SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 871, 10 April 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

j ♦ I CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, April 9. ' [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] j STEALING FROM A DWELLING. After we went to press yesterday, the jury returned ii verdict of ii Guilty in the case of Geo. Mussen, indicted for stealing from a dwelling, and His Honor sentenced the prisoner to ten years’ penal servitude. OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES, j Philip Cater Newington was indicted for '■ having, whilst on the high seas, on board the British ship Crusader, obtained certain moneys i from one Hugh Hopper by pretending he was Viscount or Lord Maidstone, and had a large amount of jewels and money on board, and had also letters of credit on the Union Bank of Australia, Christchurch. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Izard contended that under the Vexatious Indictments Act, the indictment should not have gone to the Grand Jury, as it was necessary that the prosecutor should be bound under recognizances. Now the two indictments had been presented on which the recognizances had been taken, and the jury had returned a verdict of “-Not Guilty.” Hence the recognizances had been discharged by the prosecutor so appearing, and on the further indictments now presented, he had not been. The Act said no indictment should be presented to the Grand Jury unless the prosecutor was bound over by recogizanccs or [the prisoner detained in custody to answer the indictment. His Honor—But he has been detained in custody. Mr Izard further directed the attention of his Honor to the olh section of the Act, which provided that the consent in writing ol the Judge should have been obtained to further indictments. His Honor —I should I think haio given my consent if asked. But, Mr Izard, the prisoner has pleaded to these indictments. Should not the point have been taken before plea ? I will reserve both points for the coneideratjoa of tfys Court of Appenl if t«l3

prisoner is convicted. There was, I think, no application for the discharge of the prisoner. However, we will hear the case and then if a conviction follows, it will be reserved for the Court of Appeal, whether the prisoner was rightly indicted or not upon the second presentment of the Crown. Mr Duncan called the following evidence on behalf of the Crown : Hugh Hopper, who deposed that he was a fellow passenger with the prisoner on board the British ship Crusader from London to Lyttelton. On the voyage witness was induced to lend prisoner money on the representations that he was Viscount Maidstone, and had jewels and watches of great value on board, and also letters of credit on the Union Bank of Australia. Prisoner further stated that he was captain in the 18th Hussars. The total amount advanced on. the strength of these representations was £lO. William Smith, a detective constable stationed in Lyttelton, deposed to arresting the accused when in answer to a question as to his name the prisoner said he was Lord Maidstone. Witness asked prisoner if he knew Squire Rice of Dane Court, Kilmanston, Kent, and prisoner said he did not. Witness said it was curious, as Squire Rice’s daughter married the Earl of Winchelsea. On getting to the lock-up prisoner gave the name of Newington. Witness; knew the present Viscount Maidstone, son of the Earl of Winchelsea. The prisoner was not him nor was lie like him. Cross-examined by Mr Izard —Witness came here in 1874, and from Kent. J. S. D’Emden, clerk in the Union Bank of Australia, Christchurch, deposed that no letters of credit had been received for Lord Maidstone or Philip Cater Newington. Alexander Rose, collector of Customs, deposed to the Crusader being a British ship, and sailing under the British flag. Mr Izard addressed the jury for the defence, contending that no false pretences were proved. His Honor having shortly summed up, The jury returned a verdict of “Not Guilty. ’ ’ The Crown Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi in the second indictment, and a verdict of “ Not Guilty ” was returned. The prisoner was discharged. Tuesday, April 10. The Court resumed its sittings at 10 a.m. EMBEZZLEMENT. Edwin Wadman, who had pleaded Guilty to several charges of embezzlement as clerk to the Hcathcote Road Board, was brought up for sentence. Mr Joynt proposed to call evidence as to character. Francis James Garrick deposed to knowing the prisoner, who was his clerk for some two years, during which time his character was very good. The prisoner, who was called upon to say anything he might wish in mitigation of sentence, said that he had been in four other olllccs of trust for eight years, and that great temptation was given to him to embezzle moneys. There was a large amount of money passing through his hands every year, comprising cheques, orders, &c, which lie might easily have embezzled. The defalcations were mainly the result of carelessness. Samuel Manning : I am chairman of the Hcathcote Road Board. During the time the prisoner held the office of clerk he bore a good character. The amount of defalcations up to the present time was £6OO. In answer to the prisoner, the witness said that sometimes the cash book was not seen by the members of the Board. The rate cash hook was laid on the table every fortnight. His Honor, in sentencing the prisoner, observed that it might be that the system of account keeping was so defective as to afford every opportunity for peculation and embezzlement. It seems to him that it was the imperative duty of all bodies representing the public to sec that all officials under them were doing their duty. If they did not do this, and carefully exercise supervision, then the laxity and want of care should be exposed. He should not measure the punishment to be awarded to the prisoner by the amount embezzled ; but still he should impose a substantial sentence, and one which would not be trilling with justice. He trusted that at the conclusion of his sentence the prisoner would regain his good character, and again become a good useful member of society. The sentence would be that the prisoner be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, with hard labor, on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently, or twelve months in all. FORGERY AND UTTERING. diaries Sutton, who had pleaded “Guilty ” 10 two charges of forgery and uttering, was brought up for sentence. The prisoner said that as this was his first offence, he trusted his Honor would give him a chance. Mr Inspector Feast deposed to the prisoner being arrested in Dunedin for uttering valueless cheques. ilis Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour concurrently on the three indictments. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Frederick Oaklands who had pleaded “ Guilty ” to an indictment of this nature, was brought up for sentence. Mr Inspector Feast proved two previous convictions. The prisoner said that drink was the cause of his being in the position he was. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour on each indictment concurrently. ARSON. Thomas King was indicted for having on the 22nd February last, wilfully and maliciously set fire to stables situate in Armagh street and Cranmer square, the property of Mr E. B. Bishop. The prisoner who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on the part of the Crown. Mr Inspector Feast gave evidence as to arrest of prisoner, and his telling him that the tiro had been occasioned by his smoking in the loft while intoxicated. Mr E. B. Bishop deposed to the prisoner having been in his employ for some eighteen months, and had been dismissed on the 16th February for drunkenness. The prisoner did not smoke at all at any time. On the night of the tire witness went to bed shortly after 11 p.m. and was awakened by the cry of tire between midnight and 1 a.m. When lie got up the stable was on tire, and had the wind been the other way the house would have can "lit tire. The prisoner had no right on witnesses’ premises after his dismissal. Witness had a very savage dog tied -up in the. yard, which would have barked at a stranger The dog did not bark that night at all. On cross-examination by Mr Joynt, witness deposed that on one occasion prisoner had been locked out, and had glcpt in the loft.

