SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 331, 5 July 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS,

THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened this morning at 11 a.m., at which time, his Honor took his seat on the Bench, The following gentlemen were sworn as The Grand Jury, Messrs W. D. Carruthers (foreman), I. E. Sheath, G. Taylor, G. W. Hall, 11. M. Morten, E. W. Koper, J. 11. Lysaght, Win. Saunders, A. 0. Watson, J. T. Fisher, G, Leach, A. Oardale, H, Saw'tcll, G. Booth, J. Brabazon, H. M. Tipping, J. Jacobsen, S. Stuckey, and George Stead. The Grand Jury having been sworn, His Honor delivered the following Charge. Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury —The number of prisoners committed for trial at the present sittings is below the average; crimes of violence are happily absent, and there are no cases of forgery, an offence hitherto so frequent. I regret to observe charges of frauds of a very serious nature, against persons who can plead in extenuation neither want nor ignorance I view with very great satisfaction the new rules that have been published by the Government for the remission of the sentences of prisoners. Hitherto, ordinary good behaviour has been sufficient to entitle a prisoner to the remission of a considerable portion of his sentence. By the new rules no remission will be granted for conduct. The time which every prisoner must pass in prison is to be represented by a certain number of marks which he must earn by actual labor performed to

entitle him to any remission of sentence. If the conduct of prisoners is indifferent or bad they will be liable to be fined a certain number of marks. Eight marks a day for steady hard labor is the maximum a prisoner can earn, and if by his industry he gains eight marks per diem, and does not forfeit any for misconduct, ho will earn the remission of one-fourth of the time for which his marks were calculated. It is impossible to overrate the importance of the principle contained in those rules. The steady industry and exertion necessary to earn any remission of sentence will be a valuable reformatory discipline, and the knowledge that such industry and exertion are necessary should act as a strong influence in deterring from crime those to whom all regular labor is distasteful. You Avill now be good enough to retire to your room, and the various bills will be sent into you immediately. ILLEGAL PAWNING. John Armfield was indicted for having on the 26th day of April lest unlawfully pledged with one Hyam Edward Nathan a watch, the property of one David Stott, with intent thereby to defraud the said David Stott. The prisoner pleaded “ Guilty,” but stated he had no intent to defraud. His Honor said that this was virtually a plea of “ Not Guilty,” and ordered that plea to be recorded. Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. The prisoner was undefended. Mr H. G. Blackler was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case are as follows:—On the date mentioned in the indictment, the prisoner went to Messrs Coates and Co’s, jewellers, Colombo street, where he obtained from Mr F. J. Smith, one of the partners in the firm, a watch, the property of the prosecutor Stott, without having any authority so to do. After having obtained the watch, the prisoner saw a man named Goodacre, who proceeded to Nathan’s pawnbroker’s shop and pledged the watch for a small sum, £1 10s 6d, which money Goodacre gave to prisoner. The watch being missed, the police were communicated with, and the prisoner arrested. Amongst some papers at the Borough Hotel belonging to the prisoner Inspector Feast found a pawn ticket referring to the watch lost by Stott, and subsequently traced the watch to Nathan’s. In support of the indictment, Mr Duncan called Inspector Feast, Messrs H. E. Nathan, E. Goodacre, P. J. Smith, and D. Stott. The prisoner in defence stated that he had pawned the watch on a drunken spree never intending to defraud the prosecutor, but to make up the money and redeem the watch. His Honor summed up, and the jury after a short consultation returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” His Honor said he would pass sentence next morning. SHOPBREAKING AND LARCENY THEREIN. William Hudson was indicted for having on the sth June last broken into and entered the shop of James Nancarrow, in Colombo street, and stealing therefrom one bank draft of the Union Bank of Australia, Christchurch on the U. B. A., Melbourne, for the sum of £2O, and also a letter and sum of money, the property of the said James Nancarrow. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not Giilty.” Mr H. G. Blackwell was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case, as given in evidence, are very simple. It appears that, on the morning of the 4th of June, about 9 or 10 o’clock, the prisoner was in the vicinity of Mr Nancarrow’s shop, and went into the shop, leaving shortly afterwards. About 11 or 12 o’clock, Mr Nancarrow had occasion to leave lii» oliup -without anyone in charge of it, locking the door behind him. Mr Nancarrow returned in about three-quarters of an hour, when he discovered that some one had broken open the door and had abstracted from a drawer in the counter a bank draft, aletter and some coppers which he had placed there previously. Mr Nancarrow gave inlormation to the police, and the draft was traced to the prisoner, who was arrested. Shortly after the time when the draft was missed, the prisoner went into Mr Gee’s confectioner’s shop, and obtained from Miss Hunter, the young lady in charge of the shop, 2s in silver for coppers to that amount. About half an-hour afterwards, he exhibited to Miss Hunter a document, which she recognised as a bank draft, and wanted to negotiate it. On being searched by Detective Benjamin, at the lock-up, the bank draft and letter of advice, signed by Mr Nancarrow, were found in his hat. In support of the indictment, Mr Duncan called Detective Benjamin, Mr Nancarrow, Mr J. Wilkin, and Miss E. Hunter, who deposed to the facts stated aboved. The latter witness recognised the prisoner as the man who had come into Gee’s shop and changed coppers for silver. Some short time afterwards the prisoner returned, and wished to negociate a bank draft similar to the one produced. For the defence the prisoner called the constable who arrested him for drunkenness and searched him at the lock-up but who however did not search his hat. The prisoner addressed the jury in a speech of great eloquence and length. His Honor summed up, and after a short consultation the jury returned a verd ct of guilty of simple larceny. The prisoner was then indicted for two previous convictions in the R. M. Court at Christchurch and Kaiapoi. The prisoner pleaded “Guilty” to this count of the indictment.

His Honor deferred passing sentence until next day.