SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1833, 7 January 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

OBIMINAL SITTINGS.

Tiksdat, Jakt/abt 6.

[Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnson.]} The following cases were disposed of jeserday after we went to press : IABCBHY. Thomas Evans was charged with stealing from the person of Samuel Manson, a cheque for £36 on the Union Bank and other articles. Mr Duncan appeared for the prosecution, and called Samuel Manson, who gave evidence in support of the indictment. The cvidenoe has already appeared in print. In cro€a-eiamination the witness said he had been locked up with the prisoner. He was taken into custody for expressing himself too plainly. His Honor—What did you say ? Witness—The prisoner told me he was a writer for a paper, and I told him I did not care if he was a writer for h 1. His Honor —Do you mean to say that the police locked you up for saving the prisoner might have been, for all you cared, a writer for the infernal regions. Witness—l suppose they thought I was drunk.

Prisoner —What did you say to me when we were in there together ? Witness —I said I would like to get out, as there was not such a thing as a chair to sit down upon. Prisoner —Did you not say that you did not know the man who robbed you ?

Witness—No; I said he was like you, but had, I thought, scarcely so much beard as yourself. [The witness was further examined, hi 3 answers causing considerable amusement.] Samuel Freeman, proprietor of the Southern Hotel, proved that the prisoner had presented the oheque produced and asked him (witness) to eash it. He gave prisoner £l2 and retained the cheque. He subsequently gave Mr Manson the balance. He gave prisoner a reoeipt or memorandum of the amount received from him, with a note as to the £36 3s. By prisoner—On the day of toot apprehension I asked you into the parlour to have a glass of beer. I went out to speak to Detective Benjamin, who afterwards came in with me.

Detective Benjamin gave evidence of arresting the prisoner on the charge of stealing a cheque from Samuel Manson. Prisoner said " I have been as long in the colony as you have ; you won't get anything out of me." Witness found the memorandum marked B on the prisoner's person. The prisoner said he had changed the cheque for another man, and that ho had himself written the memorandum alleged to be written by Mr Freeman. Mr Freeman was re-called, and gave on exhibition of his handwriting to compare with the document.

Subsequently the witness said he must have made a mistake, as he could not, on examination, recognise the writing on the docuxnen as his.

His Honor—Did any such document pass between you. Witness —I know he got a receipt for the £l2.

His Honor—Are you quite sure the prisoner at the bar is the same man who got the money on the cheque on Christmas Ere, and afterwards came to you about it. Witness—Yes. I swear that distinctly.

His Honor having summed up. The Jury retired, and after an absence of half-an-hour, returned with a verdict of " Guilty." The sentenoa of the Court was two years' imprisonment with hard labor.

Richard Palmer, who on the previous day was tried for larceny and found " Not Guilty," was discharged. Thomas Englehart, found " Not Guilty " of larceny from the Museum, was discharged. FOBQKBT AITD UTTBBISQ. John Jones was arraigned upon an indictment, charging him, on two separate counts, with forgery and uttering. The prisoner pleaded "Guilty," and read a statement in extenuation of his crime, to which he eai-4 he had been brought by difficulty and misfortune. Evidence of previous convictions against the accused was produced. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years' imprisonment with hard labor in each case, the sentences to take effect concurrently. BOBBKRY WITH VTOI.KSCH. ■ Joseph Clarke and Annie Osborne were charged with robbery from the person with violence. Mr Duncan for the Crown ; Mr Neck defended the female prisoner. The evidence in chief as to the assault upon Higgens and robbery has already been published. The prosecutor gave similar evidence to that adduced in the Resident Magistrate's Court. The prisoner Clarke cross-examined prosecutor with a view to show that they had a fight together, which had arisen out of a quarrel; also that the prosecutor was drunk at the time, and very excited, all of which he denied. Ebenezer Charles Brown identified the articles produced as those he had sold to the prosecutor. Thomas Joseph Briant, a laborer, deposed that the female prisoner came home between twelve and one o'clock on the night in question. Clarke came home some time after. Detective Neil gave evidence of discovering the stolen articles in Briaut's house, and the female prisoner was wearing a portion of the clothing. ■ The woman said first that she had bought the things, then, in a joking way, that she had stolen them. The male prisoner said he picked up the things opposite the Crown Hotel, on the South town belt. The witneeß was cross-examined. Michael Leahy, constable, stationed at Christchurch, said when on duty on the night in question he heard a cry of " Murder," and coming to the place, found Hugh Higgens, who looked very dirty, and said he had been knocked down by a man, and robbed by a woman.

