SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1449, 8 October 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING-3. Monday, Oct. 7. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] TSTJB BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases Regina v Ekius Hoff, murder; Reginav W. D. Stanton, housebreaking and larceny; Regina v John Reynolds, arson (White’s case) ; Regina v Thomas Grossman, housebreaking ; Regina v Henry Jones, larceny ; Regina v S. L. Dennis, larceny ; Regina y Bridget Barrett, forgery ; Regina v Margaret Ellison, larceny from tho person ; Regina v Timothy Houlihan, assault on a child of tender years ; Regina vJ. M. Fitzgerald, maliciously injuring trees ; Regina v Belcher and Sorenson, unlawfully killing cattle ; Regina v James Smith, arson ; Regina v A. G. Manning, larceny as a clerk.

PBKSEfmiENX,

Tho Grand Jury having concluded their labors returned into Court. The Foreman—Your Honor—Before the Grand Jury are discharged they have desired mo to bring one subject under your Honor’s notice. It is in reference to the case of Henry Jones charged with larceny of £l. The Grand J ury had no option on the evidence but to return a true bill, at the same time they desire me to call your Honor’s attention to it, as they think the case might have been dealt with summarily, and thus have saved the country a great deal of expense. His Honor —On reference to the depositions, Mr Foreman, I find that it is a case of larceny from the person, which is made a felony by statute, punishable with penal servitude for not more than fourteen, nor less than three years. This being so, there is no

other tribunal but the Supreme Court which could deal with it at present. You see it is altogether a different case from one of simple larceny, which could be dealt with summarily. If the District Court had been in operation, probably it might have gone, but as it is not, it will not be necessary for me to say anything about it. I have now pleasure in discharging you, with the thanks of the Queen and the colony for your services. NO BILL. The Grand Jury returned no true bill in the case of Regina v. John Reynolds—Arson (Guy’s case). ARSON. John Reynolds was indicted for having wilfully and maliciously set fire to certain brushwood and boxes piled up against the house of one Mary Ann White, at Courtenay, with intent to burn and destroy the same. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the Crown was, that the prisoner, who had been staying at White’s Accommodation House, had been told to sleep in the loose box, and did so on the night of the fire. About 1 a.m. the inmates of the house were awakened by cries of fire, and found that a pile of brushwood and boxes had been put against the house and set fire to. The prisoner, who had been seen to go to the loose box to sleep that night, was not to be found when the fire was discovered, though some of the persons sleeping in the house heard noises like the striking of matches or crackling of sticks proceeding therefrom. Ultimately the prisoner was arrested on the charge of arson, several footprints near the scene of the fire being identified as those of the prisoner. Mr Duncan led evidence in support of the case for the Crown. His Honor having summed up, the jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to four J ears’ penal servitude, remarking upon the einousness of the offence of arson, and expressed astonishment that men were tempted to commit such a dreadful crime. If vagabonds were to be allowed to roam through the district placing the lives and property of the industrious and hardworking people in peril, they might as well give up administerthe law. The only way to get rid of such Sersons was to put them out of the way of oing harm for a period. PLEAS. Walter David Stanton was indicted for having stolen a quantity of stamps, stamped acceptance forms, &c., from the house of Caroline Bradwell, in Colombo street. The prisoner pleaded “Not guilty,” William James Millar, for having obtained goods from one P. A. Edmiston, on false pretences by pretending that a cheque drawn by him for £23 was a good and genuine order. The prisoner pleaded “Not guilty.” Timothy Houlihan was charged with committing an indecent assault upon a child of tender years. The prisoner pleaded “ Not guilty.” James Smith was indicted for having set fire to certain premises, the property of W. H. Symes, The prisoner pleaded “Not guilty.” LARCENY AS A CLERK. Arthur Gerald Manning was indicted for having stolen £IOO whilst employed in the service of the Bank of New Zealand at Christchurch. The prisoner pleaded “Guilty.” Mr Joynt applied to his Honor to reserve sentence till next day, as he wished to be heard as to character, &c. His Honor granted the application. The Court adjourned at 5 p.m. till 10 a.m. this day. Tuesday, October 8. The Court reopened at 10 a.m, LARCENY AS A CLERK. Arthur Gerald Manning, who had pleaded “ Guilty” to a charge of larceny as a clerk in the service of the Bank of New Zealand, was brought up for sentence. Mr Joynt appeared for the prisoner, and said he was sorry to say that he had not been able to bring evidence as to the character of the prisoner. He could only urge the youth of the prisoner and the fact that he had pleaded guilty as a plea for leniency on behalf of the prisoner. Mr Garrick appeared on behalf of the Bank to ask his Honor to deal leniently with the prisoner. He bad come to the Bank with excellent recommendations, and the only reason for the crime that they could allege was that he had fallen into bad habits. He might also say that the money had been returned. His Honor said he had nothing to do with that. The sentence of the Court would be that the prisoner be imprisoned for one year with hard labor. He trusted that this would have a salutary effect, and that the prisoner would emerge from his imprisonment determined to enter afresh upon a career of probity and usefulness either here or elsewhere. ARSON. James Smith was indicted for having wilfully and maliciously set fire to a certain storehouse, the property of W. H. Symes. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The facts of the case, as stated by the Crown, were that the prisoner, on the date mentioned in the indictment, was in the service of Dr. Symes. On that evening Sergeant Wilson discovered that the outhouse of Dr. Symes’ premises was on fire, and on going up to it found that there was a very strong smell of kerosene. The prisoner was the first person who came when Sergeant Wilson gave the alarm, and protested that he knew nothing about the matter. On a search being made, traces of kerosene were found outside the window of the room where the prisoner slept. Before the date of the fire the prisoner told the servant girls that they would be frightened on the night of the ball, which was the night of the fire. Mr Duncan called the following witnesses in , support of the case for the Crown : Sergeant Wilson, Dr. Symes, Detective Walker, Messrs Ibbott, W. H. Smith, Fanny Hind, and Marion Townend. Mr Izard then addressed the jury for the defence. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after an absence of twenty minutes, returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. ASSAULT. Timothy Houlihan was indicted for having on the 9th July committed an indecent assault upon a child of tender age. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not Guilty.” The details of the case are unfit for publication. [Left sitting.]