SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 790, 2 January 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, January 2. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The January quarterly sittings of the Supreme Court in its criminal jurisdiction was opened at 10 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as THE GRANB JUKY. Messrs John Marshman, W. W. Cobb, E. Harman, J. M. Heywood, C. H. Williams, E. Pavitt, R. M. Bovey, G. D. Lockhart, E. M. Templar, A. Pavitt, W. Kennaway, J. Colborne-Veel, George Booth, J. R. Hill, Thomas Cane, and Wm. Saunders. Mr Edward Jollie was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury. HTS HONOR'S CHARGE. His Honor then proceeded to deliver the following charge to the Grand Jury :—- Mr foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury—l am very glad to be able on this occasion to congratulate you upon the state of the district you represent, as disclosed by the calendar. I am happy to say that your labors will be of a very light character, as there are only four cases for trial, two of which are against the same prisoner. I am very glad to be able to congratulate you upon the state of the district, and to find it so apparently free from crime during the past quarter. The recent great political changes which have taken place, and the legislation arising out of them does not, so far as I can see, affect the administration of justice. 1 have nothing therefore to say as regards these political changes, except to express a hope and a belief, that whatever these changes may be the people of the colony will still press forward steadily in the work of the development of the resources of the country. Now, gentlemen, with reference to the calendar; I may say with reference to the case of one Knibbs, charged with stealing post letters and coining, that these are very grave offences and ones that require to be suppressed with a strong had. The other cases are so simple as scarcely to require any comment from me, and you will no doubt be able to deal with them without difficulty. The case of robbery of post letters, however, excites the enquiry how it is that the offence can be so easily committed. I do not know whether it is the duty of the department 'or the private individual for whose convenience these boxes are placed, to see that they are furnished with the very best locks and keys, so as to ensure safety of contents, but it does seem to me necessary, where the boxes are so exposed, that the utmost care should be taken in this direction. Gentlemen, it is of the greatest possible importance to us, both as regards our social and mercantile concerns, that our postal system should be kept perfectly inviolate, and that the public should be fully assured of this. I do not m these remarka speak so with a view of imputing blame to any one, but simply to draw public attention to the apparent ease with which these boxes can be entered, and their contents removed. It does, therefore, seem to me that there is absolute necessity for the greatest caution and care being taken that these boxes, necessarily exposed as they are, should be rendered as safe as possible. The other charge against the same prisoner to which I shall refer, is one charging him with coining. The offence of coining is, I need not tell you, an exceedingly grave offence, and one I believe which is entirely new in this district. Ordinarily in older counties the criminal classes carrying on coining form part of an associated gang. In this case, however, it is an isolated one, and if proved, the germs of such a class of offence must be at once crushed out. The evidence which will be laid before you goes to prove that two dies for the production of a florin were found in a box over which no person but the prisoner had control, and that a spurious coin was found in a pair of trousers belonging to the prisoner, in his lodgings. Evidence will also be given of his working at the shop where he was employed. The evidence is not particularly close, but still I think a prima facie case for your consideration has been put before you, and it will be for you to consider if it is sufficiently strong to enable you to find a true bill. The only two other cases for your consideration are, one for altering a pay-sheet by an employe of the railway, and the other, larceny of a considerable quantity of gold, from the fellow-lodger of the prisoner charged with the offence. It win be for you, on the first case, to consider whether there has been a fraudulent alteration of the figures on the pay-sheet. This, gentlemen, is the extent of the cases before you, and they do not require any further comment from me. If you will now be good enough to retire to your rooms the bills will be sent in to you. PERJURY. Norman Evans was brought up for sentence. The Registrar read the certificate of the Court of Appeal, affirming the conviction, signed by the Chief Justice who presided at the Court of Appeal. His Honor said that as he had remarked on the occasion of the conviction of the prisoner, the offence of which he had been guilty was one of the gravest and worst kind he had ever heard in a court of justice. Under the outward semblance of respectability the prisoner was in reality one of the most dangerous characters that could exist in any community. He had by lending money to people got them into his clutches, and then gratified his revengeful feelings by selling them up. He had not only done this, and trumped up a case of felony against another person actuated by some spite, but had also through bribes or some other means of which he (the Judge) was ignorant, been the cause of persons coming to that Court and committing deliberate perjury. It was as he had said one of the worst cases that had over come under his notice. At the time of the reserving by the Court of the points of law raised in the prisoner's favor, he had told him what the sentence would be if the conviction should be sustained; that sentence he now pronounced, which was that the prisoner be sentenced to penal servitude for tour years, computed from the date of conviction, and if the law had allowed him he would have given him a longer sentence. STEALING A POST LETTER. T. Hester Knibbs was indicted for having on or about the lGth October, 1876, stolen two post letters the property of the Post-master-General of New Zealand. I The prisonor who was defended by Mr Izard pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. The facts of the case for the Crown- were these :—Complaints having been made to the Chief Postmaster at Christchurch of letter?

