SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1602, 8 April 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, Aphid 7. The following cases were disposed of after we went to press : INDBOENT ASSAULT. Angiola Burdassi was indicted for having on the Dili March, 1879, indecently assaulted a child. Mr Do Montalk was sworn as an interpreter. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Neck, pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The evidence in the case is unfit for publication. The Jury, after a short retirement, returned into Court with a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. FORGERY AND UTTERING, Walter Bullivant, a young man of twentyone years of ago, pleaded “ Guilty ” to four cases of forgery and uttering. The prisoner said he could give no reason why ho had committed the crimes to which he had pleaded guilty except that he had fallen into bad company. Ho had escaped to Auckland, where he had committed the same crime, and for which ho had been sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment, which he was now undergoing. His Honor said he could tell the prisoner how it was that he had committed such crimes. It was owing to the readiness with which foolish people took cheques from persons with whom they had little acquaintance. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for six years on each indictment, to rup concurrently, and to take effect at the expiration of his present sentence. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Robert Leo was indicted for having forged a cheque on the Bth day of January for the sum of £l2, and for uttering the same, knowing it to bo forged. The same prisoner was charged with a second offence of the same character on the 16th January, 1879. The prisoner pleaded “ Guilty” to the uttering in both cases, His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment, with hard labor, LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. James McArdell, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny from the person, was brought up for sentence. His Honor, after remarking that the practice of robbing drunken men must be put down with the strong hand of the law, said he would sentence the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. AN APPLICATION. Mr Neck said he desired to make an application in Bassingthwaite’s case. He believed a sum of money had been found in the possession of the wife of the accused. His Honor —Yes, Mr Neck, £B2O. Mr Neck would like to apply that a portion of the sum found upon the wife should bo given up for the purposes of the defence of the accused. His Honor —Surely, Mr Nock, you cannot mean to ask me to make an order to give you over part of the plunder ? It is on the depositions that this £BC9 is part of the £2400. Mr Nock—Your Honor will pardon me if I submit that your Honor is prejudging the case. His Honor —Not at all, Mr Neck. I am simply stating what appears on the depositions. You are now asking me to give you a part of what forms the charge against the accused for the purpose of his defence. It is the same as if a solicitor in a case where a man is charged with stealing a gold watch, should ask that the watch should be sold t o help pay for bis defence, I certainly cannot entertain the application, Mr Neck. Mr Neck—Very well, your Honor. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury during the day returned true bills in the following cases : —Regina v Edgar Eastings, forgery and uttering ; Regina v Rasman Jorgenson, three cases, viz., horsestealing, larceny, and stealing from a dwelling ; Regina v James McArdell and Alexander Fitzgerald, larceny from the person ; Regina v Angioio Burdassi, indecent assault on a child ; Regina v Walter Bullivant, forgery and uttering, nine charges ; Regina v Robert Lee, forgery and uttering; Regina v P. J. Fowler, embezzlement as a railway guard ; Regina v James Bassingthwaite, fraudulent bankruptcy; Regina v Esther Oarr, larceny. Tuesday, April 8. [Before Ins Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The sitting of the Circuit Court was resumed at 10 a rn. the defaulting juror. Mr A. C. Watson, wl o had been fined £5 for non-attendance, unless cause shown, now appeared to show c<use, and stated that the glia.'ls of bis vehicle had broken, and that hid p e ented him getting to the Court in time. ills Honor allowed cause shown and remitted the fine. LARCENY FROM TDK PERSON. Alexander Fitzgerald was indicted for having on the Ist March stolen in conjunction with one James M‘Ardc]l, a proket book containing £6 from the person of one Edward Terry. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joyce, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

