SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1757, 7 October 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Octobeb 6. The following cases were disposed of yesterday after we went to press : STEADING BADDLEEY. Wm. H. Beed, a boy of about twelve years of age, was indicted for having stolen a quantity of saddlery from his master, Jonathan Earnshaw. The prisoner pleaded “ Guilty,” and was remanded for sentence. BEGETTING STOLEN PEOPKETY. Thomas McCollum was called on his bail to answer a charge of receiving stolen property. He did not appear for some time, and his Honor was just about to estreat the recognizances of his bail when the prisoner appeared. He was then indicted for having received from the foregoing prisoner a quantity of saddlery, knowing the same to have been stolen. The prisoner pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr Gresson appeared for the prisoner. Mr Duncan called the following evidence to prove his case, viz.: — Jonathan Earnshaw, who deposed to losing the property; and Sergeant Wilson, who described the finding of the property in the house of the prisoner. Thomas Henry Reed, who had pleaded “ Guilty ” to the charge of stealing saddlery, deposed that the accused asked him to bring a saddle from Mr Earnshaw’s, but that he was not to let Mr Earnshaw see him. He asked witness to bring the saddle at six o’clock to the Post-office, and promised to give him £2, but he only gave him £l. Witness stole the saddle and took it to the stand. The prisoner was not there, but witness afterwards met him, and got into his cab with the saddle and went up Armagh street. When near Crompton’s foundry witness got out of the cab, and prisoner gave him £l. Ho said that he would want a bridle, but would wait for better times. Witness got a breaking-in bit and stirrup irons for the prisoner, who gave him 2s 6d for them. Prisoner knew witness was in the shop. Witness got him a Liverpool carriage bit, for which he gave him 10a. Witness also got him some whipcord, Ac. Prisoner asked witness not to tell Sergeant Wilson that he had got the saddle, but to say that his brother had. In cross-examination by Mr Gresson, the witness deposed that the prisoner knew that he was in Earnshaw's shop, and had asked him to bring saddlery, &0., to him, giving him money for it. He left the back door of the shop open, and took the saddle out after the man had gone, and took it to the prisoner at the cab-stand near the Godley statue. Eor the defence, Mr Gresson called a witness named Patrick Moore, but he did not appear. Counsel on both sides having addressed the

jury, His Honor summed up, and the jury without retiring returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” The lad Heed was then put up for sentence. Mr Barnshaw stated that he knew the lad’s family, and believed ho had been brought up well. His Honor said he desired to save the boy from the contamination of criminals, because it would he his certain ruin. Mr Mellish said that as Yisiting Justice of the Addington Gaol he might say that there was the greatest possible difficulty in keeping the boys separate from the criminals. His Honor said that this was just it. In sentencing boys like this, the Judges were simply passing sentences to send the boys to utter corruption, and he wanted to see how they could save this hoy from being utterly ruined. Would Mr Barnshaw allow the boy to serve out his articles ? Mr Barnshaw said that he would like to take time to consider the matter. His Honor said this was a most painful case, and a great responsibility rested upon the Court to protect the public, as well as to save the boy from utter ruin. Mr Mellish, H.M., said that he desired to point out to his Honor that the family of Reed had given information at once to Mr Barnshaw, and had returned the articles stolen. If the Court could see its way clear to deal mercifully with the lad, it would be for the sake of the parents. His Honor, after hearing the evidence of the father of the boy, said he felt inclined to try the experiment of dealing mercifully with the boy, as he thought by so doing he should be doing better in the interests of society than by sending him to herd with criminals. The conveniences at the disposal of the law for carrying out sentences in this colony were so inadequate to carry them out properly that he felt it to be his duty to hold out mercy to this boy by giving him a merely nominal sentence. He trusted that this would be a warning to him to the latest hour of his life, and that he would henceforth be an honest boy. If ho lapsed from the paths of virtue and honesty again, whatever might be the consequences, the punishment would be severe and exemplary. The sentence of the Court would be a mere nominal one, viz., that the prisoner be imprisoned for one day. That would enable the father to take the boy away with him at the rising of the Court. His Honor then proceeded to sentence the prisoner McCallum, and in sentence said that wherever he was administering justice he should always visit the crime or professional receiving with_ the utmost severity, as it afforded every inducement for the formation of criminal classes. But in this case he did not think the prisoner was one of this class, and he should therefore treat the case as a first offence of larceny, and sentence the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. OBTAINING MONEY UNDEE FALSE PEETENCEB. Mary Halliday was indicted for having obtained from Peter Davies the sum of £3O under false pretences by stating that she had been commissioned by her husband to sell oats, and that ho required an advance of money on account of the sale of these oats. