SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1020, 2 October 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, October 1. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] embezzlement. Matthew Henderson was indicted for having during the month of July, 1877, whilst employed as storekeeper in the Railway Department of New Zealand embezzled the sum of £1 ss, being the property of her Majesty the Queen. The following evidence in this case was given after we went to press yesterday:— William Anderson —I am shop foreman at the railway station, Christchurch. The prisoner was in the store department. I purchased nine carriage cases of the prisoner in the middle of April. Prisoner also sold some trimming cases about the beginning of July to the men. I did not purchase any trimming cases in July. I paid for the carriage cases in July which I had purchased in April. Prisoner sold five trimming cases in July to the men. The money was paid to me, and I paid Henderson £8 for carriage cases and trimming cases. My amount was £6lss for the carriage cases, and that of the men for the trimming cases £1 ss. I received instructions from Henderson to receive from the men the price of the trimming cases. I saw the trimming cases. They were not deficient or broken in any way. fcross-examined by Mr Joynt—l have been in the department for sixteen years. Trimming cases are very small as compared with carriage cases. The former are about 4ft. square. The carriage cases are 32ft. by Bft, 6in, The practice of the department with regard to the smaller cases has been to give them away. I have frequently had them for nothing. John Ellis deposed that in July last he was engaged as carriage builder on the Canterbury railways. About 13th August witness had a conversation with the prisoner in the carriage workshop. He said, “Ellis, I have some money to refund for some packing cases ; it should have been refunded before.” It was ss. Witness understood that this was for a damaged case. The case he had bought from prisoner was not damaged, but he took his money. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—All these cases were more or less damaged. Witness had never made any complaint. Witness might have said in the Magistrate’s Court that the case was much knocked about. He remembered that it was the 13th August because he had been studying the time since. In the Magistrate’s Court witness stated on the 20th August that the conversation had taken place with Henderson some three or four weeks previous to that date. It was partly what he had heard from others and his own studying of the matter that had enabled him to arrive at the exact date now. He did not think lie was fairly entitled to the 5s ; he took it, and said nothing more about it. John Andrews deposed t o having purchased some cases from the witness Anderson. He paid him 355. The prisoner gave witness a trimming case to make up for the carriage case being broken. Ho had complained to the witness Anderson about this. The prisoner came to witness in August and told him that he ought to have returned him the money he was going to give him at the time the cases were purchased. Prisoner gave witness 6s, and promised to give him 4a more, making 10s altogether. Witness told the prisoner that he did not wish to have anything to do with the money. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—They hud a convention amongst the witnesses as to the month oi ; the conversation between them and the prisoner. I believe now that it was three weeks before the 20bh August that I had the conversation with the prisoner. Abraham Jansou deposed that he was in -(ho Railway department in July last, Wit-

ness purchased the packing cases from Anderson for 15s each. On the 13th August Henderson came to us and gave us some money. He thought it was on a Monday. Prisoner told witness that he had 10s to give him as a refund. Cross -examined by Mr Joynt—Ellis, Andrews and witness talked over the day, and from this and what he had heard in the Magistrate’s Court he came to the idea that he had received the money on the 13th August. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Duncan having addressed the jury, Mr Joynt replied for the prisoner. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short retirement, returned into Court with a verdict of “Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. TRUE BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned into Court with true bills in the following cases —Regina v Thomas Bray Gill, larceny ; Regina v W. Thompson, larceny in a dwelling house ; Regina v Carl Klintoff, larceny as a bailee (two indictments); Regina v M. Henderson, embezzlement; Carl Kehde, murder ; Regina v W. J. Mahoney, W. Mahoney, and P. Devanny, larceny of printing type ; Regina vW. M. Browne, receiving printing type, knowing the same to be stolen. NO BILL. In Regina v Samuel Smith, indecent assault, the Grand Jury returned no true bill. The Court then adjourned until this morning, when the case of Regina v W. J. Mahoney, W. Mahoney, P. Devanny, and W. M, Browne, for larceny of type, will bo proceeded with. The case of Regina v Karl Kehde, for murder, has been fixed for Wednesday next, at 10 a.m.