If. appeared, from [ho evidence for the prosecution, that on the night in question the

prosecutor met the two prisoners, and went with them to as oyster saloon. After leaving there the prosecutor and prisoners went in a> cab, and, after a short distance bed been gene, the prisoners turned the prosecutor out of the cb. The cabman looked through the trap of bis cab and saw the prisoners examining a pocket-book with money therein. The prisoners then offered the cabman a share of the plunder, but be refused, and afterwards drove into town. On his way he mot the prosecutors, who informed him that he lied lost his pocket-book containing £6. The cabin ru drove the prosecutor to the Police Depot, where information was given, and the prisoners a-:e , d. Evidence in support of the case was called by Mr DuncanMr Joyce called evidence, including that of the urisouer Me Aid ell, who had pleaded guilty, to' chow that the pi Doner Fitzgerald had nothing to do with the robbery. IPs Honor warned McArdcll, when ho was called, that though he had nothing to hope from the evidence which ho might give, but that ho had to fear that an indictment forperjury would be laid against him if ho did not speak the truth. The witness then said he d’d not want to be sworn. Mr Joyce said his instructions were suchthat he should demand that the witness be sworn. His Honor grantcl the request, and again warned the witness. James MoArdeJl stated that he met the prosecutor at Burmeis* ir’s oyster saloon, and after having supper there, witness, prisoner, and prosecutor, went ; u a cab. Witness took che prosecutor’s purse from him. Ho never showed the purse to Fitzgerald, nor did he know of it. When thev had got a short way further witness told tne cabman that he had £6, and ho gave him a note. Brow .a took the note and pub it in his pocket for a time. Brown then said, “ I hope tins is none of that money, because I don’t want it,” Witness said that was all light; that he would give him the rest in the morning. They left the cab and went home. He went to Fitzgerald’s house in the morning to pay bum money that he had borrowed of him amounting to 2s fid. His Honor pointed out that it was sworn that the witness had said he wei going to pay the sum of £2 to Fitzgerald. Was not that his share of the plunder ? The witness said No, it waa only half-a-crown that ho owed him. Fitzgerald, he believed, knew nothing of the robbery. He was too drunk. Mr Duncan declined to cross-examine this witness. His Honor then ruled to the jury that there was no case against the prisoner. The jury returned a verdict of Not Q-uilty, and the prisoner was discharged. His Honor recommended the police to keep au eye on the cabman Brown. LARCENY FROM A DWELLING. Hester Carr, an interesting looking girl of thirteen years of age, wn indicted for having: stolen £5 16s, the property of Mary Boyle. Mr Joyce proffered his services as counsel for the prisoner, whereupon a discut, lion arose between his Honor and Mr Joyce on the subject. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and called the following evidence: — Mary Boyle deposed to being at the store at Doyleston on ‘2lst March, Whilst there she changed a £lO note, getting a £5 note and 16s in silver. The money was put in a bag. From Boyle’s store witness went to Houston’s house, and went into Mrs Houston’s bed room, leaving her bag on the kitchen floor. The prisoner was servant at Mr Houston’s, and was in and out of the kitchen dining the time witness was there. Witness went from Mr Houston’s to her sister’s, and after she had been there an hour she found that the money had gone. About seven weeks afterwards witness saw prisoner., and asked her what she had been doing with her kit, and told her that she had no business to take witness’s money. Prisoner said she had only torn a hole in the paper to see the wincey which was in the kit. Witness asked piisonerwhat she did with her £5, and she replied, “What should I do with your money.” In cross-examination by Mr Joyce, the witness said that she had not given information to the police for seven weeks after she discovered her loss. She never spoke to anyone about the loss. When witness went into her sister’s house she left her kit on the kitchen table for an hour while she went into her sister’s bedroom. Eliza Houston gave corroborative evidence as to the last witness coming to their house. Catherine McCarthey gave evidence of the prisoner coming to her store and aiking for change of a £5 note. She bought goods to the value of £1 10 or £2, and the change was given by witness partly to prisoner and partly to her sister, who accompanied her. In cross-examination by Mr Joyce, the witness stated that the mother and sister of the prisoner came with her to the store. The mother of the prisoner examined the purchases, but did not handle any of the money, Mr Duncan proposed to put in the statement of the prisoner made before the magistrate.