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” The husband of the prisoner, who was examined at her request, stated that his wife was a woman of a very violent temper, and had left her home in one of those tempers when she committed the crime she had E leaded guilty to. The prosecutor had sued im for the money, but as he could not get anything from him the detectives arrested her at the railway station the same night. The prisoner had reflected seriously on what she had done, and ho believed was greatly sorry for what she had done. His Honor said that he would treat the case with the greatest possible leniency, and would only give the prisoner a short sentence with the view to making an impression on her mind as to the grave jeopardy in which she had been placed. The prisoner would be sentenced to imprisonment with hard_ labor for one month, and would be kept distinct from the other prisoners. FOEGBEY AND UTTEEING. Edward Jones and Jane Mahoney were indicted for having forged a on the Colonial Bank of New Zealand, Rangiora, for £lO, and also with having uttered the same. The prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” \Tr Duncan prosecuted for tli© Crown. The facts relied upon by the Crown were that the female prisoner met the male prisoner and got mm to fill up a cheque for her in the name of her husband, Francis Mahoney. Upon this cheque she obtained £lO from the Colonial Bank of New Zealand, Rangiora, stating that the cheque was signed by her husband. It was subsequently found that the signature was a forgery, and prl*

Mr Duncan led evidence to prove his cases, and put in Jones’ statement before the Magistrate, stating that he hod written the cheque for Mrs Mahoney, and had not received a sixpence for the doing it. ' The prisoner, Mahoney, said that she considered the money was her own, and that she had a right to it. She was in want of food and clothes, and had drawn the cheque, thinking that as the money belonged to her husband it also belonged to her. His Honor having summed up, The Jury returned a verdict of “Not Guilty ” as to Jones, and “ Guilty ” as to the prisoner Mahoney. The prisoner Jones was then discharged. The husband of the prisoner Mahoney was, at her request examined, and said that in bin opinion she had been led away by bad company. He meant drink, as she was inclined that way sometimes. The prisoner said the whole cause was the unhappiness between herself and her husband. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to one year’s imprisonment with hard labor. The prisoner was removed amid great screaming. EOBBEBT WITH VIOLENCE, Edward Clarkson and John Miller were indicted for having on the Bth September stolen from one Margaret Ramsav a brooch, brooch case, &j., and also committed a violent assault upon her. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The facts of the case, as detailed in the evidence for the Crown, were that the prosecutrix was proceeding from Little River to the Head of the Bay on the Bth September. On the road the prisoner Clarkson came up to her side and said “ Good day” to her. The prosecutrix said she did not know him. Miller joined Clarkson, and they both followed prosecutrix along the track. After a while Miller took hold of prosecutrix by the shoulder and Clarkson by her legs, and tried to drag her into the bush. They then illtreated her by striking her, &o. The prosecutrix begged them to have mercy, but they did not desist, and finally went off, taking with them her brooch and pocket-book. During the struggle the prisoners took a knife to the prosecutrix and cut the front of her dress. Evidence having been led, The prisoner Clarkson said that Mrs Ramsay had drank some whiskey which he had with him, and had fallen on the road and thus produced the state in which she was. His Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty ” against both prisoners. The Crown Prosecutor said he did not think that the ends of justice would render it necessary for him to proceed with the second indictment of attempted rape against the prisoners. Mr Inspector Hickson gave a description of the previous offences of which the prisoners had been guilty. Bis Honor commented severely on the conduct of the prisoners, stigmatising them as the cowardliest of cowards, who insulted and robbed a poor defenceless woman. Nothing more dastardly could be imagined, and the sentence would be that they be kept to penal servitude within the colony for a period of ten years. It was absolutely necessary that such cowardly assaults should be put down with the strong arm of the law. The Crown Prosecutor having entered a nolle prosequi in the rape case, the jury, under direction of his Honor, returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.” The prisoners were then removed. This Day. