SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 410, 5 October 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, October 4. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston,) LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. Patrick Hauny was indicted for having, on 7th iSeptembcr, 1875, stolen from one Michael Ryan certain articles of wearing apparel and money, the property of the said Michael Ryan. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The prisoner was undefended, and pleaded “Not Guilty.” The facts of the case were briefly thes’e:— On the 7th September the prisoner and prosecutor were in the Somerset hotel, Ashburton, together, the prosecutor being very drunk at the time. The prosecutor at this time had some money (two £L notes) and several articles of property, but soon after this the articles were missed. Soon after this the prisoner was arrested by Sergeant Felton at the London Boarding House, Ashburton, when the money and property were found on him, a circumstance for which he accounted by saying that the prosecutor owed him money, and that on the Coast, where he had been a publican, when a man came in drunk and owed him money he took it from him. The evidence of a lad at the Somerset hotel was to the effect that the prisoner called his attention to the fact that he had taken two half crowns from the prosecutor. Evidence corroborative of these facts having been led by the Crown, the prisoner addressed the jury, admitting that he took the money, but that he called the attention of the barman and the persons present to his doing so. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve calendar months hard labor. LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. Henry Thompson was indicted for having, on the 3rd September, 1875, stolen a watch and chain, the property of Frederick Mills. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr T. R. Fisher was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case were that the prosecutor resided at a boarding-house kept by Toppin, at Ashburton, where also the prisoner was boarding. The prosecutor on retiring to rest that evening, left his watch in his bedroom, and on waking in the morning found it gone. Subsequently the watch and chain was found by the police in the possession of the prisoner. Evidence having been led to support the indictment, The prisoner made no statement, and his Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment. Tuesday, October 5. [Before his Honour Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. ms honour’s address. His Honour, on taking his seat, said that he wished to correct two errors which occurred in his address to the grand jury as reported in the newspapers. In the first line of the sentence commencing “ I am not prepared to offer you congratulations,” the word ‘ * unmodified ” had been omitted between the words “you” and “congratulations.” The second error was in the paragraph commencing “ Still actual experience proves that the proportion of convicted criminals to the population will not contrast favorably, &c, &c,” the word “so” had been omitted between the words “ contrast” and “favourably.” STEALING post letters. George Graham Eyes was indicted on three charges of this character. Mr Thomas, who appeared on behalf of the accused, said that the prisoner wished to withdraw the plea of “Not Guilty,” which he had given on the previous day. This was with regard to the cases of Griffith’s and Stewart’s letters. With regard to the third charge, Mr Thomas said he understood that the Crown Prosecutor did not intend to offer any evidence in this case. His Honour granted leave to withdraw the pleas of “Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then formally "arraigned on the third charge. Mr T. R. Fisher was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The Crown Prosecutor said that he did not intend to offer any evidence on this charge. The jury then, by the direction of his Honour, returned a verdict of acquittal in the third case. His Honour asked the learned counsel if cither of them had any suggestions to offer him, hut both of them declined to do so. James John Fitzgibbon, Chief Postmaster at Christchurch, was called by direction of his Honour, and gave evidence as to the character of the accused during the time he was connected with the Post-office here. Inspector Feast was called, and deposed to making inquiries as to the prisoner’s character during the time he was in the postal service, which were not of a satisfactory character. His Honour then proceeded to pass sentence on the prisoner, sentencing him to six years’ penal servitude on each of the two charges, the sentences to run concurrently. LARCENY IN A DWELLING. Mary Welstead, Frank Welstead, and Helen Anderson, were indicted for having on the 10th of August last stolen from one Alfred Brown certain monies and articles of wearing apparel. Mr T. E, Fisher was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The prisoners were undefended. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The facts of the case may be summarised very shortly. The prosecutor, who came into Cluistchurch about the date named in the indictment, met the prisoner, Anderson, at the City Hotel, and shortly afterwards proceeded with her in a cab to a brothel in Lyttelton street, kept by the prisoners’ Welstead. At this time, the prosecutor had in his possession a certain sum of money, and was also wearing the two coats men tioned in the Indictment. After the prosecutor had been there some time he lost his senses, and was apparently thrust out of the house, as he was found by a constable in the road insensibly drunk, and taken to the lockup. On arrival there he found that his money, several papers and two coats, which he had been wearing had been stolen. Information was given to the police, and Detectives Benjamin and Bettington traced the property to the pot suasion of the prisoners, who were ar-

rested. On searching the house of thft pri- * o icr Wei stead, the purse and papers belonging to the prosecutor were discovered discovered in a safe standing in the front room of the ho: se occupied by Welstead. Evidence was led by the Grown to support the indictment.

The prisoner Helen Anderson, in defence, denied taking the money, stating that the prosecutor gave it to her to keep for him. She called Mrs M‘Taggart to prove that \ rosocutor took off his coat to fight in the street.

His Honor directed the jury to return a verdict of acquittal in the case of Mary Welstead, the presumption in law being that a woman committing a crime in the presence of her husband was under the coercion of her husband. His Honor then summed up on the whole case, and the jury after retiring returned a verdict of “Guilty” against Helen Anderson, “Not Guilty ” as regarded Prank Welstead, and “Not Guilty,” under direction of his Honour, as regarded Mary Welstead. His Honour sentenced the prisoner Helen Anderson, to two years’ imprisonment, with hard labour, in Addington Gaol. In discharging the prisoner Welstead, his Honour commented with great severity upon the conduct of Welstead in keeping a brothel. PLEAS, Toe following prisoners against whom true bills had been found by the Grand Jury were placed at the bar to plead, and did so as under: — Christopher Walter Worger, embezzlement from the Canterbury Club Company, his masters. Plea, “ Not Guilty.” Mr Joynt for the defence. George Barrett, forgery of a request on the 3rd July to one John Thomson Brown for the delivery of certain timber ; second count, for putting off the said forged request knowing the same to be forged. Plea, “ Not Guilty.” [Left sitting.]