SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 561, 5 April 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, April 4. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Johnston.) LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. John Ray was indicted for having on the I6th October, 1874, stolen from one William Pilkington, in the Warwick Hotel, the sum of £5 16s 6d. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not Guilty.” The facts of the case were simply these ; The prosecutor and the prisoner were sleeping in the same room at the Warwick Hotel. The prosecutor then had in his possession the sum named in the indictment, consisting of one £5-note, a half sovereign, and 6s in silver. The prosecutor counted over his money in presence of the prisoner, and in the morning it was gone. The prisoner, on being searched, had in his possession a £5note, which the prosecutor stated was hia property. Evidence was led by the Crown to prove the facts laid in the indictment. The prisoner addressed the jury at some length, contending that the £5-note found on him was his own property. His Honor shortly summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. William Ellis was indicted for hav ; ng on the 2lst March, then being the bailee of a sum of £lO 16s sd, the property of one Le Fleming and others. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “ Not Guilty.” His Honor pointed out that the money could not be laid as being jointly the property of all the prosecutors, as they all claimed separate amounts. Mr Duncan asked that the indictment should be amended by striking out the words “ and others,” leaving it simply as the property of Le Fleming only. His Honor granted the application, and the indictment was amended accordingly. The facts of the case were that the prisoner with others, amongst them the prosecutor, Le Fleming, were working with a threshing machine. At the conclusion of the work, Mr Buss, of Rangiora, paid the prisoner a cheque for the men, which was cashed by the prisoner at their request, but he failed to account to the other men for their share. Some evidence having been called by the Crown Prosecutor in support of the indictment, His Honor pointed out that there was no evidence of the appropriation, as the prisoner was arrested before he had time to pay over the amounts due to the various claimants. Mr Duncan therefore declined to proceed further with the case, and, acting under instructions from his Honor, ,’the jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged, and the Court adjourned till 10 a.m. this day. This Day. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Johnston.) The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. LARCENY FROM A SHOP. Dennis Cullen, who had been remanded to allow of inquiry being made into his sanity, was again brought up. Dr Parkerson attended and gave evidence as to examing the prisoner, whom he found to be a person of weak head, low moral tendencies, and deficient education, but capable of pleading to the indictment. The prisoner’s plea of guilty of breaking into the shop, as charged in the indictment, was then taken, and he also pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony. Mr Inspector Feast deposed to the prisoner having been convicted for stealing from a waggon at the Ashburton, and also that he got his living by robbery. His Honour sentenced the prisoner to six years’ penal servitude. LARCENY OF TREES. _ . William John Leigh was indicte-dfijr „ having, on or about the month of ATfrgaT 1875, last, stolen 6100 trees and shrubs, property of William Wilson. There was also a second indictment charging prisoaer with having stolen some heath, geraniums, and flower pots, the property of William Wilson. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of tht Crown. Mr Joynt appeared to defend the prisoner, who pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The Crown Prosecutor called the following evidence. Robert James Thomson, a detective officer, who deposed to arresting the prisoner in January last on a charge of theft of plant* from Mr W. Wilson’s garden. On the 29th December witness was at prisoner’s gardes