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnstone.) The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. BATE. Edmund Smart was indicted for haying on the 20th August committed a rape on one Rena Waipunhau at Kaiapoi. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalfjof the Crown. The Rev. J. W. Stack was sworn as interpreter. The evidence having been heard, The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” with a recommendation to mercy on account of the prisoner not being a hardened criminal. His Honor said ho would take the recommendation into consideration, and sentenced the prisoner to eight years’ penal servitude. PEBJBEY. William Hall was indicted for having on Bth July, before one G. L. Mellish, Resident Magistrate at Christchurch, committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a civil case in which he was defendant. The prisoner pleaded “ Not guilty,” and was defended by Mr Neck. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

George Lilly Mellish deposed that he was a Resident Magistrate. On the Bth July ho heard a case in which the prisoner was defendant. He produced the plaint book. Mr Heck objected that the plaint had not been properly proved. His Honor held the objection to be good. Mr Duncan then called Messrs Barclay and McKnigbt to prove the issue of the summons, upon which the proceedings were taken. His Honor said that now he was prepared to allow that the summons was the one heard by Mr Mollish. In reply to Mr Neck, Mr McKnight said that the bailiff who served the summons was only casually employed In the Court. Mr Mellish then proceeded with his evidence, and stated that the case was disposed of. The judgment on the papers shows when judgment was given. His Honor said that judgment by consent appeared on the papers. Mr Mellish said that in the course of the cose of Giltrow v Hall the plaintiff put in a piece of paper purporting to be signed by the prisoner, which he persistently stated was not his signature, as he could not write. David Gridler deposed to having been asked by the prisoner to take a contract, but witness stated that ho could not take it, bui a friend of his named Giltrow would. An agreement was drawn up between them, and the prisoner signed it. The prisoner had previously signed another agreement for witness. He knew that the prisoner did not write very well. Ho was sure he saw prisoner sign the agreement. When the case of Giltrow v. Hall was heard the agreement was produced. The prisoner stated that he had not signed the agreement, as he could not write. On cross-examination by Mr Neck the witness stated that he never saw the prisoner do more than write his name. The prisoner could not read writing very well, because ho got his wife to read the agreement to him. G. S. Beston deposed that he was gaoler at Addington. He had seen the prisoner write his name, and produced the prisoners’ property book of the gaol in which the prisoner signed his name. Henry Allison deposed to seeing the prisoner signing his name. Mr Neck having addressed the jury for the defence, His Honor summed up, and the jury retired, and after a short consultation, returned into Court with a verdict of “Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years imprisonment with hard labor. LABCENY FEOJI A DWELLING.

William Woods was indicted for haring, on the Ist of September, stolen money of the value of £2O, the property of Frederick Aldridge. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty.” The case for the prosecution was that the prosecutor and the prisoner were in the City Hotel together drinking—the prosecutor haring some £4O in his possession. They afterwards went to the house of a man named Noonan, both being intoxicated. The prosecutor, on reaching the house, went into the kitchen to get a wash, and the prisoner then took off the coast and waistcoat of the prosecutor and placed them on a stretcher near. Having handled them he disappeared from the scene, and the prosecutor then found that he had lost £2O out of his pocket. The prisoner when arrested had plenty of money, though he had previously told the prosecutor that he was hard up. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of his case. The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” and his Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. SIBCUA.BGE. H. J. McElwain, who had been committed from Kaikoura, was broughtj up to be discharged. His Honor said that the Crown Pro:ecutor did not intend asking the Court to keep the prisoner over until the next session, and the Grand Jury having been discharged, no indictment would bo prepared at the present, session. ...