SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1834, 8 January 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Wednesday, Jahtjaby 7. [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Johnson.] The case of Edgar Osborne, accused of arson, which was proceeding when we went to press yesterday, was concluded as follows : In summing up, his Honor alluded in complimentary terms to the manner in which the counsel for the defence had conducted -his case. He then proceeded to direct the jury as to the law in such cases.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of an hour and a half returned into Court with a verdict of " Guilty.', In answer to the Court, the inspector stated that the prisoner was well known to the police as the head of a gang of larrikins who had become a great nuisance in the town. He had been under the surveillance of the police for a considerable time, as there were strong grounds for believing the prisoner to be the author of other fires which had taken place in Christchurch at different times.

His Honor (to the prisoner)—Sou hear what has fallen from the inspector; have you any questions to ask him ? Prisoner—No; I knew the police were watching me. His Honor—And yet you continued your evil practices ? Prisoner—No, I didn't. Mr Hickson further informed the Court that the prisoner had been for a long time beyond the control of his father, who was a respectable man of business. The prisoner (who assumed a bold, even impudent front) declined to say anything. His Honor, in passing sentence, said it was clearly his duty to mark his sense of the gravity of the offence of which the prisoner had been found guilty by passing a heavy sentence. It was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that wo could keep up our character for being a moderately civilised people if we allowed our children to get the better of our institutions for the protection of the public, and become pests and nuisances from childhood upward. What was to be expected of the full-grown villain when the youngsters had been accustomed to defy the decency, honesty, and peace of the community. After referring to the prevalence of larrikinism as a dangerous element in society, His Honor proceeded to say that he should reserve the heaviest punishment that could be inflicted for arson for those cases in which human life was put in danger. Had there been any person in the place to which prisoner had set fire, he should in all probability have sent him to prison for life. As it was, he would send prisoner for a long term. The sentence of the Court was that the accused be kept in penal servitude for six years. Osborne was then removed. FOBGBBY AHD TTTTEBING.

Daniel O'Brien was charged with forging and uttering a cheque for £lO on the 29th of November last.

Mr Duncan appeared for the prosecution. William Austin Kirby, a detective stationed at Timaru, gave evidence of arresting prisoner on a charge of forgery. John Barrett, proprietor of the Barough Hotel, Ohristchurch, said he knew the prisoner, who came to his hotel one day in the month of November and presented the cheque produced, sigued Daniel O'Brien, and endorsed John Foley. The prisoner obtained money on the cheque. He did not represent that he was signing the name of the payee of the cheque with his authority Prisoner said O'Brien was a contractor at Temuka.

John Fitzgerald said prisoner on presenting the cheque said he had got it that day from Daniel O 'Brien, Waihi Bush. Prisoner endorsed the cheque with the name of John Foley, and witness subsequently gave him money on the cheque. John Foley deposed that he had known prisoner for two years. He was not a contractor—he was a working man. He was living at Temuka. There was another John Foley in the district. Witness did not give prisoner authority to sign the cheque. Archibald Kae Bogers, a clerk in the Union Bank, Ohristchurch, stated that there was no branch of that Bank at Temuka. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and his Honor having briefly summed up, The jury returned a verdiot of " Q-uilty." Detective Kirby gave the prisoner a bad character. Sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. fITEAUNG FBOM A FAOTOBY. David Tucker aud Thomas Jones were

ebarged with breaking into the warehouse of Robert Allan and another and stealing therefrom certain goods. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the charge was laid under the 56th section of the Larceny Act, and having stated the circumstances of the case, proceeded to call evidenoe in support of the indictment. (The evidence has already been published.) The evidence being concluded, Tucker stated in his defence that he was drunk on the night in question. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of " Guilty " against Tucker, and found Jones " Not Guilty." Inspector Hickson stated that the prisoner Tucker had been convicted on three charges of larceny recently, and there was a long list of previous convictions against him. The sentence of the Court upon Tucker was that he be imprisoned with hard labor for four years, the sentence to commence at the conclusion of tho present sentences. The Court then adjourned till ton o'clock this morning.

Thubsdat, Jantjabt 8. The criminal sittings of the Court were resumed at 10 a.m. Prior to the business of th« Court being proceeded with, Mr Atkinson, one of the common jurors, said he wished to make an application to hit Honor before the business was gone on with. It was to the effect that the waiting common jurors should be allowed to sit on the benches reserved for the Grand Jury. His Honor said that the matter had been mentioned to him, and after careful consideration he had come to the conclusion that it would not be right for him to interfere with a matter which was in the province of the Sheriff, and with which that officer had to do. It was the usage everywhere to reserve certain seats for Magistrates, &c, and if it was represented to him that the accommodation for the waiting jurors was not what it should b?, he would make representations with a view to having it remedied. Of course if the public, who were not obliged to be present, were better provided with accommodation than the jurors, who had business in the Court, there would naturally be more feeling in the minds of the jurors on the matter. But as he had said, the Court had nothing to do with the seating arrangements, that being l in the hands of the Sheriff. If, however, there was any recommendation he could make which would conduce to the comfort of the jurymen, he would be only too happy to do so.

