SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1831, 5 January 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, January 5. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly session of the Supreme Court, in its criminal jurisdiction, commenced as II a m. The following gentlemen were sworn as the grand jury. Messrs H. R. Webb (foreman), A. 0. Watson, H. Sawtoll, 0. 0. Aikman, H. H. Hennnh, W. Pratt, T. B Jacobsen, G. D. Lockhart, W. Konnaway, W. M. Maakell, W. G. Brittan, Isaac Wilson, R. Murphy, R. Overton, J. C. Maddison, H. W. Packer, L. Caro, 0. T. Moorhoueo, J. M, Heywood, W. H. Simms, W. Hubbard and A. Hornbrook. His Honor then procesded to deliver the following CHARGE, Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—l very sincerely regret that on this the first sitting of the new year I am not able to congratulate the Grand Jury on the slate of the calendar for trial. lam sorry to to say that, apart from the special circumstances which have attracted attention during tho past few days, the ordinary calendar—if I may call it so —is very heavy, not that the majority of the offences are of a very grave character, but the number of prisoners and tho character of some of the offences are such ns to make the ordinary calendar of a sufficiently serious kind. The ordinary character of offences concerning which I speak every time I sit hero—viz., that of forgery—is still very rife. I am sorry to say that, despite what has been said by me every session from the Bench, the public still seem inclined to what is nothing more nor less than abetting in the commission of this offence by the facility with which cheques are taken from everybody and anybody. If the public will not take measures to protect themselves, it seems difficult to see how the law can do so. It seems to mo that the time has now arrived, or at any rate speedily will arrive, when those entrusted with the administration of justice will have to use the very extensive powers committed to them with far greater severity than has hitherto been the case. In the old country, as you are doubtless aware, not so very long a go the punishment for the crimeof forgery was that of death. Thank God that has been done away with, but still it is very necessary that the operations of commerce should be protected. It may be noticed that in England the use of cheques by the class with whom they are commonly used here is exceedingly rare. There the payment of wages by cheque is almost unknown, or at any rate is not at all common ; but here, as is well known, it is the common practice to pay wages by cheque. This occurs perhaps from the difficulty communication, and therefore those who have to pay wages by cheque, living as they do mostly in the country, are not to blame. But, gentlemen, I really do think that tradesmen and others who take cheques from persons whom they do not know, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of themselves, is to certain extent to abet in the commission of crime by the very facility given, and the great temptation thus placed before tho evil disposed. If a man, no matter how poorly dressed, can go into a public house or shop and gat a cheque changed with facility, it affords a temptation which should not exist. I don’t know whether my talking here on this subject as I have done on many occasions before will do any good, but I feel it to be my duty to refer to it once more. lam sorry to observe amongst tho other oases of tho calendar that the crime of highway robbery with aggravated violence has made its appearance here. Such an offence must be put down with the strong arm of the law. One case of aggravated assault, with intent to rob, to which I will refer presently, reminds one of the oldfashioned highway robberies prevalent in the old country in a former century. Another grave crime in the calendar is that of arson, which I am sorry to see is also becoming very rife here ; I shall refer more pa-ticularly to these presently. There are also one or two cases for store and house breaking; one of receiving, of which I will speak by and by ; three charges against a post office clerk, which were committed at the same time, so that you will have little or no difficulty in dealing with them. Now, gentlemen, there tn one or two cases in the ordinary calendar to which I deem it my duty to direct your attention. The first of these in that of arson. [His Honor then proceeded at some length to review the depositions in the case of Regina v Osborne, and to lay down the law.] Tne next case to which I will draw your attention is that of Albert Pillow, charged with highway robbery with aggravated violence. So far as can be seen, he appears to be a young and inc-xpe rienced person, who has been trying to play at the romance of crime. I should think that this is the result of reading books of a character which unfortunately is too popular. The crime he is alleged to have been guilty of is only short of murder, and is a most aggravated case of assault. [His Honor then proceeded to recapitulate tho salient points of the evidence in the case.] There is another case of highway robbery which is of an exceedingly formidable character when committed in town, which is alleged to have been perpetrated by a man and woman in company. There is one other case to which I will allude, and it is that of forgery in which a man signs his own name to a cheque on a Bank where he baa no property, but endorses it with a forged came. Now it may be argued that as a cheque dors not require to be endorsed, it could not be forgery

for a man to sign his own name to a cheque. It isaques'ion wh<ther the inddmont should not rather have been for obtaining money under false pretences. However, if the indictment is for forgery only, you may find a True Bill if satisfied on the evidence, but if it is for forgery and obtaining money under fulae pretences, you might find a True Bill for the latter. This, gentlemen, 1 think, exhausts the ordinary calendar, and I now come to that part of the business of the assize which necessarily creates a feeling of pain and regret in one’s mind, aid that of the community at largo. It is very sad indeed that at this lime of day, in a British colony, that those old feuds and dissensions which in the old country have created such disturbances and bloodshed, should have been revived to the disturbance cf the peace of the public. One would have thought that in a colony like this, where there is existing the largest amount of religious, civil, and personal liberty, and elements of prosperity, as ever existed in any part of the world, or at any period of its his'ory, that there should be persons who, under mistaken influences, and for the gratification of their passions, disturb the peace of their follow citizens. 1 say it is matter for deep regret that such a state of things should have taken place. As what one says from here is likely to be misunderstood, I shall content myself by speaking generally on this subject, because it is most important that there should be no mistake. I will only say this, that I trust that the good sense of the people, when they have recovered from the _ slight shock, will show the folly—the mistaken folly—oE a small body of men attempting to disturb the public psaco to gratify their own I passions. I trust, therefore, that it will not be neeeaaarv to ask for the enactment of strictly coercive measures, but that the good