By the prisoner—Hugh Higgens did not then report losing any money. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr Neck addressed the jury on behalf of Annie Osborne.

The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict, of " Guilty." Detective Neil stated that Clarke had been under the surveillance of the police, having been keeping company with bad characters. The woman was sentenced in 1876 for larceny. Georgo Sinclair Reston, gaoler at Addington Gaol, deposed that he had known the female prisoner since 1567. She had during that time been frequently in gaol for a variety of offences. After hearing their statements in extenuation, His Honor remarked upon the serious nature of the offence committed by prisoners, and committed each of the prisoners to penal servitude for four years. At this stage the Court adjourned at 6.10 p.m. till ten o'clock this morning. TBTJB BELLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases : —Regina v Thos. Evans, larceny ; Regina v John Johnson Loe, forgery Jand uttering ; Regina v Francis Hopkins Valpy, embezzlement (two charges) ; Regina v John Jones, forgery and uttering (two charges) ; Regina v Michael McAvey and others, rioting. The Grand Jury were then formally discharged. His Honor, in discharging the Jury, slid : —Before dismissing you, gentlemen, I would take this opportunity of saying that the occurrence of such cases as you have had last to deal with, is one illustrative of the utility of Grand Juries.

Wednesday, Jan-baby 7. AEBON.

Edgar Osborne was indicted for having, on the 29:h of October, s.t fire to a storehouse belonging to Benjamin Hale, eituated in St. Asaph street. There were several other counts, charging the pri oner with having unlawfully and maliciously set fire to certain articles close to the storehouse, under such circum-tances, as if the store-house had been set on fire it would amount to arson. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty," and was defended by Mr T. W. Stringer. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

On tho application of Mr Stringer the witnesses were ordered out cf Court. Mr Duncan then proceeded to call evidence. Ellen Whitford deposed to similar testimony as given in tta Court below. Os cross-examination by Mr Stringer the

witness deposed that it was a light night. The prisoner's hands and face were only a little black, as if he had been doing a day's work. The prisoner put his hands up to his face, and witnese noticed that his hands were dirty. The people who were assisting to put out the fire got over the fence in the right-of-way from Tuam street to St. Asaph street. The fence rouad the building was about six feat high. Witness did not recognise Mr Oakley and Mr Taylor until she saw it in the " Star." the next night. The prisoner might have been one of the men assisting for all she knew. Witness was the snly one who cried fire, but no one came. This was before she saw Mr Oifeley. After the fire was put out witness thought she saw Mr Taylor get over the fence. It was either Mr Taylor or the policeman. They were looking about together outside tho gate. After meeting the prisoner witness hoard some one say "Is that you. ]Ed." The prisoner said " Yes." They stood together for a short time and then went towards the Prince of Wales Hole!. They came on behind witnees and her hußband, arriving at the hotel a few seconds after them. The prisoner was not walking hurriedly ; he was walking at a nice paee. Witness did not look when she went by the first time at Mr Hale's building, at least alio .did not see any thing. George Whitford gave evidence similar to that given in the Resident Magistrate's Court.

On cross-examination by Mr Ftringer, the witness said he th iught he spoke to prisonar and asked where tho fire wa?. The wife of witness might have echoed the remark. Tho marks on the face of the prisoner looked like Chat on the fac* of a blacksmith after his day's work. It was only about fire minutes after witness and his wife got to the hotel that the prisoner came in. Henry Oakley gave evidence similar to that in the lower Court. Cross-exaimned—Mr Hale's section fronts on St. Asaph street and a right-of-way between St. Asaph street and Tuam street. The buildings were nearest the right-of-way. Witness could not say if tho buildings came close to the fence. Tho distance between the two eheds was about 18ft or 20ft. Witness saw a pile of something olose to the north corner of the building. The height of the fence was about sft 6in. Two young men came up and spoke to witness about the fire, and then went away together by Tuam street. Taylor only came to the fence. The fire was put out by the witness in a minute and a half. The St. Asaph street fence would be about sft Gin. There was a corrugated iron gate on the Tuam street side, over which witness climbed. There ■wero one or two battens off the St. Asaph street gate. It would not be easy for a man to (jet through, though witnees did so. John Taylor was the next witness, and deposed mainly similar to that given by him in the Beiident Magistrate's Court. On cross-examination witness deposed that lie saw one other man got over the fence to the fire. He believed he was in volunteer uniform.

