SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 257, 8 April 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, April Bth. [Before Mr Justice Williams.] SENTENCES. James "Walker, who had been convicted of bigamy, was now brought up for judgment. The prisoner said that he had been two months in prison, which had affected his health, and had a large family, who would be thrown helpless on the world, and he hoped therefore that his Honor would be lenient.

His Honor said that prisoner had been guilty of a deliberate outrage on an unoffending woman, and there was no palliation for his conduct. The sentence of the Court was, that prisoner be kept in penal servitude within the colony for three years. William Mcßride, who had been convicted of an assault with intent to commit a rape, was now brought up for judgment. A witness named Peach, in whose employment the prisoner had been, was called by Mr Joynt, and gave him a good character as a very respectable, honest, and upright young man ; had never seen any acts of indecency in prisoner, or heard of any. Mr Joynt called the attention of the Court to the fact that there could have been nothing premeditated in the offence of which prisoner had been convicted. He trusted therefore that his Honor would be as lenient as was consistent with justice. His Honor said that taking into consideration all the circumstances, he would pass as lenient a sentence as was consistent with the ends of justice. The sentence of the Court was that prisoner be imprisoned, and kept to hard labour in Lyttelton Gaol for two years. CONSPIRACY. Patrick Carey was indicted for having on Bth March, 1875, together with a person unknown, unlawfully conspired to cheat and defraud one George Henry Pearce of certain money. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr Dale was chosen foreman of the jury. The case for the Crown is thus summarised:—The prosecutor is a billiard marker at the Canterbury Hotel, Lyttelton. On the the Bth March last, prisoner in company with a man unknown went to that billiard room, and prisoner’s confederate proposed to prosecutor that they should play a game with dice for money. They did so, and prosecutor won the first throw; afterwards the confederate won, and prosecutor went to get more money. Having obtained some, he in company with another man entered the billiard room and played with prisoner, who won all the money; prosecutor went out and got more, and on returning, feeling suspicious that false dice had been used, watched ; prisoner still won, but in manipulating the dice dropped one, which prosecutor picked up and accused prisoner of using false dice. Prisoner thereupon struck prosecutor, and a scuffle ensuing, the assistance of the police was obtained, and prisoner taken into custody. On searching him the first time the sum of £205 10s was found on prisoner, and afterwards a dice having two sixes, two fives, and two fours on it, but no one, two, or three. A similar dice was afterwards found under prisoner’s coat, and in his portmanteau were found fourteen dice and two packs of cards: two of the fourteen dice were loaded. Prosecutor lost about £3O to prisoner, and his confederate. For the Crown the following witnesses were called : Constable McGuire, who proved taking the prisoner into custody, and the finding of the money, the dice, and the cards. Found also a box and party-coloured cloths, such as are usually used on racecourses for gambling purposes. In both packs of cards some of the cardsjwere a little larger than the rest. George Henry Pearce, the prosecutor, described the manner in which he lost some of his money to the prisoner and the confederate on Bth March. They played at a pound a throw. They each put a pound in the popl, and witness made a couple of side bets of a pound each. Witness won the first throw, but never won afterwards. The witness also described the finding of the false dice, and that the prisoner had been taken by some women and put into the coal-hole. In cross-examination the witness said that prior to the Bth March he had not seen either the prisoner or the other person. Had not seen the other person since. Had before played for a pound a throw, but not often, Had before that lost £IOO to a person in Lyttelton at cards. Witness did not talk with prisoner about his (witness’s) experience as a gambler. The game of a shilling in and the winner shouts is for the benefit of the house. Prisoner and the other man came in together, and went out together. In answer to the Court, the witness stated that Mr Burnip, the landlord, was not present at any time when the play wasgoingon. James Payne gave corroborative testimony, and spoke of the manner in which prisoner manipulated the dice, so that he shook with one set and the prosecutor with another. Told prisoner of his proceedings and prisoner said, “What have you to do with the job ?” Witness accused prisoner of having false dice in his pocket. This prisoner denied, and offered to bet £5 of it. Witness said, “I will bet £10.” Prisoner then replied, “Do you think I am going to make a fool of myself for you ?” In crossexamination witness said that when manipulating the dice, had notes in each hand. He had his own dice in one hand, and the dice belonging to the house in the other. Was not in the habit of playing dice;

had lent Pearce two £5 notes. George Brown was called, and stated that when prisoner was charged with swindling he wanted to get away. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Joynt addressed the jury for the prisoner, and stated that the question before them for decision was, not cheating at dice, but it was conspiracy with another person to cheat; and he contended that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the other person had conspired with prisoner to cheat George Pearce. It must be proved that the other person had conspired, otherwise it would be impossible to find the prisoner guilty, for one person could not conspire. Therefore he claimed on behalf of his client a verdict of acquittal. His Honor said that before summing up he wished to draw the attention of the Magistrates to some of the facts disclosed in this case. There was gambling in a public billiard room of a licensed house, one of the parties being a servant of the landlord. It also appeared by the evidence that when the prisoner proposed to go into a private room Pearce said “that it did not matter, they would have it there,” thereby showing that he thought no particular objection would be taken to gambling going on in the public billiard room. Of course, in the absence of the landlord, he (the Judge) did not wish to say conclusively that he was to blame in this particular case, but he thought that when the Licensing Court met, the landlord should be called on to explain respecting this matter. Mr Duncan said that, perhaps his Honor was not aware of it, but the police had already taken action in this matter, and the landlord had been fined for this particular ofience. His Honor said he was glad to hear it. He then proceeded to explain the law relating to conspiracy, and remarked that, before the jury could convict the prisoner, they must be prepared to also convict the other man, who was unknown. The jury without retiring, found the prisoner “ Not Guilty,” and he was immediately discharged, [Left Sitting.]