Catherine Grindrod, servant at Mr Bishop's deposed to seeing the prisoner on the night of the fire at a little before nine outside the large gates of Mr Bishop’s property. The prisoner rang the bell and witness opened it. Some conversation ensued, and prisoner left after impressing on witness not to sav that he had been there that night. In cross-examination by Mr Joynt witness said that prisoner came on the Monday and Tuesday mornings prior to the fire. Mary Beck deposed to seeing the prisoner between twenty minutes and half-past nine in Armagh street, near the Government buildings. He was loitering about the neighbourhood. Mary Berkeley deposed to giving the alarm of fire. Peter Pryde, landlord of the Plough Inn, give evidence of the prisoner coming to his house on the morning after the fire, and stating that he had lain out the previous night. Catherine Grindrod recalled, deposed that cither a week or fortnight before prisoner’s dismissal, he said that if the place was down it would give Miss and Mr Bishop a chance of building it up, and spending some of their money. This was the case for the Crown. For the defence Mr Joynt called Thomas Pyett, who deposed that he knew prisoner. lie was in the habit of coming into witness’s hotel of an evening. He would have a cigar sometimes, but very seldom. Witness never saw prisoner with a pipe. James Wm. Morton deposed to the good character of prisoner while in his employ, extending over some few months. Prisoner was a good, hard-working man, but with a slight fondness for drink. He was a harmless man. Mr Joynt then proceeded to address the jury. His Honor summed up, and, after being absent for one hour and a quarter, the jury returned a verdict of “ Not guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. This concluded the business of the session, and the Court adjourned sine die.