Walter Buckingham was next called. On croBS-examination, the witness said he ■was not quite euro that the prisoner said he had been to put the fire out as stated in his evidence in chief. Witness was now sura that prisoner said either that the fire was out, or he had helped to put it out. Prisoner said, " If you don't believe me, look at my bands. I helped to put the fire out." This was in answer to a remark that no bell had been beard.

Sydney Williams was next called by Mr Duncan.

Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Whitford came into the Prince of Wales Hotel, but witness could not say who came first, prisoner or Whitford. The stains on the prisoner's clothes were such as might have been produced had be been falling about in a coalyard. Sydney Sheppard was called by Mr Dun-' can.

On cross-examination by Mr Stringer, the witness deposed thas he did not notice Mr Whitford in the bar. When the prisoner came in the second time witness smelt tar. There were over twenty persons in the small bar. He could not say who stood nearest to him besides the prisoner. George Maslin was next called for the presecution. Cross examined by Mr Stringer—Witness shook hands with prisoner at parting at 11 o'clock, and when he went home witness found that his hand smelt of tar. He said to prisoner that he had tar on his hands and face, and asked him where be got it. The prisoner said he had been to the fire. Both the barman and witness asked prisoner the same question wher had be been. [His Honor here called the attention of the witness to the fact that he said before tbe Magistrate that the barman alone asked the question.] Witness was sure that the marks on the prisoner's face wei e those of tar. He had been treated at the Hospital for eye disease. Mr Stringer—Are your olfactory nerves diseased also ?

Witness —What factory ? His Honor—You had better ask him whether he can smell well. Witness —I could smell tar if I was blind.

Alfred Cox was next called for the Crown

Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Witness saw prisoner shortly after nine o'clock, when he bad a dirty face just as if he had finished a day's work. Wm Henry Symes, doctor of medicine, wa the next witness. On cross-examination ly Mr Stringer, the witness deposed that the stains might be a few days old. He was acquainted with the chemical properties of pitoh. Pitch was obtained by distillation from tar. The stains, if produced by pitch, might present the same appearance. Pitch is composed of the less volatile portions of tar. Witness could not swear that the stains were not caustd by pitoh. If the distillation of pitch fromtar were stopped at an early part the pitoh would closely resemble tar. There waß no definite point at which distillation of pitch from tar stopped. Pitch is more sticky than tar. Witness could not say, from chemical analysis, whether the stains were pitch. One o£ the jurymen here rose and said he Should like to make a few remarks. His Honor said that this could not be allowed.

The juryman said he had had considerable experience in dealing with tar and pitch. His Honor said that in that case the juryman could be sworn as a witness, but of course as no opportunity would be afforded for crossexamination, he could not be allowed to impart his technical knowledge on the subject to his fellow-jurymen. Constable iJlackain was the next witness, and repeated the testimony given by him in ihe Resident Magistrate's Court. Constable Cleary also gave corroborative evidence.

Benjamin Hale was then called. On cross-examination, the witness deposed that the buildings were nearer the right of way than to St. Asaph etreet. One of the buildings—not the one burned—faced on to the right of way. No one could get to the hack of the sheds. There is about 10ft. between the northern end of the building and the right-of-way. The drums of oil were packed close up to the building. The tar was s'.ored at the south end of the same building. Witness kuew prisoner and his father for a long time, end hud had no quarrel with either. Tlhere waß no rivalry in business between them. So far from this being so Mr Osborne, een., was a customer of witnesses. The tar which witness had stored was Stockholm tar. It was very often the caße that casks leaked considerably. John Clements was then examined by Mr Duncan.

S. Smart deposed to using coal tar |in asphalting the streets. On the 29th October there was a little bit of asphalting about six inches in diameter near the Prince of Wales Hotel on tbo 29th October.

Cross-examined by Mr Stringer Tho asphalting of the small piece referred to roidit have been done on the 29;h Oc.obor. John Neil, detective officer, deposed to arresting the prisoner and making a thorough investigation of the premises where tho fire originated. Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Witness got nothing at Mr Osborne's shop but the coal tar. There were marks of tho gras3 being trodden down close to the place where tho fire took place. Witness knew that there was a reward offered for convictions for arson. Detective officers were prevented by the ruleß at the service from taking rewards. Henry Hobbs examined by Mr Stringer, deposed that he was in the employ of Mr Osborne, senior. They ÜBed a large quantity of pitch, On one occasion a pitch pot was set on fire, which was put out by the prisoner. He might have got some of the stains of pitch on his clothes. The learnid counsel on both sides having addressed the jury, His Honor summed up. [Left sitting.]