SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1985, 5 July 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Jttht 5. [Beforo His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. The following gen.lemen were sworn as the grand jury:— Messrs C. B. Blakiston, C. Newton, J. G. Hawkes, J. Webster, F. A. Bishop, 0. T. Cox, F. W. Delamain, W. I. Eobison, B. G. Griffith, B. N. Newby, W. H. Olabborne, F. O. Tabart, W. si. Macbeth, J. N. Tosnill, J. D. Macphorson, F. H. Brittan, J. Cameron, A. Oaur.le, 0. G. Chapman, G. Mackay, and W. White, jun. His Honor then proceeded to deliver his oharge to the grand jury. Ho said he was sorry to have to say that the calendar did not b)iow any diminution in the number or class of cases usually coming before the grand jury. He further regretted that jfco number of cases in the calendar were still very much in excess of what they should bo when viewed in relation to tho number of the population. On reference to the calendar, it would be seen that there was there neaily every description of crime with which from long experience in the discharge of their duties as Grand Jurymen they had become familiar. It was satisfactory, however, to note, that notwithstanding the notorious circumstances of depression at present existing, there did not appear amongst the list of cases for trial any charges of breaches of the peace or robbery of property tracoable to the circumstances of depression to which he had alluded. He thought they should congratulate themselves upon this, and also those persons who for a time are suffering from the effects of the depression that this was so. The calendar, though, was composed, as he had said, of most of tho classes of offences with whioh they were acquainted by experience. In the cases of larceny in the calendar, the victims were persons who, having earned more money than they knew how to take care of or to spend, and giving way to habits of intemperance, became easy victims to the loafing scoundrels who hang about public houses, not only in the centres of population, but also, he regrettod to say, at some of the public houses in tbe oountry places. These men were in these cases shown to be under the influence of liquor, thus becoming, as he had said, an easy prey to tho loafing scoundrels who infested public houses, more particularly as it appeared that the prosecutors had in some of the cases at least just receivod their wages. The calendar further contained, he wa3 sorry to say, two cases of arson and one of child murder, respecting which he would have some remarks to make to tho jury presently; a case of housebreaking, of cattle, horso, and sheep stealing, of forgery, from a case of which the calendar had not been free for some poricd, and one case of perjury. So the jury would see that the calendar comprised a very varied description of tho usual cases which came before the Grand Jury in their calendars. The whole number of cases comprising, as he had pointed out, nearly every description of crime with which they were familiar in their experience, amounted to nineteen or twenty. There were one or two cases of these on which he would desira to address them specially. The remainder of the charges were of such a character as they would be enabled to deal with without direction from him. First, with regard to the case of child murder. He desired to point out to the grand jury that they were not a tribunal of decision similar to the petty jury, but a tribunal for deciding I whether on the evidence brought before them -

there was not a prima facie case for further investigation. His Honor then went on to direct the jury that it was not their duty to decide whether the prisoner was guilty or not guilty, but whether there was sufficient evidence before .them to warrant them in remitting the ease to the common jury. i ' " So far aa the medical evidence went the one medical man could not say positively whether the child was born alive; But he should direct them that if they believed from all the circumstances that the child must have been born alive they could find the bill. His Honor then went on at some length to quote from the depositions in the case, and also pointed out that; though there was a probability that a bill would be presented for concealment of birth should the one for child murder fail, the Grand Jury were not to consider this in dealing with the bill for child murder. But if they were of opinion that a prima facie case existed for reference to the petty jury, it would be their duty to find the oill without reference to the fact that probably a bill for concealment of birth would be presented. After referring to the case against Mayor and (mother for arson, his Honor dismissed the Grand Jury to their room. OBSTRUCTING THE BAIXWAY. Henry Mason and William Palmer, the two lads who had been remanded from last session to come up for judgment for having obstructed the Ashburton and Bakaia forks Railway, were placed in the dock. His Honor said he had considered the indictment which had been preferred against them, and come to the conclusion that it was a good one. It therefore became his duty to punish them, at the same time he did not believe that the boys had acted with atiy guilty motive, but from thoughtlessness. If it were not for the duty he felt he owed to the country, ho should have passed such a nominal sentence as would allow them to go homo at once. But there had been no convictions under tho statutes with reference to railways, and as punishment was meant to be deterrent, he had a duty to the community to perform, and had they been men of years of discretion he should have passed a most substantial sentence. When they considered that by the placing upon tho railway of a piece of wood or stone numbers of their follow creatures might be hurried to death the most thoughtless must see the magnitude of the offence. He would give them a short sentence, and the gaoler would make such special arrangements as would prevent their coming into contact with the criminal classes of the community. Unfortunately the want of classification in their gaols prevented him from giving such a punishment as would be any way