at Waltham, in company with two of Mr Wilson’s men. He took possession of certain plants growing in the prisoner’s garden and rooted out of the ground. The plants were pointed out to him by Mr Wilson’s men. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Witness kept the plants in water for a day or two, and then placed them in a box. On the 29th December he took plants of a similar kind from Mr Wilson’s garden to the prisoner’s, to compare them. These plants were brought to the depot and left there. They were mixed with those he had taken from the prisoner’s garden, placing a thread on the ones taken from the latter place. Witness found now that several of those produced had no threads. Without putting some distinguishing mark on the plants, he would not be able to distinguish them. He would not swear that the box produced did not contain some plants taken by him from Mr Wilson’s garden. From the 3rd January to the present time, the box had not been seen by him. The plants and box were placed in a room in the detective’s office, where the two detective officers were sleeping. The whole of the plants, both those taken from Wilson’s and those from Leigh’s were put into the one box. Edwin Barnett deposed that he was a gardener in the employ of Mr Wm. Wilson. On the 3rd January the witness pointed out to Detective Thompson some plants in a box at Leigh’s garden. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt, the witness deposed that he never at any time pointed out to the detective any plants growing in the ground at Leigh’s as Mr Wilson’s, but had done so as regarded some plants in a box. Alexander Burnett deposed that he was working foreman to Mr Wm. Wilson. The prisoner was working at the Ferry road nursery for some three years. After the prisoner had left no shrubs or trees growing in the open ground were missed by Mr Wilson. In December witness went with Detective Thompson to prisoner’s garden, where he saw some shrubs and trees, amongst them 1600 Scotch firs, 200 maples, 250 sycamore, 1000 arbor vitae. The latter -were seedlings, and were just coming through the ground. They must have been planted there, and could not have been transplanted. This applies to all classes of seedlings spoken of by me. Of trees, not seedlings, there i were 600 pinus muricata , 800 ahies Menzresii (American spruce.) There were 1 also Duke of Wellington pines, cedar of Lebanon, Norway spruce tir, dog roses, standard roses. Previous to July Mr Wilson had similar trees to all those mentioned by me. One of the Californian pines ahies ' Williamsoni is very rare in New Zealand. Witness knew of no one else in Christchurch ( having these except Mr Wilson who imported the seed from California in 1874. Detective 1 Thomson took certain shrubs which I pointed i out to him in the ground. They were f marked by placing thread round them. I They consisted of Scotch firs, American i spruce, and several varieties of pines. These could not have grown from seed, but must i have been transplanted. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—The witness 1 deposed that Ahies mytensiana was identical ' with Abies Williamsoni, and the former had < been largely sold in Canterbury during the i past five or six years. He had pointed out < these plants to Detective Thomson as the property of Mr Wm. Wilson. There was no < particular mark to identify them by. He i only knew the plants now produced by the threads on them. The prisoner bought three i dog roses from Mr Wilson. The dog rose is < not common in Canterbury. Witness did 1 not know that Mr Greenaway had several I chains of dog roses as a hedge in his garden i in Kilmore street. J William Wilson deposed that the prisoner i was in his employment for three years, and < was engaged in the garden on the Ferry i road as foreman in charge. Witness gave 1 him a considerable quantity of Californian ] coniferous seeds to sow, ■which was done, and a vast number of thousands of plants grew up to be two-year seedlings, fit to be trans- ' planted, Shortly after prisoner leaving witness, he missed a large quantity of trees, some 7000, which had been growing in the | Ferry road nursery, and which he had seen \ all right a fortnight before. There would be j quite 100,000 Californian coaiferas in the Ferry j road nursery. In consequence of information § received towards the end of the year witness | went to Leigh’s garden and examined the | plants there, having a number which corre- S sponded in kind, number, age, and appear-1 ance with those missed by him from the | Ferry road nursery. There was one kind of I plant which was very uncommon, and of I which witness had only a few, viz, the ahies j Williamsoni. f Cross-examined by Mr Joynt — Stock was j taken of some of the plants just before the | the prisoner left. In July and August, 1875, | witness was sole owner in Canterbury of dracenx indivisi. He was not the exclusive owner of pinvs mitus. Witness could not swear to the plants in Leigh’s nursery as his own except the ahies Williamsoni, Witness had in [his garden plants of the ahies Myrtensiani ; he did not think this was similar to the Williamsoni, but it was difficult to distinguish them. Witness had only fifty of the plants of the Williamsoni. It was very rare and costly, and the seed was imported by him from San Francisco. Some of the coneferce had been planted in Leigh’s garden before August, because the posts would lift the seedlings right out of the ground. Seven days after Leigh’s leaving witness missed large quantities of young trees from the open ground, and spoke to Burnett about it. William Pearson deposed that he was a gardener in the employ of Mr Wilson. On the 29th December witness, with Burnett and detective Thomson, went to the prisoner’s garden. Burnett pointed out several plants to detective Thomson, which were taken out of the ground. They were similar to plants grown by Mr Wilson in his nursery. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Joynt submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. His Honor thought there was a combination of circumstances leading up to a case to go before the jury, because there was some evidence that the plants in number, description, and growth coincided with those lost by Mr Wilson. Mr Joynt pointed out that the evidence of Burnett as to the missing of the trees was opposed to that of Mr Wilson. Mr Joynt then called evidence for the defence. William Burnett, a gardener, deposed to > having given [Leigh some seeds of matipo dragon tree, &o, in 1873. He believed the prisoner had a piece of ground as a garden, where he was residing. He sold Mr Wm Wilson £4 10s worth of the same seeds. Charles March, gardener for Mr L. Harper, deposed to being with the prisoner Leigh at Akaroa, in March 1974, when he gathered

I some seeds of matipo. During the past few years witness had bought seven dog rose standards from Mr Wm Wilson. Cornelius Dyer, residing on the Ferry road, deposed to the fact of the prisoner lodging with him for a year from October, 1874. He used to sow seeds in a portion of witness’s land ; seeds of shrubs and trees of various kinds. Prisoner raised a large quantity of plants ; they came up so thick that it was impossible to say how many there were. Some two months before leaving witness the prisoner took away a number of plants to his residence at Waltham. On cross-examination by Mr Duncan, che witness stated that Leigh took away some of the plants in a Maori kit, and a large quantity in a cart. The only occasion on which the prisoner had the loan of witness’s cart and horse was to take plants away from the premises of the witness. Cornelius Dyer, jun, son of last witness, deposed to there being thousands of pines and fir trees, grown by the prisoner on the ground of his father. He also grew a good tew from cuttings. On cross-examination by Mr Duncan, the witness deposed—On the occasion of his gokg a second time the prisoner had more trees than he took away from their place. He never went to Wilson’s garden with a horse and cart to take anything. Witness had never seen prisoner taking anything from Wilson’s garden, nor had he seen him in the evening going by the short cut from his own garden to Wilson’s, or vice versa. By the Foreman—When the plants were growing at their place they were close, and in heaps, whereas at Leigh s garden they were planted out, and of course looked more.

The cafe was still proceeding when we went to press.