SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1908, 6 April 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Aphid 5. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston/] The following were the cases disposed of after we went to press yesterday : INDECENT ASSAULT. Peter Martin was indicted for an indecent assault on a child. Mr Stringer appeared for the defence. Evidence having been given, the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” after a lengthened deliberation. His Honor, after remarking in the severest manner on the nature of the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted, sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment and to be twice whipped, the first whipping of twentyfive lashes to be inflicted a fortnight from date, the second twenty-five lashes one month from the first, pointing out that there was a laxity in parents allowing their children to go at large without some person to look after LAECENT. Bernard Neary was indicted for having stolen on the Sth January last a quantity of jewellery from one Hugh Docherty at Amberley. Mr Neck appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted for the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that the prosecutor was at the Kail way Hotel on the Bbh January, and that he went to sleep there, whilst the prisoner was in the hotel. At this time the prosecutor had the jewellery on him in his side coat pocket. When he awoke he missed the property. After this the prisoner went to Christchurch, and offered the jewellery in pawn to Mr Cohen, who recognised the articles. Being unable to account satisfactorily for his possession of the jewellery, the prisoner was arrested by Detective Neil on the charge of larceny. Mr Duncan having led evidence in support of the charge, Mr Neck addressed the jury for the prisoner. His Honor summed up to the jury, and they, after some deliberation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to nine calendar months’ imprisonment, with hard labor, remarking that it was one of the clearest cases that had over come under his notice during the forty years he had been engaged in the practice of the law. If the jury had returned any verdict but the one they had, the public would have come to consider the question whether the time had not arrived when the jury system should should be done away with. THE CASH OF EEQINA T BABBINSHB. The Resident Magistrate, Mr Q. L. Mellish, attended in Court, and informed his Honor that the recognisances for the witnesses in this case, and also the committal had been made out for the present sitting of the Court. His Honor said this complicated matters considerably, as the prisoner certainly had a right to his discharge the moment the Grand Jury were discharged. Mr Mellish said that bail had been applied for, but ho bad refused it because the session was bo close.

His Honor said that though very glad to be able to aid a Resident Magistrate jn the discharge of his duty, he yet felt that it was not quite right that he should be called upon to give advice which should really come from the Crown, The only course he could see to be adopted was that the committal shornd be quashed, the prisoner discharged, and, if necessary, re-arrested. He (the Judge) was bound to clear the Government, and it was for the Magistrate or the prosecution to taka any further steps they might be advised. Mr Mellish supposed that it would be better to bring the prisoner up before his Honor and discharge him. His Honor said that the prosecution must take advice. It was the duty of the Crown Solicitor to take charge of a case like this from the commencement. Mr Mellish said that Mr Cowlishaw was conducting the case for the Bank of New Zealand, and that the case bad not reached the Crown Prosecutor yet. Meanwhile, the prisoner was in custody. He might say that an orderly was sent up from the Court lo inform his Honor that committal had taken place. His Honor said that beyond a reference to a case being before the Court made in the morning, he Lad no knowledge of a case being likelj to result in a committal, or he should have detained the Grand Jury. There was no doubt of this, that the prisoner was committed to take his trial upon any bill which might be found there at the present session. Now, as no bill could be found against the prisoner at the present session, as the Grand Jury were discharged, the nrisoner therefore must be discharged, but of course care will be taken that public justice should not suffer. The gaoler had the prisoner in charge, and must bring him up before the Judge during the sitting. The prisoner was undoubtedly entitled under an old Act to his discharge the moment the Grand Jury finished their labors. The prosecution could now taka what steps they might think prepsr. LARCENY IN A DWELLING. William Henry Hudson was charged with having stolen, on the 24th February last, one revolver, the property of Richard Steele, from his house in Worcester street east. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Spackman, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted for the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that Detective Neil saw the prisoner walking along Manchester street, near the house of the prosecutor about ten o’clock in the morning of the day. He afterwards saw him go into Dallas’ auction room with a revolver, and also into Thompson’s sewing machine depot. When he came out the detective asked him what he had with him, and on his finding it was a revolver he asked the prisoner to account for his possession of the revolver. As the prisoner did not do so to hie satisfaction he arrested him, and subsequently the loss of a revolver was reported to the police. The prosecutor identified the revolver as his property. Mr Spackman having addressed the jury for the prisoner, Hifl Honor summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” The prisoner pleaded guilty to a previous conviction on sth April, 1875, and a sentence of five years’ penal servitude. He came out of gaol in May, 1879, and on 26ch July last received a sentence of six months for stealing a coat. Detective Benjamin gave evidence of the latter conviction. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to ten years’ penal servitude. LABOBNY OF VALUABLE SECURITY. Henry Russell and John Walsh were indicted, the former for having stolen a cheque for £ls from Frederick Redder, and Walsh for receiving the same, knowing it to be stolen. The prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty.” The case for the prosecution was that the prosecutor was in possession of a cheque for £ls on the 27th December, and went to the Royal Hotel to got it changed. The prisoner Russell was there, and they failed to get it changed. Russell then told him that ho would get it change h, and after going to several hotels the prosecutor lost his cheque. Two days afterwards the two prisoners attempted to pass the cheque at Scott’a Family Hotel, and were ultimately arrested. Mr Duncan having' led evidence to prove the case, The prisoner Russell handed up a long statement, which created much amusement, particularly the allusions to his weakness for the fair sex, and his interviews with the various dramatis personas, which were detailed with peculiar minuteness, in regular yellow "covered novel style, allusions to his devotedness to the fair sex being scattered plentifully throughout the document. In the course of it he compared his treatment by Detective Neil in the case to that of Mary, Queen of Scots. At the close of the reading of the first instalment, the prisoner handed up a number of sheets, which Mr Bloxam went on to read. These contained a tirade of abuse of Detective Neil. Like Mr Silas Wegg, the prisoner dropped into poetry, and proceeded to pour out a tirade of abuse on Detective Neil.

