SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 108, 5 October 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Oct. 5. [Before liis Honor Mr Justice Gresson.] The quarterly sittings of the .Supreme Court, in its criminal jurisdiction, opened at 11 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn in as THE GRAND JURY. Messrs J. T. Peacock (foreman), J. S. M. Jacobsen, Thos. Mabcrley Hassal, F. Mason, George Taylor, Fredk. Pavitt, J. Field, P. Laurie, T. J. Fisher, H. W, Packer, R. Holdernesse, Wm. Kennaway, R. M. Bovey, J. J. Fletcher, W. H. Lane, T. J. Maling. The Grand Jury having been duly sworn, His Honor proceeded to deliver the following CHARGE. Gentlemen of the Jury—The calendar for this session is heavier than usual. There have been seventeen committals, many of them for offences of the ordinary class, such as larceny, forgery, obtaining money by false pretences, and perjury, but some of a graver character. There have been three committals against the master of an immigrant ship forwounding three of his seamen with intent to do grievous bodily harm, whilst the ship was on her voyage from London to Lyttelton. The facts appear to be, that some of the crew having broached cargo under the influence of drink became very violent, and resisted the attempts of the master and his officers to retake one of them who had been put in irons for assaulting the master, and had escaped to the forecastle and been assisted by others of the crew who were in the forecastle, and refused admittance to the master, keeping the door barricaded against him, one at least, if not more, being armed with a stick, and threatening to take his life if he persisted in forcing an entrance. Under these circumstances, after warning them that he was about to fire, he fired three shots into the forecastle, the door having been partially forced open, and wounded the three men respectively named in the indictments. By the Common Law the master of a ship has authority over all the mariners on board, and it is their duty to obey his commands in all lawful matters relating to the navigation of the ship and the preservation of good order. In case of disobedience, or Jdisorderly conduct, he may lawfullyjcorrect them in a reasonable manner—his authority in this respect being said to be analogous to that of a parent over his child, or of a master over his apprentice. But while such an authority is absolutely necessary for the safety of the ship and the lives of the persons on board, it is the duty of the master to be very careful in the exercise of it, and to be on his guard against giving way to passion, taking the advice of his officers where practicable, as well to allow time for deliberation, as to furnish evidence for the justification of his conduct, in case he should be charged with having acted unreasonably or with unnecessary violence. There may be cases where a spirit of insubordination and mutiny is so general as to require the promptest action in resisting actual or threatened violence on the part of the crew, but it does not appear that in this case the danger was so immediate, as the master had the support of a portion of the crew and of the officers, with the latter of whom he deliberated for a considerable time, the result being a resolution that the mutiny must be quelled at all hazards. A person who fires a loaded pistol into a group of persons, not aiming at any one in particular, but intending generally to do grievous bodily harm, and who hits one of them, may be convicted on an indictment charging him with shooting at the person he has hit with intent to do grievous bodily harm to that person. As the facts of the shots having been fired by the master are not denied, the only question you will have to determine will be whether or not the evidence adduced is such as to satisfy you that the act of the master, in firing as he did, was necessary for the safety of the ship and of the crew and passengers, for whose safety he was responsible. I think it unnecessary to observe upon the othercases in the calendar, as you have frequently had occasion to consider charges of the same character. Gentlemen, amongst the Acts of the General Assembly of last session there is one to which I think it expedient to direct your attention, as it extends largely the summary jurisdiction of such of you as are in the commission of the peace. The Act referred to is intituled “The Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Act, 1871.” It enacts that the provisions contained in sections of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1806, from 82 to 86, both inclusive, shall, so far as applicable, extend and apply to larceny by a bailee (which was not punishable on summary conviction), and to all felonies which by the Larceny Act, 1867, are made punishable like simple larceny, and to the several felonies and misdemeanors mentioned or referred to in the schedule to the said Act of 1874; and it further provides that the word “stolen” in the Justices of the Act, 1866, shall include “ embezzled ” and “ obtained by false pretences,” as the case may require; and that Section 82 of the last-mentioned Act shall apply only where the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or obtained by false pretences, does not exceed 20s j that

