SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1019, 1 October 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS,

Monday, Octoher 1

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court opened at 10 a.ra. The following gentlemen were sworn as THE GRAND JURA*.

Messrs. AC. H. Curruthers, E. S. Hell. J. N. Tosswill, J. J. Fletcher, f. Laurie, E. Harman, J. Birch, Gf. L, Lee, J. S. M. Jacohee»»

J. Aiken, C. Bain, W. R. Browne, H. H. Hennah, R. F. Holdernesso, A. C. Wilson, A. Hornbrook, F. A. Bishop, S. C. Farr, A. W. Bickerton, E. Dobson, W. H. Pilliet, C. E. Dudley. Mr Josiali Birch was chosenjforeman of the Grand J ury. THE JUDGE’S CHARGE. His Honor then proceeded to deliver his charge to the Grand Jury, as follows : Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—l am glad to see that the calendar of persons accused this session is not a very heavy one, although I am sorry to say that there will be one capital case for your consideration. With this exception, the cases in the calendar do not cal! for any remarks at my hands nor do they necessitate my making any comment to you upon them. They are mainly of the character with which you, in the discharge of your duties as Grand Jurymen, are quite well acquainted. There is one case in which you will require to consider the relative position of the parties in the case. I refer to the one in which several persons are charged with larceny of type. The case is one which from the relations existing between the parties will require your consideration. [His Honor then proceeded to comment briefly upon the cases in the calendar.] Referring to the murder case, his Honor said this was one of the cases which tended to show the weakness of definition, logically considered, of their criminal code as regarded murder. In other criminal codes this did not exist. Here the popular idea was that murder constituted killing a person with malice aforethought. But malice aforethought did not moan deliberate malice or wish for the death of any person, but the absence of any color or shadow of right to do such a deed. Now in other countries they had taken great trouble to render their code symmetrical, and there they had homicide of the first, second, and third degree. But in England murder as ho had stated, was defined as malice aforethought. In considering the case before them, they would have to consider whether the provocation or the weapon used was such as would, under the law, reduce the crime to manslaughter. Now the law was this —and it was his duty to tell them—that more provocation hy words was never admitted by the Jaw of England as a mitigation of the offence of taking life. The law went to this extent that the use of violence to a man to the extent of a blow might produce provocation and heat of blood, which, if the crime were committed in heat of blood, would

reduce it to manslaughter. But the law said if there was no violence or menace of violence indicative of some intention to use violence, there was no such [provocation as would reduce it to manslaughter. The case now before them was not of an ordinary character. The man had been provoked, but neither the Judge or the Jury should allow the matter to weigh unduly with them. It was for them to consider when all the facts were before them whether the prisoner had received such provocation as brought it within the law, or had received any menace or threat of violence, and if so, they should bring in a verdict of manslaughter. But if they find that he was under no fear of personal violence, or had been menaced though provoked, and that his fists would have been a sufficient weapon to have defended himself, it was his duty to tell them that they must bring in a true bill for wilful murder. [His Honor then proceeded to give a sketch of the case, and also asrain to lay down the law as regarded manslaughter and murder,] The Q-rand Jury then retired to consider the bills sent in to them by the Crown Prosecutor. LARCENY. Thomas Bray G-ill was indicted for having

stolen on the Ist July, 1877, one keg of butter, the property of Thomas Russell. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The facts of the case, as stated by the Crown, were that the prisoner was residing in the house of the prosecutor. A keg of butter was lost from the house, and the prisoner was seen to secrete it in some manuka scrub by the prosecutor. In support of the indictment, Mr Duncan called the prosecutor, Frederick Eennct, and Inspector Schroeder, of the Waiau. Mr Izard having addressed the jury, His Honor summed up. The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner, and His Honor sentenced him to six years’ penal servitude. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Karl Klintoff pleaded guilty to three charges of larceny as a bailee. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to throe years’ penal servitude on each case, the sentence to be concurrently. HOUSEBREAKING. William Thompson was indicted for house-