Tuesday, October 2. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The sitting of the Court was resumed at 10 a.m. LARCENY OF PRINTING TYPE. W. Johnston Mahoney 7 , Win. Mahoney, and Andrew Devanney were indicted for having, during the mouth of January, stolen a quantity of type, the property of the “ North Canterbury 7 Independent” Printing Company. M. H. Browne was also charged with having received the said property knowing the same to have been stolen. The prisoners pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Garrick appeared for Browne, Mr Izard for William Mahoney, and Dr. Foster for Devanney. At the previous sitting, Dr. Foster, for Devanney, raised the point of his client having a separate right of challenge. Mr Duncan now said that he had looked into the subject, and he thought it was the right of the Crown to decide upon the severance of challenges where a number of prisoners were jointly indicted. Dr. Foster now contended that the authorities went the length of saying that the severance of challenges was the course to be pursued. His Honor said that'the law seemed to him to be that the Crown could, in order to prevent the ends of justice being defeated by the prisoners challenging the whole panel, and the tales apply to have their challenges served.

Dr. Foster quoted from Archibold and other authorities to uphold his contention. After argument, his Honor ruled against Dr. Foster. On the indictment being read, His Honor called attention to the fact that the indictment contained no distinct date. This was contrary to the English practice. The la w was that the date should be averred, though it was not necessary to be proved. Dr. Foster quoted from Koscoe to shew that it was necessary that the date should appear in the indictment. Mr Duncan said he was prepared to support the indictment by the 14th and 15th Victoria, chap. 100. [Quoted.] His Honor thought that it was not sufficiently averred. Mr Duncan said that the section referred to laid it down that the indictment should not he bad for the omission of time where time was not an essential of the offence. His Honor said that from this, it appeared that, although the indictment was bad, it was covered by the section of the Act referred to by Mr Duncan, which provided that no advantage should be taken of it. Under these circumstances, the case would proceed. Mr Duncan having brietly opened the case, called the following evidence; —

Edward Denham, Registrar of Joint Stock Companies for the Canterbury Provincial District, produced the certificate of registry of the “North Canterbury Independent and Farmers’ Chronicle ” Company (Limited). The certificate under the Act of 1860 was issued by him in due form. Harry Feast—l am inspector of police stationed at Kaiapoi. I arrested Mahoney, jun., on July 4th last, on the charge of being concerned in larceny of type at Kaiapoi. He said, “ It was all a swindle right through.” Before arresting him I had become possessed of certain type, which had been brought to the Police Depot on Saturday, June 30th. There were four bags containing type, two galleys containing type set up, a small scroll box and rule case, and two type boxes with type. On the day I arrested Mahoney, jun., 1 went to Rangiora. I went to the house of the prisoner Browne. He prints a paper called the “Rangiora Standard.” The late Mr Inspector Barsham, Constable Thornton, and Mr Dudley went with me. We went to the “ Standard ” office first and saw Browne. Mr Barsham read the search warrant produced. Browne said he knew nothing about it; we could search, and if anything was there belonging to the company we might take it. After the warrant had been read, I remained talking to Browne whilst the others were searching the premises. They were examining type which was set up in various forms. They were in there some time, and Browne seemed to be annoyed, saying as soon as we had done we had better clear out, or he would clear us out. He was getting very impertinteut, and 1 said “Don’t he in a hurry, old man, 1 might have to take you out. Browne then went outside round the corner of the house. I followed him out, and met him at the side of the house. He then said if he thought he would not get into trouble he would tell me all about it. I told him I knew nothing about his getting into trouble; I was searching for type, and type I would find if I could. He then asked me if we should look him up if we found the type. I told him I was not the principal in the qaje— I was acting undey My He then took me to tlm roar of the house, and showed me a hole over which he said a pig-stye had stood. He said the hole he had dug himself, and that was where the type had been buried. There was type in the hole. Ho said he dug the hole himself, _ but be did not know who brought it. It was brought