His Honor said that the prisoner was taking advantage of his petition to pour out a torrent of abuse on Detective Neil, which might be an abuse of an innocent person, who had no means of reply ; still, ho would not have it said that the prisoner had been deprived of the slightest portion of right to be heard. The jury would form their own conclusions from the narrative they had heard read. The prisoner handed up a number of prose sheets, which Mr Bloxam proceeded to read. The document, after a romantic description of a night’s repose by the side of the river Avon, where a fearful dream awoke the prisoner, continued for a number of pages to abuse Detective Neil. At the conclusion of the document the prisoner once more dropped into poetry of a somewhat, peculiar construction, and then went on to describe his pereginations in search of pretty barmaids. After about three quarters of an hour of reading. His Honor said that the whole document was a pack of irrelevant, idiotic ]stuff, and that the prisoner was simply taking advantage of the forms of law to bring before the jury a document vthich was simply an insult to the understanding of the whole of the jury. However, if the prisoner desired it to be read he (the Judge) would not stop it. The prisoner having read several more pages of most incoherent rubbish, concluded by reminding the jury of the responsibility they had taken with their oath.

His Honor then summed up, and after remarking that the defence was one of the moat extraordinary compounds of imbecility, wild rhapsodies, and portions bordering on blasphemy, he had ever listened to in his life, proceeded to recapitulate the salient features of the case, and concluded by requesting the jury to dismiss from their minds any feeling of indignation which might bejaroused by such an extraordinary farrago of idiotic nonsense as that put forward by Buseall as his defence, and simply say on the evidence whether they had any doubt that the prisoners were guilty of the offences with which they were charged.

The jury, after a ehort deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty of larceny from the person against Bussell, and of receiving against Walsh. Previous convictions against both prisoners were also charged, to which they pleaded guilty. Mr Commissioner Broham said that from the list before him it appeared that there had been sixteen previous convictions against Bussell, and thirteen against Walsh. The highest sentence recorded against Bussell was six months, and against Walsh seven years. Detective Neil gave evidence of Walsh having been in gaol for years. As regarded Bussell, ho might say that he was when at large one of the most dangerous of their criminals. They were always watching him. His Honor said that Bussell was simply the most impudent vagabond he had ever met in the course of his forty years' experience of courts of justice. He would be sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude. Walsh, though deserving quite as heavy a sentence, was an old man—sevenlv-one years of Hgc ar.d he should not give him a term which would necessitate his passing his last hours in prison. Ho would be sentenced to penal servitude for fire years. TECH BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned into Court with true hills in the following cases :—Begina r W. H. Hudson, larceny ; Eegina v Frederick Sandberg, larceny ; Begins v John O’Brien, horsestealing; Begina v James 3'ephens, larceny ; Regina v Bernard Neary, larceny ; Eegina v Peter Martin, indecent assault; Begina v Henry Mason and William Palmer, placing obstruction on railwav ; Begina v James Gardiner, horsestealing' ; Begina v George Wilson, attempting to commit a felony ; Eegina v Henry Bussell and John Walsh, larceny and receiving stolen