At a later stage, Hii Honor esquired whether seats were provided in the body of the Court for waiting persons. The crier said that there were a number of seats for the accommodation of jurors. Mr Duncan said, as he understood it, the jurors seals weae so that they could not see.

His Honor said that it was not necessary for the jurors to see so long as they could hear when they were called on. The subject tben dropped. TOBOBBY AND UTTBEIKG.

John Johnston Loe was charged with having on the 28th April forged a promissory note for £l3B 14s. A second count charged the prisoner with having uttered the said promissory note knowing the same to be forged. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr George Harper appeared for the defence.

Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the Crown was that the prisoner induced a farmer named Miller to sign a promissory note for £2O. Ultimately, the prisoner told Miller that the promissory note he had signed was no good, as he had put his name in the wrong place. Prisoner then asked Miller to give another promissory note as the first one had been destroyed. Miller gave him an acceptance in blank with a stamp of the value of 2s on it thinking that the bill would be filled up for the same amount as the bill which had been destroyed. After the attempted suicide of the prisoner Miller became aware that the bill had been filled up for £l3B 14j, and that an additional stamp had been put on it. He also found that so far from the first promissory note being destroyed, it still existed. Mr Duncan proceeded to call evidence. The prosecutor Miller gave evidence similar to that given by him in the Resident Magistrate's Court. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—Witness had given liOe a number of promissory notes in blank during the transactions be had had with him extending over fifteen years. He did not remember ever limiting Loe to the amount he was to fill up the bills signed in blank by witness. Witness never had to pay any of the bills he had given. He knew nothing about bills, nor did he make any inquiries at the time of Loe getting the last bill from him. Witness owed him £8 12s. He believed that be was always in debt to the prisoner when these bills were given to a greater or lesser amount. Witness used to sign the bills in blank, and Loe did what he liked with them. He never limited Loe to the amount of the bills except the £2O, the amount of the first bill. The first bill was filled up with the amount of £2O; the second was not filled up, nor was there anything said between them as to the amount it was to be filled up. His Honor said he was not quite sure as to the exact decision on the point in Campbell v Bank of New South Wales, but be thought it was that the filling up of a blank cheque or promisory note with a certain impressed stamp gave the holder authority to fill up to the value of the stamps. But as the law in New Zealand allowed the holder of a bill to affix stamps up to the day of presentation it was held that the law as laid down in England could not apply. Hr Harper intimated that he should raise the point that it was necessary for an express limitation to be made between the parties as to the amount of the bill.

His Honor said that perhaps on a point of law this might be good. However, they would discuss the matter later on, and if necessary reserve the point. He should let the case go to the jury on the question of fact whether Loe had reasonable grounds for believing that he had authority to fill up the bill sigi ei in blank to any amount he might think p opor. Cross-examination continued—Witness saw prisoner tear up something. He did not know what it was, but he thought it was the bill he had Bigned. He never Baw the bill he had signed in blank until after the prisoner attempted suicide. In May last he saw Mr B. Loe, who was acting as clerk to the prisoner. Witness told him that the bill was only £2O. Mr B. Loe said that he thought there was another bill. Mr Loe would not tell witness the amount of the second bill. Next day witness went to the Bank of New South Wales, Christchurch, and found that there were two bills, one for £2O, and one for £l3B 14s. The bills produced were the same. The bank witness did business with was the Bank of New Zealand, Leeston. Neither of the bills were paid, and witness went through the Court. He did not owe much over and above the amount of these bills. Witness never limited Loe to any certain amount on the second bill. Witness might have asked Mr B. Loe to let him have a team of horses to set against the second bill, but he oould not eay. It was very like that he would do so.