Section 83 of the said Act shall apply only where the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or obtained by false pretences, does not exceed £5 ; and that Section 84 of the said Act shall apply only where the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or obtained by false pretences, does not exceed £lO. You are aware that Section 82 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1866, empowers a Justice of the Peace, in the case of a person charged with larceny of property not exceeding 20s, where the case is of a trivial nature to dismiss it, even though a felony may have been proved, and that Section 83 enables tw r o or more justices to deal summarily with cases of larceny, where the value of the property stolen does not exceed £5 ; and that Section 84 enables them to deal summarily in cases of larceny where the value of the property stolen does not exceed £lO, if the person accused confess the offence. The effect therefore of the Act of last session as regards the three lastmentioned sections is to extend the summary jurisdiction, which justices before enjoyed in cases of larceny (under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1866), to cases of fraudulent conversion by bailees, embezzlement, and of property obtained by false pretences. It will be necessary, therefore, for the future that justices of the peace should understand the distinctions between larceny, fraudulent conversion by a bailee, embezzlement, and obtainingproperty by false pretences, some of which distinctions are not always easy of application, even when clearly fixed in the mind. I think that justices of the peace in future will bo unable to discharge their duties satisfactorily, unless they have carefully studied, together with “The New Zealand Justice of the Peace,” Archbold’s “ Criminal Pleading,” or some such text book ; and if I may judge from the mode in which the depositions are sometimes forwarded from country districts to the Registrar of this Court, I can’t help thinking that the provisions of the statute, which prescribe the duties of J ustices as to the mode of taking and transmitting depositions, and also the regulations relating to the conduct of criminal prosecutions, published in the Gazette of 23rd January, 1863, are often either overlooked or misunderstood. Considering the danger there always is that the ends of justice may be frustrated by even slight neglect, in a matter where so much care is required, I think that it would be a wise measure on the part of the Government to provide for the colony, but more especially for country districts where Courts of Petty Sessions are held, clerks of the Bench who have had some previous training for the duties which they are to discharge, and to furnish them not only with printed forms, but also with copies of ‘ ‘ The New Zealand Justice of the Peace,” and a few other text books for reference. Gentlemen, it would take up too much of your time were I to advert to other useful Acts which have been passed during the last session; but I cannot help regretting that the hope expressed to you at our last session, that some member of the General Assembly would introduce a measure amending The Lunatics’ Act, with a view to making the curative treatment of inebriates more efficient, has not been realised. The subject is attracting so much attention in the United Kingdom, America, and the Australian Colonies, that I feel sure it must ere long receive the consideration of the Legislature of this colony. Gentlemen, I will not detain you longer from your duties. The bills will now be laid before you. The Grand Jury then retired to their room to consider the bills laid before them by the Crown Prosecutor. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Thomas Thompson was indicted for having forged and uttered a cheque for £9 10s on the Bank of New Zealand. The prisoner pleaded “ Guilty.” Mr Slater said that he would wish to call evidence to show that the state of mind of the prisoner was at times not that of a sane person. He would first call Mr Trent, the employer of the prisoner, as to character, and he hoped his Honor would consider all the circumstances of the case. His Honor said that he would be glad to hear any evidence as to character. Mr Trent, the prosecutor, was then called, and stated that the prisoner was in his employ for some six months, during which period he knew nothing wrong of him. The signature to the cheque he had forged was not at all like his (prosecutor’s) handwriting. He was told that the prisoner presented the cheque at the Bank himself, Mr Slater then called Jane Thompson, mother of the prisoner, who stated that the prisoner had met with an accident by falling from a horse shortly after leaving Mr Trent’s, and was laid up for a week with concussion of the brain. The witness had observed that there was something very peculiar about the prisoner’s conduct for the last month or so ; it was perfectly unaccountable. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. LARCENY. John Cullins was indicted for having, on the 27th August, stolen a quantity of clothing, the property of one H. C. Turner, The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Garland was chosen foreman of the petty jury. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

The facts of the case were simple. The prosecutor, who was a travelling hawker, residing in Temuka, was sleeping in his waggon on the date above mentioned in the Ashburton township, having with him a quantity of various articles such as drapery, &c. During the night the prosecutor was awakened by the prisoner coming to the waggon and asking him to have something to drink, which the prosecutor refused. The prisoner asked then to be allowed to sleep in the waggon, which was also refused, and the prisoner left. Shortly afterwards the prisoner returned, lifting up one corner of the cloth in front, again asking to be allowed to stay in the waggon; but prosecutor told him to go away. After this prosecutor fell asleep and did not wake until morning, when lie found that a parcel containing socks, shirts, jumpers, &c., had been taken away from the back of the waggon. He gave information to the police, and the same day the prisoner was arrested for drunkenness at Ashburton by Sergeant Greenwood, and on being searched a portion of the property lost by the prosecutor, and which had been reported to the police, was found upon his person; whilst near the waggon the remainder of the property was found secreted.

Mr Duncan called evidence to support the indictment, including Sergeant Greenwood, the prosecutor, Turner, and Constable

Loose, whose evidence went, to prove the finding of the property on the prisoner and the identification by the prosecutor. A boy named Grose also gave evidence as to the finding of the property. The prisoner stated that he brought the goods from a man near Greenstreets station, but he did not know his name.

His Honor summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” after a short retirement.

His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. 1 Left sitting.]