property ; Begins v William Skedgewell, indecent assault. nolle prosequi. The Crown Prosecutor intimated that it was not hi» intention to proceed in the case of Ksgina v Ellen Stokes for larceny. The Grand Jury wore then discharged without making any presentment. Wednesday, April 6. The sitting of the Court was resumed at 10 a.m. HORSE-STEALING. James Gardiner was indicted for having stolen three horses, the property of Michael Higgins. JJ The prisoner, who pleaded “Not Guilty, was defended by Mr O’Reilly. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that the prosecutor had been engaged as farm servant to the prisoner, and had become entitled to a certain amount of wages. The prosecutor then bought of the prisoner three horses and a double furrow plough, possession of which he did not get then. Ultimately the prisoner quarrelled with the prosecutor, and turned him out of the farm, declining to allow him to take the horses. then commenced proceedings in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and a distress warrant was issued, under which the horses were seized and delivered to prosecutor. The prisoner then attacked the prosecutor, and drove off the horses. Mr O’Reilly took an objection to the distress warrant, as it was not legally issued. The only way in which it would have been legal would have been in a case of illegal detention. His Honor held with Mr O’Reilly. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, Mr O’Reilly submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. Higgins was not legally in possession. His Honor said that Higgins was actually in possession, as ho had paid the money, and despite the worthlessness of the distress warrant he was in possession. Mr O’Reilly would submit that there was no evidence of the delivery to the prosecutor of the hors', a.

His Honor said the question was whether the horses were not de facto in the possession of the prosecutor when they were taken from him by the prisoner. Surely, by the payment of the money, the property passed according to law. If the prisoner took any horses from the prosecutor whilst actually in possession, then there was no doubt larceny had been committed.

Mr O’Reilly submitted that as the warrant of the Court was informal which vested possession in the prosecutor, he must be taken not to be in possession at all. His Honor could not see that the distress warrant being bad had anything to do with the matter. The prosecutor was de facto in possession of the horses, and taking any of them by the prisoner was a larceny. Mr O'Reilly said he would then call evidence for the defence which would prove that in June, 1879, prisoner gave a bill of sale to Friedlander Bros, over these horses, and that they had instructed him to take them from Higgins. Hugo Friedlander—l am a member of the firm of Friedlander Bros. In June, 1879, the prisoner gave us a bill of sale over his stock, &c., including the three horses mentioned in the indictment. In February I told Gardiner to take possession of the horses, whoever might have them. I did understand that Mr Branson was the bailiff of the Court, and that he held the horses as such. I told prisoner to take the horses from Mr Branson.

Cross examined by Mr Duncau—l knew that prosecutor had some claim on prisoner. F. de O Malet, Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced a mortgage of stock—Gardiner to Friedlander, Bros., filed 9th July, 1879.

James Gilchrist gave evidence as to witnessing the signatures to the bill of sale. The prosecutor being recalled, stated that the prisoner at no time told him that there was a bill of sale over the horses to Friedlander, Bros., nor did he claim them for that firm.