Be-examined by Mr Duncan—The blank promissory notes given by witness during several years were intended by him to cover the open account running between them. The only accommodation bill given by witness was one in the summer time. He intended that the second bill should be for £2O, and not for £ 138 143. The adhesive stamp was not on when witness signed the bill. Dae never told him he was going to fill the second bill up for £l3B 14s. J. O. Plaistead, late a clerk in Bank of New South Wales, Ohristchuroh, deposed to the two promissory notes produced being received for discount at the Bank on 28th April, 1879, from prisoner. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Harper submitted that there had been no proof of the body of the promissory note being filled up in prisoner's handwriting. His Honor ruled that this was not necessary. Mr Harper then contended that there was no case to go to the jury, as there was no evidence to prove that the prisoner was limited as to the amount to be filled up on the second bill signed in blank. His Honor said that he should rule that there was evidence to go to the jury to consider whether the prisoner had reason for believing that he was authorised to fill the note up for any amount he thought proper If they were of that opinion, of course there was no forgery. Still there was sufficient to go to the jury to consider this question. Mr Harper then called evidence for the defence.

Albert Loe deposed that he was brother to to the prisoner, and acting as clerk to him. The prosecutor Miller came to him one evening in May and asked whether prisoner had used his (Miller's) name to a bill for £2O. Witness did not know whether any accommodation bills were given by Miller, as witness only kept account of trade bills. Miller told him at the interview referred to that he had given prisoner another bill betides the £2O, but he did not know the amount, or if it had been made use of. Witness told him that he knew nothing of any other bill except the one for £2O, but if he would come next day witness would see for what amount the bill referred to was, and also if it had been used. It was not true that witness told him of the seoond bill, and refused to tell him the amount. Miller's account in the general ledger produoed s'howa the bill given by Miller for £2O. Scnn t<o months after the bankruptcy of J. J. Loe witness was instructed by the trustees to credit Miller with the amount of £l3B 14s, that being the second bill. Witness never Mr Miller on the subject of the amount of the bill after the first interview. The bill books produced were taken by me from the wife of prisoner. The entiies are in his handwriting. On April 25th, 1879, there is an entry of a bill for £l3B 14s, and one on December 24th, 1878, for £172 Bs. This was due on April 27th. Miller was the maker of those bills, and prisoner the payee. The last bill would come due two days after the bill for £l3B 14s was given. There are several other bills entered here as having been given by Miller. They do not appear in his general account. Miller wanted to hire_ a team of horses to set against the second bill, but witness advised him to do nothing of the iind. Witness was positive that he never told Miller of the second bill, as he did not know of it. This closed the defence.

The learned counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. The jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years* imprisonment, with hard labor.

Francis Hopkins Valpy was indicted for having, on the 2nd October, embezzled the sum of £5 16s, the property of the Railway Employes Benefit Society. There were several other counts charging the prisoner with embezzling moneys the property of the said society. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr Izard appeared for the defence. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Mr Duncan called evidence in support. Henry Spencer, on cross-examination, deposed that the rules of the society were copied from the Otago society, which had been altered from time to time. There had been no alteration in the duty of the secretary as regarded the payment of subscriptions to the treasurer. The constitution of membership was the payment of four shillings per month. Witness could not say whether the treasurer had paid that amount. Thomas Brown Bain gare evidence as to formation of the society. On cross-examination the witness deposed that the rules now produced were altered by the prisoner, and the alterations were in the handwriting of the prisoner. The property of the society was Tested in trustees, who were appointed under the rules. His Honor pointed out that the property of the society was held as a co-partnership, whereas here it was given as being in trustees. Mr Duncan applied for an amendment of the indictment.

His Honor c aid that in an ordinary case of larceny he would have no doubt as to the power of the Court to amend under Xiord Campbell's Act, but in this case it was different, and he doubted whether under the decisions in the Court of Appeal an amendment could be made. After some argument, Mr Duncan applied to have the indictment amended.

His Honor pointed out that the indictment charged the prisoner with embezzling money, the properly of a co-partnership. Now this was not so, as the property was vested in trustees. He would not stop the case on its merits, but would if necessary reserve the point. If Mr Duncan desired an amendment of the indictment, he must put it in precise form.

Mr Izard quoted cases of Begina v Waleh, and Begina v Coolahan, decided at the recent sitting of the Court of Appeal. Mr Duncan then applied to have the indictment altered, laying the property in the names of W. M. Hannah and A. O. Pyfe.

Eia Honor said he did not think the facts proved that the prisoner wag clerk or servant to the trustees, or that Lord Campbell's Act applied to this amendment. Mr Duncan quoted Begina v Hall and Moody's Grown cases, reserved as authority for laying the property as described in the proposed amended indictment. His Honor said he had a difficulty in allowing an alteration in the indictment, which would result in an alteration of the status of the prisoner in respect to the society. He would reserve the point. After some further argument, Mr Duncan applied for an amendment. His Honor refused the amendment, reserving the point, on conviction, whether he ought to have amended as requested. ["Left sitting.]