SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1601, 7 April 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Apeil 7. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly criminal sessions of: the Supreme Court opened at 10 a.m. THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Graud Jury:—Messrs H. P. Lance, Dr. Caro. J. B. Way, F. A. N. Blakiston, D. O'Callaghan, S. Hewlings, P. B. Boulton, T. M. Hassal, A. Hornbrook, T. S. Lambeii, J. T. Ford, W. R. Browne, E. J. T. Ford, J. S. Monek, R. T. S Harman, W. Jameson T. Pavitt, K. G.Weedon, W. Vincent, Julius Von Haast, W. Gerard, E. Dobson, C. F. Barker, D. S. Melville. Mr A. C. Watson was fined <£s for nonattendance, unless cause shown. Mr R. T. S. Harman was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury. his honor's charge.

His Honor, who, from the bad acoustic properties of the Court, was almost inaudible at the importers' table, proceeded to deliver his charge to the Grand Jury. He said that he w *s sorry to be unable to congratulate the Grand Jury on the dimunition of crime throughout the district, as evidenced by the calendar, which was far from light. It seemed, indeed, that a large amount of crime, comparatively, had come to the surface in the distuct. There were no less than twtnty-seven cases, of which nine were against one person, and three against another. ,«,ven with this, the calendar, he was sorry to say, presented a veiy unfavorable character. There was in the calendar one case of that crime which he regretted to see was very rife in the colony, and which should be put down with the strong hand of the law. He alluded to the crime of arson, of which there was a case in the calendar coming before them. He need not, he felt sure, poiut out to gentlemen like those composing the brand Jury that amongst the advantages of modern civilisation the institution of insurance societies was one of the greatest as a public benefit, and as such was entitled to the protecion of the law, the more so as it enabled the provident members of the community to make provision against calamity. In saying this ho did not desire for one moment to say anything which even by the most critical could bo construed into pressing hardly against the accused. But it must bo remembered that this crime of arson was not merely an offence against the law, it was an offence against the whole community, as a fire might reach further thau the criminal intended, and do great damage to tho whole community. Therefore it was necessary that the law should be firmly administered. He did not fay this to them, nor would he say it to a petty jury, to unduly press against the person charged, but ho desired to point out to ti em the importance of such a crime being repressed with a strong hand, and not allowed to grow up amongst them. The case which would come before them narrowed itself into the consideration whether it was consistent with the evidonce that the fire might have been caused by accident, and it would be for them to say whether it was consistent with probabilities not possibilities only—that it wjh the result of accident. If they wore of that opinion then they should hesitate in finding a true Bill ngaint the accused. Although he might have hid a motive for sotting fire to his goods because thoy were nsured, the amount cf difference between the value of the «tock and the amount which would Do recivable as insurance, was not so great as they saw in many cases. The goids wera over insured, but not to a great extent, and it did not appear that the accused person was under undue pecuniary pressure. Therefore it would be for the grand jury to consider whether there w»s a probability of the fire occuriug through accident. The case for the prosecution was that from the indications discovered in the shop it was impospible that the fire could have been the result of accident. Of course in a tobacconist's shop whore matches are

thrown about somewhat recklessly, and the stock was of a combnstible character, there might fce noine ground for believing in the possibility of an accidental fire. But if they found tuat' the fjre having occirod tli re w.i~ i second source of fire separata and distinct from thnt o* tbo first, and win sh could not be caused by the same accident as the first, that would materially aggravate the case, and point to it as not being likely *i bo one of accident. But he would point out that the case as put by the prosecution did not slip there ; because it was stated that there were three sources of lire which conld not 1)0 the resu'tof one accident, and which were not c;mnr sted with each other. The accused tho laat to learn the premises, and a f-hort tiroo af ; er bis doing so the fire was discovered. This was the gist of the ear;" divesf i of incident, ar.d it would bo for them to say w ether the evidence was such as to take away from it the possl ility of accident, and that the offence must have been committed by the accuse 1, who was the last person to leave the premises. As to the motive which would actuate him they woald of course hare ti loik for that, and it was in evidence that the grads in stock at the time of the fire valued «t ■£ICCO. and that the total insurances weuld amount to £.IOO, so that there was motive. This was not qni'.e an ordinary of arson inasmuch as then was no evidence that a po Lion of the building was actually set fire to though it might have spread to the building. But in \ "ew of such case as this, the Legislature had introduced into the Malicious Injury tr> Property Act, a B' :tion from an English Act, which applied under the 7th section of the Malicious Injury to Properly Act. It was enacted that whoever shall urlawfully and maliciously set fire to any matter or ; thing being in, upon or under any building, und«r such circumstances, that if the building were set fire t> the offence would amount to felony and the offender should be deemed guilty of felony. This was inforded to meet the case of something in the building being set fire to and not the building itself, which was precisely the position h the case before the Grand Juiy. The case put forward by the pros.' ention was that Schwartz, the person accused, had set fire to this place tj get the insurance money, and that with that end he had placed combustible matter in three places and set fire to it. Through the promptness of the discovery of the fire, however, it was extinguished before the purpose was effected. He would leave the case to the Grand Juiy, trusting they would apply their