adequate to the offence, but he hoped that when they came out, after serving a punishment which was merely nominal, they would do so uncontaminated by association with the crime and wickedness of the gaol. The sentence of the Court would be that they be imprisoned for six weeks, without hard labor, in the gaol at Lyttelton, the gaoler to see that special arrangements were made to prevent their association with the prisoners confined. The father of Mason came forward and said he hoped that the lad would not be contaminated by mixing with felons. His Honor snid that Mr Mason would see that it was impossible for him (the judge) to allow the lads to get off without punishment. Mr Philips would see that every care was taken to prevent the boys mixing with the other prisoners. DEFAULTING JITEOB. William Cotton was fined 40j, unless cause shewn for being absent. FOBGESY AND OTTEBING. Robert Henry Rogers was ! indicted for having forged and uttered, on the 15th and 14fch April, a cheque for £5 10j, purporting to be drawn upon tho Union Bank of Australia, Sefton. The prisoner, who pleaded guilty without any felonious attempt, said that Mr Joynt was retained la appear for him. His Honor said that the plea was one of Not guilty." The prisoner was then further indicted for having forged and uttered a cheque for £3 on the Union Bank of Australia, Sefton. On this indictment the prisoner pleaded similarly, " Guilty of forging without any felonious intent." After waiting for some time for a messenger to go to Mr Perceval and ascertain whether ae stated he had arranged for the defence of the prisoner by another solicitor, His Honor said that Mr Perceval had replied, that he had not been properly instructed. The case would have to proceed, and he (the Judge) would see that the ■ prisoner suffered no damage by reason of the absence of a solicitor. Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of tho Crown. The prisoner waß undefended. The facts of the case for tho prosecution were that the prisoner was telegraphist and postmaster at Leithfield. The Inspector of Telegraphs found on visiting the effiee of the prisoner that there was a deficiency in his accounts to a certain amount. He called on the prisoner to pay over the amount he had in his hands, and amongst the money so handed over was a oheque signed by one John Smellia for £5 10s, which afterwards was discovered to be forgery. For the prosecution Mr Duncan called Constable Healey, Messrs. W. G. Meddings and John Smellie. The latter deposed that the cheque shown to him was not signed by him. The prosecution also called another John Smellie, residing at Lyttelton, who also deposed to tho name to the cheque not being his signature. The prisoner, in defence, said that he intended to take the two cheques out of the box when he received his money from the department, and that he never intended them to go into circulation. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty of forgery, with intent to defraud. Mr Meddings, in reply to the Judge, raid he was sorry that he could not give the accused a good character, as he had been short in his cash on two occasions previously. The evidence on the second charge was then proceeded with, for having forged a oheque for £3. After hearing the same witnesses as in the other case, M>. Duncan called Thomas Henry James, who deposed that the signature to the cheque produced was not his, but a forgery. The jury returned a verdict of " Guilty " in this case also. His Hon ir sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for five years on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. EMBEZZLEMENT. Edgar Ballinger was charged with having embezzled certain monies, amounting to £6O, the property of the Bank of New Zealand, whilst employed as clerk to the said Bank. There was a second count for embezzling £l2, and also counts charging the prisoner with stealing. On the application of Mr Joyce, His Honor deferred passing sentence until after the adjournment. On the Court resuming at 2.30 p.m., Mr J. P. Jameson deposed having known the prisoner for many years, and not having known anything detrimental to his character prior to this unfortunate lapse. He could only account for this as a sudden temptation. Mr Joyce put in certain documents to show that the prisoner had about £l5O to his credit in England. Mr Mackay, from the Inspector's office of the Bank of New Zealand, deposed to the prisoner having been agent for the Bank at Leeston and at Kaikoura, with a salary of £275 per annum and allowances. The prisoner had borne a very good character. The Crown Prosecutor said he had received an [intimation from the Bank that they did not desire to press the case against the prisoner. Mr Joyce, for the prisoner, submitted to his Honor that he had been in gaol for three months. He had also endeavoured to pay back the money he hai embezzled, and upon this being done the Bank discovered what had been done. His Honor said that he should be trifling with justice if he gave a less sentence than hard labor for twelve calendar months, which was the sentence he now passed. It could not bo for one moment supposed that a case of embezzlement by a man in a position .of trust like this could be treated like a common case of larceny. HOTJ3EBEEAKING. Wm. Maddans, a gentleman with a string of aliases, was charged with breaking into the house of John Veats at Sydenham, and stealing therefrom a number of articles. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded "Guilty." Detective Benjamin proved the conviction of the prisoner and sentence to three months' imprisonment on a charge of passing a valueless cheque.

The prisoner said that the aliases wereimply nicknames. His Honor said that it was very silly for persons to have aliases given to them like this, as_ it might prejudice them very much. An alias meant that a man had been convicted under that name. His Honor said that it was very clear that the prisoner had commenced a career of crime,. and the offence to which he had pleaded guilty was one which must be visited with a substantial punishment. The sentence of the Court would be penul servitude for three years. fLeft sitting."]