SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1756, 6 October 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. This Dat. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly session of the Supreme Court in its criminal jurisdiction, opened at 11 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as THE GEAKD JtTBY. Messrs H. W. Peryman, W. H. Allington, W. Buss, 8. Fisher, P/?H. Brittan, W. E. Ivery, 8. O. Parr, E. Pavitt, A. O. Wilson, H. B. Sorenson, W. Pyne, E. Tippetts, A. O. Watson, J. Birch, T. S. Lambert, D. Oaro, J. P. Ritso, T. B. Jaoobsen, J. Townend, P. Laurie, B. Cotton, and J. Inglis. Mr Josiah Birch was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury. His Honor then proceeded to deliver his charge to the Grand Jury. As they were doubtless aware an alteration had been made in the hour of sitting on the first day of the session in order to allow of jnrors and others from the country being able to arrive in time. In future this would be continued, and the hour for commencing the first day's sitting would be eleven o'clock. He was sorry he could not congratulate the Grand Jury upon any diminution in the number of criminal cases taking place within the colony during the past three months, and more particularly in that district. He was sorry to say—a thing for which he confessed he was unable to account —that the average criminal cases taking place in the colony, and more especially in this part of it, was far above the average of crime all over England and Wales. He had utterly failed to arrive at the reason for this. It could not be said that any of the crimes charged in the calendar before them were attributable to want of prosperity, generally speaking' for though times were what were called hard in this as well as other parts of the world, he saw no reason to believe that the prevalence of crime amongst them was attributable to any want of employment or commercial depression. It was true that the character of the colonial population was of a more transitory character, and perhaps this might account for their having amongßt them at times people of a vicious character. However this might be, the prevalence of crime in their midst without any apparent cause was one of the social political problems which they would have to solve. They would also have to strive against the formation of any organisation of crime hero. So far as he was aware, there was no prospect of any organised criminal associations being formed here, the vigilance of the police was such that attempts of this kind would, ho thought, prove futile. The reason for a great deal of the crime in the community seemed to him to be the indulgence in intoxicating ' drinks, which they must take means to put a stop to. As usual, there were several cases of uttering forged cheques. It was, it seemed, useless to speak on the subject o£ the folly of shopkeepers and others taking cheques in the reckless way they did, when they found respectable Bhopkeepers allowing their employes to take cheques without knowing the name of the drawer or the presenter. Bidicule seemed to bo useless, and, io far as ho could sco it was as easy to pass a forged cheque here ai a good sovereign. The

crime was of course more prevalent here than in the mother country, because the working classes dealing with cheques as they did her© was quite unknown there. Tiiortgh he was op« posed to cumulative punishment and severe sentences, jot if it was found necessary to check; crime to pass severe sentences the judges would have to use the power granted by law to them to- repress this description of crime. His Honor then proceeded to comment on the various eases in (he calendar. In the case of Mary Halliday, for false pretences, his Honor put it to the Grand Jury that if it were proved that the prisoner admitted that her representations were false they might find a true bill. In the case of William Barnard, for sheep stealing, his Honor said they believed the evidence of identy of the sheep they would have no difficulty in coming at the conclusion that tbey could find a true bill. In the case of W. Hall, for perjury, the law was that the falsity of the statement must be proved by two witnesses, or one and corroborative witness. In the present case only one witness saw the prisoner sign the paper, which he denied doing. He should be prepared to hold that if there was corroborative evidence, that the prisoner denied being able to write. This would be evidence enough for the Grand Jury to find a true bilL In the case of Edward Smart, for rape, there was this peculiarity, that it was for an assault on a Maori woman. Without considering for one moment what they knew about the habits of the people, they were as bonnd to defend the chastity of the, Maori home as the European. In connection with this cose, be might also mention that the Magistrate committing, or his clerk, had not acted rightly in the way in which the depositions had been forwarded. The evidence of the Mao.-i witnesses, instead of being forwarded in the original language in which it was given, was simply sent as a translation, so that there was no means of testing the truth of it. If the witness had died before the case came to the Supreme Court, the dopositiocs would have been worthless. Magistrates and their clerks should remember that where Maori depositions were taken, they must be transmitted in the original language, and accompanied by a translation. The case of larceny from the person was one of ordinary character. The case of It. W. Jonc-s showed that he had gone in for a wholesale career" of forging cheques. In the case of Edward Clarkson and John Miller there was evidence of a complicity of crime between the two prisoners, which showed the very serious crimes of robbory with violence and an attempt to commit a rape. If the Grand Jury saw that the evidence was sufficient to enable them tc do so, they could return true bills in both cases. In the case of Jane Mahoney, for forgery, i£ the Grand Jury had evidence that she had no authority to write the cheque in her husband's name, they could find a true bill. In the cases of W. H. Beed and Thomas McOallum, the evidence before the Grand Jury would show that these two persons were concerned together in the case, though indicted separately. As regarded the last case of the calendar to which he need refer—that of libel—it was perhaps a question whether it was neceasary to have laid an indictment in it, but still every private citizen had a right to be protected, and if the Grand Jury had before them sufficient evidence to convince them that a libel had boon written and published by the defendant of the plaintiff, then they should find a true bill. | His Honor then laid down the law as regarded libel.] If they were of opinion that the letter referred to was in any way calculated to bring the plaintiff into public contempt, then they could find a true bill.

The Grand Jury then retired to their room to consider the bills submitted to them by the Crown prosecutor. EOBGEBY. Bobt. William Jones pleaded " Guilty" to four indictments charging him with having forged and uttered cheques on various Banks in Christchurch and Kuiapoi for small sums. Detective Benjamin deposed that the prisoner bad received three months for vagrancy on the 18th September, 1877; on the 4th October, 1878, the prisoner received eighteen months' imprisonment for larceny from a dwelling. His Honor, in sentencing the prisoner, said that he trusted some means would be devised by statesmen or philanthropists to meet the difficulty of persons coming out of prison obtaining employment, and thus succumbing to temptations. It was to these organizations that they must look in future to preserve those coming out of gaol from temptations, if such existed. The prisoner would be sentenced to penal servitude for six years on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently, or six years' penal servitude in all. HHEEPBTEAXING. Wiilliam Barnard was indicted for having, on the sth day of May last, stolen 133 ewes, 133 wethers, the property of Charles G. Chapman. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded guilty. Detective Walker deposed to the prisoner having got into trouble in Dunedin, where he was brought before the magistrates but not convicted. The prisoner also pleaded gu ; lty to stealing one hundred ewes and four rams the property of J. Senior White. The prisoner said that he was very eorry he had done what he had done. He was in difficulties, and had done what he had done on the spur of the moment. His Honor pointed out that the prisoner had taken over 200 sheep from one place, and 100 from another. This could hardly be looked upon as acting upon the spur of the moment. He was not sure that he was not trifling with justice by giving the prisoner such a light sentence, but he was willing to believe that this was a Ant offence. The sentence of the Oourt would be that the prisoner be kept in penal servitude for six yjars, the sentences to run concurrently. [Left sitting.]