Mr O'Reilly then proceeded to 1 , address the jury for the defence. After he had opened his address, His Honor asked Mr Duncan whether he thought he could support the charge of larceny on the evidence as now presented. The defence was really that the prisoner had been guilty of obtaining money under false pretences, and though there had been a very disgraceful fraud, be thought, that, in point of law, as Friedlander’s title was pot impeached, Higgins had no title to possession, Mr Duncan said that he did not think he could support the charge of larceny on the evidence. His Honor directed the jury that there was no evidence on the charge of larceny. There was no doubt of it that it was a most disgraceful fraud, in which the prisoner had taken the earnings of the prosecutor for property which he well knew Jwas not his own, and over which he had given a mortgage. But as he had said, as a matter of law there was no evidence to support the charge of larceny. The’ jury, under direction of his Honor, returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty,” and the prisoner was discharged, Mr O’Reilly applied that his Honor would make an order giving up the horses to Friedlander. ' His Honor declined to make any order. 1 LAKCENT. _ 1 James Stephens was indicted for having, on I the 2nd December, 1879, stolen a quantity of E drapery, &c., the property of H. C. Turner and e another. Mr Spackman, instructed by Mr O’Reilly, 1 appeared for the defence. Mr Dnncan prosecuted on behalf of the f Crown. } The case for the prosecution was that the ( prosecutor, who is a hawker, was at the Mount Somers Hotel with his waggon on the date named, and the prisoner who is also a hawker, * was there too, and examined prosecutor’s E waggon. The prosecutor left the waggon for t some time that night, and on returning missed I a quantity of dr ipery. Information was given to the police, and on the 3rd February the pro- t aecutor went to prisoner’s premises at Alford Forest, and fouu". a large portion of the pro- . perty a leaed to have been stolen, the shirts J being identified by prosecutor as having been . specially made to the r ord"r. Evidence having been led by Mr Duncan to ‘ prove his esse, ‘ Mr Spackman called evidence for the defence. ] Andrew Orr —I am a merchant at Ashburton, ( and have ha ! dealings with the prisoner for two i years and a half. He bears a good character in the district. _ !' Mr Dune m objected to this line of evidence as not being relevant Hia Honor held that Mr Duncan’s objection was good. Mr ispackman then addressed the jnry for the defence. # His Honor summed up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict They returned into Court at 1 45 p.ra. with a verdict of u Guilty.” Hia Honor sentenced the prisoner to eighteen months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. INDECENT ASSAULT. William Skedpewell was charged with indecently assaulting Elizabeth James. Th 3 prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded ft Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on honali of the CrownEvidence having been led to prove the offence, The prisoner errss examined the prosecutrix at some length to her character. His Honor summed up shortly. One of the jurors (James Forester) said that the prisoner had asked whether the prosecutrix had ever lived with a man named Taylor, and she had stated that she did not. Now, he (Fire ter) knew different. The*juryman was sworn, and stated that last year some time he knew the prosecutrix as Mrs Taylor. She was living with a man named Taylor in Harper street, Sydenham, and in Fourth Street. She had credit from witness, who was a b .tuber under the name of Mrs Taylor. She lived with Taylor as his wife, but was not married to him. His Honor asked the prosecutrix whether she wished to ask any questions. The prosecutrix said that she was not the person at all. The witness Eorester said he had no doubt at all as to the identity of the woman. H. B. Ballimrer. another juryman, also testified ’to the identity of the prosecutrix as the woman living with the man named .Taylor. Hia Honor asked JV*r Duncan whether after this he could hop* to proceed with the case. Mr Duncan replied in the negative. His Honor asked Mr Superintendent Broham if the police could give,any information as to the alleged attempted suicide of the prosecutrix. Mr Superintendent Broham replied in the affirmative. John Briggs, a constable in the police force, deposed to knowing the prosecutrix under the name of Doe. She was arrested in Christchurch some some twelve months back for attempting to commit suicide by drowning. She was taken tothe lock-up. His Honor asked Mr Duncan whether there was any case to go to the jury, when the prosecutrix had committed no leas than three assignments of perjury.

Mr Duncan said that ha would not proceed with the case. The jury, under direction of bis Honor, returned a verdict of ” Not Guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY. George Wilson was charged with having, on the 13th March, attempted to steal a certain cash box and money, the property of James Armstrong. The prifonor, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan called evidence in support of the case.

1 ho case for the prosecution was that on the date in question Mrs Armstrong had occasion to go to the back of the shop, which was divided from the front shop by a glass door. Looking back as she went out sho saw the prisoner inside the counter, with his hand near the cash box. Mrs Armstrong ran out and stopped him until the police arrived, when he was taken into custody. The prisoner called Constable Briggs, who proved that shortly after the prisoner was brought in he saw him. Prisoner was then sober. The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to eighteen calendar months, with hard labour. Had the young married lady (the prosecutrix) only waited for about a minuto or so longer, tae prisoner would, with his sixteen previous convictions, have no doubt placed himself in a p isition to have received fourteen years’ penal servitude. It was almost a pity he had not been allowed to go on, as he was one of those pests of society which it was necessary to keep in prison.

DEFAULTING JUROR. John Fitzgerald having appeared to account for his absence as a juror, his Honor remitted the fine.

The Court then at 3.30 p.m. adjourned until :he civil sittings, on Monday next at 11 a.m.