during the night. He said he had paid for it to young Mahoney, in the office. He said he had paid £ls for it, by cheque signed Browne and Holland. Browne was the apparent proprietor of the “Standard,” as he called the premises his premises to us. He took me further into the garden, and showed me some other holes in which he said the type had been buried. He asked me again if I would lock him up if he showed me the type. I said —“ So far as lam concerned, Browne, I might not do it, but I am not the principal in the case.” Mr Garrick took the objection here that this was an inducement held out to Browne by Mr Inspector Feast, and therefore the statement of Browne could not be taken. His Honor said it looked extremely like it. Ho thought ho should be justified under the former reading of the law to exclude the test imony, but the tendenney of modern authorities was to leave Quixotism and return to common sense. If it was admitted that an inducement had been held out, it w r as only to tell the truth. Mr Garrick agreed with his Honor as to the reading of the modern authorities. But he would put it to his Honor that if the evidence tended to criminate himself it could not be taken. (Quoted Taylor on evidence, Regina v Cass, Regina v Gillies, 11 Cox, page GO, Regina v Taylor, C. & P.) His Honor said the whole gist of the case was that if the inducement held out was sufficient to make the prisoner speak falsely then the evidence was inadmissable; but if otherwise, and that it only induced the truth, then it was admissable. After some further argument,

His Honor said he was not satisfied that what Mr Feast had said came within the statute, and therefore he would admit the evidence taking a note of the objection. Witness —Browne then took me in the back way. We went to a room upstairs. In the room was a quantity of type lying on the floor. The box produced full of type was in the room, and a quantity of type, which is now in this sack, was heaped up in the room. Browne said “ There it is; I wish I’d had nothing to do with it.” He said something afterwards about his finding it near the hole by the pigstye. I arrested Mahoney the younger subsequently. I found the cases produced in tlic house of Holland in Durham street. They were in the fowl-house at the back of the dwelling-house. Cross-examined by Mr Izard: Mahoney, junior, said that it was a swindle all through immediately on my arresting him. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—Browne told me, I believe, that the type was brought there at night. I believe he said that when Holland and himself first got the type he did not know where it came from, but when they did it was buried. I understood him afterwards to say that there had been further payments beyond the £ls for the type. Charles Edward Dudley—l was manager of the “ North Canterbury Independent and Farmers’ Chronicle” Company (Limited), at Kaiapoi. I know all the prisoners. The elder Mahoney was sub-editor and publisher of the paper until the end of December, 1876. Browne had no connection with the paper. The other two prisoners were employed as compositors, and paid by Mahoney, sen. On the 28th December, the Thursday after the paper ceased publishing, I was in the office. The plant was all there then, so far as I know. On the 2nd or 3rd January I went again, On the 28th December I locked the door and took the key away. When I went on the 2nd or 3rd January I found Mr Tombs and another person, who were engaged valuing the plant, one for the company and one for Mr M. H. Smith, who proposed to purchase. The office was in a great state of confusion, several forms were in pie. I missed a scroll box and brass rule case. Those produced are similar to the ones missed. I missed several parcels of type packed up and a quantity of type, some 4 or 5 cwt. I never gave any authority to any one to remove type from the office. I value tire plant removed from the office at from £7O to £BO. About the middle of June last I received a letter from T. M. Holland, in consequence of which I went to Messrs Toombs and Go’s printing office, Christchurch, where I saw Mr T. M. Holland, the writer of the letter. In consequence of what he told me I telegraphed to the chairman of directors, Mr Eckersley, who came to Christchurch from Kaiapoi. He went to Holland’s house, and took me to the back of the house and showed me four eornsacks, the galleys produced, and a quantity of type. I accompanied Inspectors Feast and Barsham to the “ Standard” office on the Wednesday following. [The witness here gave corroborative testimony as to Inspector Feast’s evidence.] When we got to the Kaiapoi railway station, Browne then being in custody, I said to him—“ How was it you got mixed up with an affair like this ?” He said—“ God knows, Mr Dudley, I suppose that I shall have to stand the racket of it now.” I cannot identify the type positively. It is similar to what w'o lost. Cross-examined by Mahoney, sen. —I remember Talbot and Devanney coming to my house after the paper stopped and asking for me. I offered to employ Devanney and Talbot to weigh up the plant, and gave them the key of the office. I never heard of any agreement by which you were to get £SO after a little time. You held the largest amount of shares in the Company; you held 100 shares. They are paid for now. They were paid for by instalments. You got a judgment against the Company for £62 and expenses. This was in March, 1877, I think. There was no understanding between Mr Walker and myself that I should have the managership. I applied for the situation and got it. I recommended the directors on more than one occasion to get rid of you. I remember you writing letters to the directors charging me with unfair management. In consequence of these charges you were suspended for a week. A fresh agreement was entered into. I had never had anything to do with a newspaper before. I referred matters which I thought were wrong to the working directors. As near as I can estimate the value of the type stolen was some £BO. Ido not know that the whole amount the company agreed to pay you for the plant was £l5O. I doubt that you had a letter from Gordon and Gotch holding me responsible for £l4 balance due on the plant. It was entered in the books that Gordon and Gotch drew on the Company for £2ll. I cannot say that the draft was in your name. Ido not think it was so. My impression is that Gordon and Gotch drew on the company for the amount of the plant. I was noxious to get rid of you out of the office on account of your mismanagement in the printing office. By Mr Hard —I do not know in whose name the printing press was registered. I think Mahoney was registered as publisher.