being missed from the private box, rented by Mr H. J. Hall, the services of Detective Neill were obtained to watch the private letter boxes. On the night laid in the indictment, Detective Neill observed the prisoner go to the box and open it, taking therefrom two test letters previously placedthere by Mr Fitz Gibbon, Chief Postmaster. On searching the prisoner the letters were found upon him, and he was then arrested. Mr Duncan called Detective Neill and Mr Fitz Gibbon. Mr Izard, on the evidence of the latter, raised the point that the letter, alleged to have been stolen by the prisoner, was not a post letter, inasmuch as it contained nothing, nor was it intended for transmission, as it was merely a trap. [Case cited, Regina v Gardiner, 1 C. and K., 628.] His Honor said that in the Court of Appeal it had been held, in the case of Regina v Cuthbertson (Court of Appeal Cases, vol. 2), that a test letter was a post letter under the meaning of the Post Office Act. It was held by the authorities that the letter must be posted in the ordinary way. [Reg. v Young 1, Denman's Crown Cases, 194.] The judgment in the case was delivered by himself (the Judge), and concluded thus—" Having regard to the common objects of the Imperial and New Zealand statutes, and the fact that the decision of Pollock, C. 8., in Reg. v Gardner was before the Court for Crown cases reserved, on the hearing of Regina v Young, and was concurred in by the Lord Chief Baron, we feel justified in adopting, if not absolutely bound to adopt, the conclusion arrived at in the latter case. The conviction, therefore, will be affirmed." Mr Duncan contended that the chief postmaster had posted the letter in the ordinary way that he would do if he were posting a letter for himself. His Honor—l think not. I think it was posted in an extraordinary way, not in the ordinary method of posting letters. You see Mr Duncan that the authorities all agree that the question is, was the letter posted in the ordinary way. However, I shall not stop the case. Mr Izard applied to have the point reserved. His Honor said he would consider whether he should reserve the point or not. In reply to his Honor, Mr Fitz Gibbon said that the office primarily provided the locks and keys, and the department endeavoured to get them as strong and as varied as possible. The holder could, if he required it, have a Chubb's lock, or any other superior kind, after permission being obtained from the Chief Postmaster. Mr Izard raised the point, under the 63rd section of the Post Office Act, that Mr Hall's letter, having been placed in his private box, the responsibility of the Post Office over the letter ceased, hence there could be no larceny of a post letter. The delivery into the private box was the same as the delivery of the letter at Mr Hall's house. The Act said that the letters are only deemed to be post letters until they are delivered to the person to wnom they are addressed. There was therefore no property in the Postmaster-General.

His Honor said he should hold that the property of the letter remained vested in the Postmaster-General until the letters were removed by the person to whom the box belonged. He should hold this, reserving the point if necessary. Mr Izard would respectfully submit that the letter box was the place designated by Mr Hall for the reception of his letters, hence the delivery took place to him at once when letters were placed in the box, and the property of the Portmaster-General ceased. His Honor pointed put that Mr Izard's conclusions were wrong, as the box formed part of the Post-office, and was under the control of the Postmaster- General, who might, subject to ulterior proceedings, close them up if the exigencies of the public service required it- The letters were.the-.property of the Postmaster-General whiljst the postman was going through the streets. Under these circumstances he should rule against Mr Izard. Mr Izard cited the case of London and North-Western Railway Co v Bartlett, 31 L.J.. Bxch. page 92. His Honor said the case did not apply. He should rule against Mr Izard. Mr Izard tben said that the prisoner would not proceed further in defence. The plea of not guilty could not be withdrawn, but the prisoner did not deny having taken the letters. The only two points were those raised by him, and these having been decided against him, he could not proceed further. Mr Duncan having briefly examined Mr H. J. Hall, the case for the Crown closed. Mr Izard did not address the jury, and his Honor having briefly summed up, the jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of " Guilty." Sentence was deferred until after hearing the next case. TRUE BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills in the cases of Regina v T. H. Knibbs, possessing fraudulent dies for coining ; Regina v T. H. Knibbs, having counterfeit coin in his possession ; Regina v H. Macpherson, forgery ; Regina v Robert H. Fleming, larceny. The Grand Jury, having concluded the business of the calendar, were discharged without making any presentment. UNLAWFULLY POSSESSING DIES. Thomas Hester Knibbs was charged with having on the 17th October last had in his pos session two dies for the purpose of producing counterfeit representations of the current coins of the realm. The prisoner who was