he was 'called back there was nobody out'sido with him. When ho went in they were all there. Was not very long absent from the kitchen. Could not say if Haliira’s wife wero present. Accused’s wife was not in the kitchen when tho order was made.

Ednwrd R. Ludbrook, bookkeeper at Williams’s storo at Tuparoa, examined, said the order was for £24 whon bo dealt with it. Moho Kalina, another of the partners in the .contract, oxamined, corroborated the statements of previous witnesses.

Accused gave ovidenco on his own behalf. When ho took ill ho had boon workig on the contract for 61 days. Was laid up for • five days. Moho told accused that his mates thought ho was shamming. Thereupon asked to bo allowed to withdraw. Next morning they all gathered in the kitchen und Hikira told witness tlmt they had arranged that he should got £l7. Witness objected to this amount. Told the rest that tho payment was not fair and that ho would out tho matter in tho hands of a awyor. After that the other three left the kitchen. These were Moho, Pino and Eriki. When they left the kitchen there wore four in tho kitchen—witnosß and Hikira and their wives. After sitting for some time saying nothing Hikira said he would give witness £3 more. Hi'kira’s wiio called out to the others to come in. Hikira said ho was boss of the contract and that what ho said was right. Witness decided to take tho Increased amount. Hikira then asked witness to make out tho order and lie did so, Hikira stating what was to ho put in the order. AVlion witness came to tho point where the amount was to he put in Hikira said the cook’s money should also bo put in. Did so, making tho order for £24. When the order was completed read it. out in Maori to Hikira. Tho others wore then called in to sign the ordor. Hikira signed the order before tho others came in. Three of tho mates could read English and road the order hut it had to ho read out to him. The order was also read out in English to tho rest. The amount of "money in order was £24 when it was signed. After the order was signed witness put it in an envelope sealed it and put it in his pocket. Some days afterwards when lie got to Tuparoa he handed the order in the envelope to Mr Williams. The order was in the envelope all the time between signing asd presentation. .

Cross-examined: Had never written orders of a similar nature to the one in dispute. Had just got the figure 2 written when Hikira told him to put on tho cook’s money. By tho Bench: Made the figure 4 all at the one time.

Mr. Lysnar, addressing the jury, said the fact that as the order was in pencil it was quite easy to rub out Hie figures and substitute others, and that as this had not' been done ; t was safe to presume that no alteration with criminal intent was made. On t'lio suggestion of the foreman of tlie jury His Honor had Hikira recalled and asked him if ho and accused had agreed to tho payment of £3 more. Witness replied in the negative. Tho jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” His Honor, in passing sentence, said accused had previously been granted twelve months’ probation on a charge, of forgery. Accused would be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. THEFT OF MONEY.

.Peter Cleary pleaded “Guilty” to a charge of having stolen £4 13s at I’oiaga Bay. ivir. Stock appeared for accused, and asked that lie bo given the benefit of the Probation Act. Accused had been working in the country since ne was committed for trial. His Honor said that it was necessary to prove that a man was of good character—it Was not enough to prove that he had never been convicted of a crime. He felt satisfied accused was not of good character. Sentence would be passed on tho following morning. Tiie Court then adjourned.

Press Association. WELLING TON, yesterday. At the Supreme Court this' morning Ada Smith, who pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, was admitted to six months’ probation. The case against Charles and Emily Higginson, charged with having caused the death of an infant at Greytown North, came on at the Supremo Court this morning. Accused were parents of a child born in January last, and the prosecution alleged that they neglected it in tho matter of cleanliness and food, it being given sour milk, and in other ways neglecting it, and that eventually the child died. The case is proceeding. / , j AVELLINGTON, last night. At the Supreme Court the. jury tonight returned a verdict of “Not guilty” in the case of Clias. and Emily Higgison, charged with causing tbe death of their infant child through neglect. CHRISTCHURCH, last night.

At tho Supreme • Court to-day Andrew Edward Ward, convicted on the previous day on an indictment for theft, was found-guilty on a second indictment of obtaining £2O by false pretences. A sentence was imposed of 9 months’ imprisonment on each charge, the terms to be concurrent. In the case of Alex. Hamilton, charged with indecent assault at Southbridge, the jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty.” Jas. Hitchings pleaded “not guilty” to assaulting a female. After the judge had summed up Mr. Stringer, Crown Prosecutor, said it might' assist the jury if he stated on behalf of the Crown that it would not he satisfactory to convict on the evidence. . A verdict of “Not guilty” was immediately returned.