mind to to it without any bias on account of the heinousness of the off-nce ortheneeessity for its vigorous repression by the law. The next "use to which he would refer was one also affecting veiy greatly the commercial interests of the community. He referred to a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy against one Bassingthwaite. When a person applied to the Court to take advantage of the insolvency laws it was required of him by statute that he should make a clean breast as to all he possessed and as to the disposition of the whole of his property. An Act wan passed dminpr the last session of the Assembly entitled the Fraudulent Debtors Act, and under that Act an indictment could be laid against any bankrupt who fraudulently and with intent concealed any of his property from his trustee and creditors. So far as he understood the indictment against Bassingthwaite would be framed on one or other of the provisions of this Act. Under the Fraudulent Debtors Act it is enacted that any debtor coming under the Bankruptcy Acts shall be deemed to have committed misdemeanour if he does not to the best of his knowledge and belief discover to his trustee the whole of his property, and how and to whom, except in the ordinary way of his trade, be has disposed of any of it; also, if he does not deliver up to his truste3 all property which may be uno'er his disposition. A debtor IS further liable to be charged with misdemeanour if he ttempts to conceal bis property or to account for his banki aptcy by fictitious statements of losses. In the case of Bassing Ihwaite, a statement was filed, in which the propeily, the subject of the case, wai not set out, and that also at the meetin? of creditors, both affirmatively and negatively, the bankiupt had stated that no other property than that stated by him was in his possession. Further than this, the bankrapt had stated to his creditors and trustee that he had sold cattle and had in his purse the sum of .£24.00, which he had lost at the races in Dunedin. Subsequently, a search warrant was obtained, and no le-s a sum than £BOO discovered on the person of his wife. What the facts of the other case of fraudulent bankruptcy were he was not aware. If there were any special circumstances, he would comment on it later on. With regard to the ordinary cases of larceny and forgery, he might say that the same recklessness in taking cheques was evinced by tradesmen ; not so much, perhaps, as on previous occasions, but really tradespeople would not be warned, but continued to take cheques from persons who had been in the shop once or twice. There was one case as to the acceptance by shopkeepers of cheques from persons unknown to them, yet it was plain from the continuance of the cases that they wouldl not be warned. It was a ease in which the person charged had passed no less than nine cheques, unging the changes on different banks, whilst in another casethera were three charges. Though, as he had said, there was not so much recklessness visible a matter of importance to the community at large, as the country had to bear the expense of the prosecution of the criminal. His Honor then proceeded to comment on the of indecent assault and assault with intent which appeared in the calendar. The other cases were those of larceny from the person, in which the accomplice might have acted as receiver, one of embezzlement by a railway guard, and several of the ordinal y type of larceny. In the latter cases there was an illustration of how the wealth of the working classes here got dissipated amongst the criminal classes. He would not detain the Grand Jury longer. If they would retire, the bills would be sent to them. POBGERY AND UTTERING. Edgar Bastings was indicted for having on the 10th January forged and uttered a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, for £7 ss. The prisoner, for whom Mr Joynt appeared pleaded "Guilty." Mr Joynt, said that this wai a case in which an infortunate young man had fallen into bad company and drink. He trusted his Honor would deal leniently with the prisoner and treat; it as a first offence. He would desire to call his Honor's attention to the case of Regina v. McFarlane, in which his Honor had given a sentence of six months for a first offence of forgery, though there were numerous eases extending over nine months. His Honor pointed out that the case referred to was one which had been tried before his Honor, Mr Justice Williams. The least sentence he could impose on the prisoner for a first offence of such a character as the one he had pleaded guilty to waß twelve months, but as he had been some months in gaol he would impose the sentence of ten calendar months with hard labour. It must be distinctly understood that in passing the nominal sentence of six months for a first offence of forgery such as had been given by his Brother Williams and himself, the case must be under very exceptional aud peculiar circumstances. HORSESTEALING. Rasman Jorgenson, alias Hansen Jansen, was indicted for having, on the 26th January, stolen one gelding. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded guilty. ' STEALING VEOM A DWELLING. Rasman Jorgenson was indicted for haying on the 27th January stolen from the dwellinghouee of Peter Lorenson, Lincoln road, certain articles of property and money. The prisoner pleaded " Q-uilty." LAECENY. Rasman Jorgenson was indicted for having stolen on the 27th January a saddle and bridle. The prisoner pleaded " Guilty." Detective Benjamin and Sergeant Wilson gave evidence as to several previous convictions for larceny against the prisoner. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for ten years on the horse stealing, ten years' penal sorvitude for stealing from a dwelling, and three years for the larceny of the saddle. The whole to run concurrently, or ten years' penal servi'ude in all. LARCENY FUO.M THE PERSON. James McArdcll and Alexander Fitzgerald were indicted for having on the let March stolen a pocket-book from one Edward Ferry. The prisoner McArdcll pleaded " Guilty," and the prisoner Fitzgerald "Not guilty." The ease stood over until th t of Regina v Burdaesi for indecent assault was taken. INDECENT ASSAULT. Angiola Burdassi was indicted for having on I he 9th March, 187'J, indecently assaulted a child. Mr De Montalle was sword as an interpreter. The prisoner who was defended by Mr | Neck, pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the I prisoner. i The evidenco iu the case is unfit for publii eation. ! [Left sitting.]