sense of the people, ss a whole, will convince any body of men of the futility of such disturbances. It is most satisfactory indeed to learn that in the cases under consideration the oo - religionists of the persons alleged to have been concerned in this disturbance have not only disclaimed any sympathy with their conduct, but have also expressed their disapproval and indignation at the whole matter. As the law now stands societies are permitted to go through the public streets whenever they think proper, and displaying colors, &c., so long as they do not break the peace. So far as can be seen from the depositions in the case it appears that on the 26th December, which is commonly called Boxing Day, a society which has adopted a name —as they have a perfect right under the law to do—which _may bo taken as showing a difference of opinion on religious matters, was going through the public streets to one of those gatherings which are usual at this season of the year. Amongst the societies which were going out on that day was a society which uses orange decorations, the significance of which you all know, but which in this country and at this period when the significance has entirely passed away, ought only to be remembered in the history of bygone days. Still, while this is so, the members of that society were within the law, and if they are interfered with, the law is bound to protect them. The depositions are to the effect that the society was proceeding to one of the gatherings common at this time of year, and that when opposite a certain hotel they were set upon by a number of persons armed with sticks and some wounds inflicted. I shall not ask you to consider these cases to-day, but to come back tomorrow and do so. As regards the indictment, I under-tand it is for riot and assault, or for an unlawful assemblage. It might have been for assault with intent to do grevious bodily harm, in which ease it would have amounted to felony. In another part of the district, the Biot Act was read, and therefore any twelve persons who assembled together after one hour had elapsed from the reading of the Biot Act were liable to be arrested as felons. But - here there was no Biot Act read. The definition of riot in law is a tumultous assemblage of three persons at least assembled together on their own authority with an intent mutually to assist each other against any one who should oppose them. From the depositions it appears to me that what took place actually comes within the law as I have quoted it. I have no hesitation in saying that if the evidence of the witnesses is to be believed, every ingredient of law as quoted by me appears to be filled up by the circumstances. So far as individual cases go, I shall lay it down to you that every one is responsible for the act of all, being associated together. The Crown Prosecutor will now send the bills to your room. The Grand Jury then retired. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Eoderick McLennan was indicted for having on the 25th February, 1879, forged a cheque for £25 on the Bank of New Zealand, Geraldine, and a second count charged the prisoner with having the cheque, knowing the same to have been forged. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded Not Guilty. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Evidence having been adduced on behalf of the Crown, The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO 808. Albert Pillow was indicted for having on the 3rd October, 1879, feloniously and with arms made an assault with intent to rob on the persons of Henry Ernest May and Henry Harris. The prisoner, for whom Dr. Foster appeared, pleaded guilty. Another indictment was preferred against the same prisoner, for having on the 24th September, 1879, stolen a quantity of arms, &c., from the Canterbury Museum. To this charge also the prisoner pleaded Guilty. Dr. Foster desired to call evidence as to character. His Honor did not see that any witnesses an to character would avail. Dr. Foster attributed the foolish act of the prisoner to the impure literature with which their walls were placarded and their shops filled He called his Honer’s attention to a placard of a waxworks’ exhibition now in Christchurch, the description of the figures in which commenced with the the Queen and ended with two notorious bushrangers. His Honor said that there was the Queen as a counteracting influence. No doubt the lad thought he was a Claude Duval. Dr. Foster suggested that the lad was of a flighty character. His Honor, after commenting on the foolishness and heinousness of the crimes to which" the prisoner had pleaded guilty, said no doubt the prisoner thought he was rivalling the heroes of the books which were doing so much harm amongst the rising generation. The boys no doubt theught that there was honor and glory in such an act, but he wanted to impress upon the rising generation that such conduct was despicable and wicked. The sentence on the indictment for larceny would be twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour,and on the indictment for assault with intent to rob, being armed, four years’s penal servitude, to commence at the expiration of the first sentence. LARCENY OP POST LETTERS. David Grubb was indicted for having, on the 22nd October, stolen three post letters containing money. The prisoner, for whom Mr B. D. Thomas, appeared, pleaded “ Guilty.” Mr Thomas urged that the offence had been a yielding to modern temptation, and that the prisoner bad been in the public service ever since leaving school, and he could only ask his Honor to deal as leniently as possible with the offender. His Honor said that he would treat this as a first offence ; still Mr Thomas must remember the magnitude of the offence. The sentence of the Court would be eighteen months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. [Left sitting.!