defended by Mr Izard pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the Crown was that the prisoner having been arrested by the police on a charge of stealing post letters, a search was made at his lodgings. Mr Inspector Feast in searching the bedroom occupied by the prisoner, discovered a box produced, in which were two dies bearing the impression of a florin, a bottle containing muriatic acid, some quicksilver, and some white metal plate. Mr P. Kerr was chosen foreman of the petty jury. Mr Duncan led evidence in support of the case for the Crown, and called Mr Inspector Feast, who deposed to the finding of the various articles and also two coins representing florins. Detective Neill gave evi dence as to the finding of a third coin in the pockets of trousers belongingto the prisoner. Anne Robinson was also called, and deposed to the prisoner lodging with her, Henry

Joseph Puchs gave evidence as to pi isoner having the dies produced in his poaseai ion at the workshop. Mr Izard, for the defence, said he would call several witnesses to prove that th 9 dies found were not used for the purpose of making false coins, but to make lockcs ;a of a certain description. His Honor said that the possession i if such dies was against the law, without the necessary authority. Mr Izard said, under his Honor's 'uling, he would not call the witnesses he int mded, but would ask his Honor to take a i ote of the point raised by him. Mr Izard then addressed the jury I or the defence. His Honor having summed up, re sapitulating the evidence led by the Grown in the case, The jury, without leaving the b)x, returned a verdict of " Guilty," with a strong recommendation to mercy, on account of his age His Honor said he regretted very much that, in the discharge of his duty to the public, he could not take notice of the recommendation of the jury. Here the r bad a young man convicted of two of tin most heinous offences, breaking into the Poi t office and carrying about coining tools. Mr Izard said he desired to call evidence as to character. His Honor said that it was sciaewhafc peculiar to call evidence to character of a young man who carried about akeleti n keys and coining dies. Here they had a man committing the most serious crime against society of robbing the Post offise which might have been the meaosof bringing about the destruction of the peace of mind of 1 he community, and though he always paid respect to the recommendation of juries, ae was bound to look at the whole case. Mr John Proctor gave evidence that prisoner was for nine years in his employ, during which time he was in a poiition of trust. Witness never knew of dies counterfeiting the Queen's coin being usee I. in the trade of a jeweller. Inspector Feast, in reply to hia Honor, stated that he had known the pria mer for some nine months. He knew that he had been spending more money that he could afford, and he thought that he was robbing his employer. His Honor said that he would only be too glad to give effect to the recommenelation of ihe jury if he could have any explanation of the reason how this young man coul i at one step, as it were, come out a full blown criminal, and commit two of tin worst crimes known to the lav?. His ilea was that the prisoner had no accompl ces, but that he had done it with a view to raise money. He had seen bad money passing, but of course he did not know wl ether it was passed by the prisoner. In reply to his Honor, Mr Izard said he desired the reierval of the point raised by him as to tin letters passing from the property of the PaiitmasterGeneral as soon as the letters were placed;in the private box. Hia Honor did not think the caff differed substantially from Begina v Cut 1 .bertsoa, reported in N.Z. Oases Court of Appeal, It seemed to him that the letter actually belonged to, and was vested in, (he Pofs- - until the actual physical taking of delivery by the address* e of the letter. The tenancy of the private boxeß was merely a revocable license <© oj: en them and take out the letters address* d to the lessees. He would, however, reserve the point for she Court of Appeal. Mr Duncan intimated that la would enter a nolle prosequi in the case oi the possession of counter!eit coin. His Honor then proceeded to pasi; sentence in the case for possessing countei feit dies. It was impossible for him, in the discharge of his duty to the public, to give thii prisoner a light sentence. It would only oe trifling with the administration of justice to do so, and though he would not pass the severest sentence of the law upon him, he would yet give such a sentence as would effec ;ually act as a salutary warning to any others who might be the prisoner's accomplices He did not know whether any one who might be t mpted to enter upon such a career of crime, or who had been the accomplice oI! the prisoner, was within hearing, but he might say moat distinctly that if he found this out, the heaviest sentences would be passed that were possible. It would simply be triling to do anything but this. The sentence of the Court would be that the prisoner be kept in penal servitude for three years, On the third indictment, no evidence being led by the Crown, the jury, under the direction of his Honor, returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." LLeft sitting."] _■