By Dr Foster—Mahoney, senr. had £l2 per week to pay the printing portion of the establishment.

By Mr Garrick—There were different sorts of type. I do not attempt to identify the type, but I say we have lost long primer, bourgeois,|and brevier, and that we have found the same sort of type at Holland’s. I saw the proof produced struck of the type remaining in the galley, I am quite sure that Browne did not say that he was personally connected with the affair. William Eckersley deposed that he was chairman of directors of the “North Canterbury Independent and Farmers’ Chronicle” (Limited). He had never authorised anyone to take type from the office. William Talbot—At the end of 1876 I was in the employ of the “ North Canterbury Independent ” Company. I was engaged and paid by Mahoney. At the time of the paper stopping there was a month’s wages due to me. I had a conversation in Middleton’s Hotel with Mahoney, senior At this stage of the proceedings the witness was removed by order of his Honor to some cool and convenient spot, he evidently having been looking upon the wine when it was red. Edward Smethurst, a contractor in Kaiapoi, deposed to seeing Talbot about Christmas time near Kaiapoi bridge. He had a box under his arm. It was a small box something like the one produced, He went into Weston’s butcher’s shop. Witness saw him again in the evening. He was then with Devanney and young Mahoney. They went down a right-of-way close to Weston’s butcher’s shop. They all had parcels, one, witness thought, Devanney, had a box. The boxes appeared to be heavy in weight. Witness saw them again in a public house —the Pier Hotel. Thomas Hudson deposed that he was a saddler residing in Kaiapoi. Talbot brought some parcels to his shop. Witness left the parcels outside his shop in the evening, and they were gone in the morning. I had a conversation with tire Mahoneys, and he asked them, as he had heard about something being missed, what was in the boxes. He thought that one of the Mahoneys told him that, having a lawyer’s advice, they were told that if they secured some of the type from the office, they could keep it for their wages. I found some more type in the morning after this. [The witness gave his evidence in a most confused manner throughout.] [Left sitting.]