breaking. His Honor pointed out that in this case none of the witnesses, except the prosecutor and Detective Benjamin, were in attendance. After some discussion, His Honor said it would be better to allow of the case standing over. In this case the witnesses had rendered themselves liable to a fine of £3O each, but, as this was a very serious matter for persons in their rank of life, be was loth to inllict it until they had every chance of appearing. The case would stand over for the present. EMBEZZLEMENT. Matthew Henderson was indicted for having during the month of July, 1877, whilst employed as storekeeper iu the Railway Department of New Zealand embezzled the sum of £1 ss, being the property of her

Majesty the Queen. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Dimcan prosecuted on the part of the Crown. The following evidence was given : Detective Benjamin deposed to arresting the prisoner on August 27th on a charge of embezzling 25s from the General Government. The prisoner said “What embezzlement ? I know why they have done this ; it is to stop the action I was about to take against them.” Prisoner said that he had written to Mr Stevens. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—The prisoner went on to say that he had done no wrong. George Phipps Williams—l am Resident Engineer in the Railway Department, Christchurch, under the General Government. The prisoner was employed as store-keeper in the Public Works Department, under the Government. His instructions were partly

by written documents and partly by verbal orders from myself. It was bis duty during tbe months of July and August to dispose of carriage and trimming cases. He derived bis general instructions as to tbe former from me. As to the latter be bad no special instructions. I am not aware that there arc special instructions to subordinates as to accounting for money. The greater portion of tbe instructions as to prisoner’s duties are derived from tbe In speetor-General of Stores in Wellington, and 1 have therefore no means of learning what instructions be received. I have incidentally duties connected with the inspection of stores.

What I have to do with it is that if I want stores moved from one station to another I instruct the storekeeper to have it done. The accounts and correspondence of the prisoner would be mainly with the General Inspector of Stores, Wellington. I instructed the prisoner to sell the carriage cases in the usual way. His duty would be to pay the proceeds into the public account. I cannot say whether the paying in to the public account was imposed on him by any written or printed instructions, but I understood that he knew that his duty was to pay the proceeds into the public account. It is de facto the duty of officers in the public works department to pay money received into the public account except in some cases where there are special payments made. My instructions to the prisoner were that the carriage cases should be sold in the usual way. The usual way was that the carriage cases should be sold to the men on the line for 15s each. The Hon. Mr Richardson authorised the sale of these cases whilst Minister for Public Works. The duty of the prisoner was to account for what he had received on account of packing cases to the inspector of stores, sending me a duplicate receipt. It was usual to account to the Inspector - General half - yearly, but ho ought to send me an interim receipt. I received the duplicate produced from the prisoner bearing date 19th July. [Receipt produced.] It is a duplicate deposit receipt in favor of the public account for £6 15s, being amount of nine carriage cases. About the middle of August I received the letter produced from the prisoner. [Letter read stating that the whole amount received by him for cases was £B, but that he had refunded £1 5s on account of the bad condition of some of the cases.] I had a conversation with the prisoner on the 13th August in my office. I said to prisoner “ What did you do with the 25s you got for those packing cases?” At first he did not give me an intelligible account but sputtered at last that he had refunded the money to the railway men the day after he received if. The prisoner has not accounted to me for the 255, Jbeyond the letter and the verbal account I have already given you." Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l gave prisoner special instructions with regard to the nine carriage cases. Fifteen shillings per case may have been mentioned, but I do not remember. It was understood I think. I had not personally previously had anything to do with the sale of carriage cases. By using the words “in the usual way,” I understood that the storekeeper would know more than me as regarded the sale of these cases. The storekeeper might get as much over 15s as he could, but I should apprehend that he could not take less. lam not aware of any instance in the department of trimming cases being sold, and the proceeds accounted for. [Left sitting.]