His Honor, after examining the depositions, said the statement was not admissible, as the statutory caution had not been given, which was an instance of great carelessness on the part of the magistrate’s clerk. Mr Joyce submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, but his Honor overruled that. The learned counsel then proceeded to address the jury for the defence. The jury after a short retirement returned a verdict of “Not guilty.” EMBEZZLEMENT. Peter James Fowler was indicted for having on divers’ dates; whilst employed as a railway guard on the Canterbury railways embezzled certain sums of money, amounting in the whole to 5s 2d, the property of her Majesty. Mr Joynt, with him Mr Izard, appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. Mr Joynt objected on behalf of the prisoner to the indictment. Section 70 of the Larceny Act provided that any person in the public service should be deemed guilty of larceny if he received money by being entrusted by virtue of his employment. The indictment alleged that whilst so employed the prisoner had received this money, but not in the words of clause 70, which was a special emictmen and he submitted that the indictment was bad because it omitted the words “ entrusted by virtue of his employment,” which prevented it from being brought under the section of the Act, Mr Duncan submitted that having averred in the indictment that the prisoner by virtue of his employment took into his custody certain monies, was sufficient to include the averment that he was entrusted by virtue of his employment. His Honor would not stop the case, but would take a note of the objection of Mr Joynt.

Mr Duncan called the following evidence in support of the case. Frederick Back deposed that he was General Manager of the Christchurch section of the Canterbury railways. Witness was empowered to employ all officers ho required—those of higher rank he recommended and the Commissioner appointed. Those of a lower rank, including guards, he appointed himself. Prisoner was acting as guard when witness took charge, and lie was continued in that appointment. The inferior employes of the railway sign a book containing certain conditions of service. The prisoner was guard of the train from Kaiapci to Oxford. There are several roadside stations on that line. At this stage Mr Back’s evidence was deferred until alter that of the other witnesses. [Ltit :itting.] [By Telegraph.] AUCKLAND. The Criminal Session of the Supreme Court opened to-day. The Judge congratulated the jury on the lightness of the calendar. There are no offences of an aggravated character. Twenty -three persons Ore charged with twentyfour offences. There arc ten Maoris. All the prisoners except three Maoris are able to read and write. All three offences agairst the person are for indecent assault. The remainder are offenders against property. In one case,

iihat of a lodger in a hotel, who entered the bed of a married woman, and in the case of the burning of stacks, there are some doubts as to the sanity of the accused. Wm. Hayes, for larceny, got six months ; H. Gill, for the same offence, nine months ; Te Wn.ipi, a Maori, for breaking, entering and stealing, twelve months; Christie Kips., two offences larceny, eighteen months, Kipa in defence recommended the judge and jury to read the Thirty-fifth Psalm of David and Morning and evening Prayers: Mrs Philips, alias A, W. Nolan, is being tried on several charges of forging and uttering cheques. WELLINGTON. The criminal sessions of tho Supreme Court opened this morning. There are fourteen cases, involving seventeen persons, but the cases arc not of a very serious character, although this is tho largest calendar but one which has been hero for years. There was nothing in tho Judge’s charge of general intere-t, save his remark that there seemed to be a decrease in crimes of a violent character, especially 'assaults upon females. DUNEDIN. The criminal sittines of tho Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Williams. The Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases:—Alexander McLeod and .Alfred Shears, stealing from the person; William Hay Wallace, same ; James White, same ; George Ansolmy, burglary, two counts; Timothy Flaherty, alias Delaney, burglary ; Wm. Power, forgery ; John Burgess, obstructing the railway line at Palmerston; James Moon, rape; Win, Thomas Salmon, forvery; William Dirties, arson ; David Duncan, Charles Smith, and William Leo, setting fire to n gorse hedge. The bill against Frederick Heack for obstructing tho railway line at Palmerston was thrown out. Marion Johnstone, for perjury, was discharged, as there was no one prepared to present a bill against her. Alexander McLeod and Alfred Shears were found guilty of stealing. William Power, a young lad, pleaded guilty to forgery. His Honor did not impose any sentence, but the lad is liable to be called ■ p for sentence in future should he misconduct himself. George Anselmy pleaded guilty to two charges of forgery. Jane White, charged with robbing, was acquitted. Timothy O’Flaherty, alias Delaney, was acquitted on a charge of burglary. W. Thomas Salmon, charged with forgery, was found guilty. Sentences were deferred till next day.