SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1986, 6 July 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Judy 5. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The following oases were disposed yesterday ■after we went to proas : STEADING PROM A SHOP. Richard Wood was indicted for having, on the 14th June, broken into the shop of Hallenstein Bros., in Cashel 'street, and stolen therefrom a number of articles. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded ** Guilty.” Detective Benjamin proved that tho_ prisoner had been brought before the Resident Magistrate’s Court some four or five months ago on a charge of breaking into the Wesleyan Church, Durham street, and stealing therefrom, but discharged on tho ground of weakness of intellect. Mr Philips, the chief gaoler,_deposed that he had the prisoner in charge since the 21st June. Ho had seen the prisoner every day, and saw nothing.to lead him to believe that he was of weak intellect. The prisoner said he was sorry for what had happened, and hoped that the judge •would look upon it leniently. His Honor said as the prisoner had not been convicted before ho should give him a comparatively light sentence, considering the nature of the offence. The sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for two years. LARCENY PROMT THE PERSON. Mathew Longdin was indicted for having, on the 6th May, stolen the watch and pocket book of one William Hislop. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” Detective Benjamin gave evidence of several previous convictions, and that tho prisoner was a bad character. Sergeant Wilson also gave evidence of the previous convictions of the prisoner, and that he was a regular loafer and a thief. His Honor said the prisoner was a character ■who must be kept out of sight for some time to come. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner undergo penal servitude for four years. DAECKNY PROM THE PERSON. John Felts Bandy was indicted for having on the 21st June stolen from A. A. Everett a watch and chain, Tho prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joyce, pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted, on behalf of the Crown. The details of the case have so recently been before the public as not to require restating. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of the case. A. A. Everett, the prosecutor, gave evidence similar to that in the Court below. _ ' Cross-examined by Mr Joyce —Prisoner and myself were fellow passengers by the Norfolk, ' We went ashore at the Cape. Prisoner was called the Doctor and I the Colonel, both being nicknames. We enjoyed ourselves very much at Capetown, where I knew many 1 people. The prisoner had plenty of money. We arrived at the Cape on Sunday afternoon, ! and loft again on Monday at midday. The prisoner and myself parted quite friendly at Lyt- 1 telton, when we landed. I had had several drinks 1 before I saw the prisoner, and had some drinks * ■with the prisoner. I do not remember the 1 prisoner asking me for a settlement of accounts as to the Capetown matter. There 1 were no outstanding accounts between us as to the Cape affair. I swear that I did not give | the watch to the prisoner. I missed the ' watch at about eight o’clock in the morning, and asked at the bar for the prisoner. J By the Court—l thought the prisoner 1 either an optician or a chemist. He had a ( quantity of spectacles end things. _ 1 His Honor—So had Moses in the “Vicar of i Wakefield.” . 1 Sergeant-Major Mason deposed to arresting £ the prisoner on the wharf at Lyttelton. The 1 prisoner at first made no reply, but subse- 1 quantly asked who laid the charge of stealing the watch. On being searched the prisoner produced the watch, stating that he reserved | Ms defence. _ i Cross-examined by Mr Joyce—The imprea- < sion conveyed to my mind by what the j prisoner said was that the watch was taken t by the accused as a security for debts owing 1 by the prosecutor to the So soon os £ I told the accused that I was going to search 1 him for the watch he produced it. 1 Mr Joyce addressed tho jury for the t prisoner. i The jury returned, a verdict of “ Guilty, ’ 1 ■with a recommendation to mercy. f His Honor asked upon what grounds. 1 The Foreman said that the jury reoom- j mended the prisoner to mercy on the ground j that having just come to the colony the i prisoner had done the deed recklessly. 1 His Honor said that he entirely j with the Jury on the recommendation. On ( the contrary, ho thought the case was a very I bad one indeed. Here he found a man rob- t bing his friend when under tho influence of i drink, and trumping up a story about taking ] the watch as security for a fancied debt._ The ( only reconciling feature ho could find in the t case was that the prisoner was drunk, and in £ that state committed the crime recklessly. t The prisoner said the statement made was f a truth. He had spent a great deal more { money than the prosecutor at tho Cape, and ( they had arranged to square up here, _ i His Honor said he would give weight to the recommendation of the jury, and sentence i the prisoner to six calendar months’ imprison- j meet with hard labor. i FORGERY AND UTTERING. _ £ Henry Hayes was indicted for having on j the 21st April forgei and uttered a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, for ( £B. < The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” e His Honor sentenced tho prisoner to ( eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard ] labor 1 DAECBNY OF TARPAULINS. ] Michael Higgins was indicted for having stolen certain tarpaulins, the property of the 1 New Zealand Government. ] The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded i “Guilty.” _ 1 Constable Robert Neil gave evidence as to the had character of the prisoner, who had been for some time under the surveillance of the police. !ue was also suspected of two larcenies which had occurred there. i W. H. Slater, the yard foreman of the i Canterbury Railways at Lyttelton, deposed that the missing of tarpaulins was not a common thing. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment, with hard labor, for eighteen calendar months. LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. Henry White was indicted for having on the 22nd March stolen a watch and chain from Thomas Stoddart. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joyce, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted for the Crown. The prosecutor had been drinking in Lyttelton, laid down in a right-of-way, when soma person felt his pockets, and he then found his watch gone. Ultimately the prisoner offered tho watch for sale to a warder in the gaol, who gave information to the police. . Mr Duncan led evidence in support of bis case. , . , E. M. Griffiths deposed to seeing the prisoner on the 27th March at the boardinghouse where he was staying. Prisoner produced a watch, and asked him to buy it for £2. Prisoner said he got it from a man on board the Waimate, and ultimately witness purchased it on the 31st March. Witness took the watch to Wright, tho watchmaker, ■who said it was a stolen watch. In cross-examination by Mr Joyce the witness said the Waimate sailed from Lyttelton about the 6th April. The prosecutor deposed to being in Lyttelton on the 22nd March last and losing his watch on that night. In cross-examination by Mr Joyce tho witness said that he had been locked up that game night for being drunk. He was very drunk. Jessie Robinson gave evidence as to Stoddart being in the Bowling Saloon on tho night of the 27th March. William Roman, a boarding-house keeper, deposed to the prisoner boarding with him for some time and owing him £5. Mr Joyce addressed the jury for the defence, contending that the account given by the prisoner of Ms having received the watch from some one on board the Waimate was entitled to credence. His Honor asked if any inquiries had been made on board the Waimate. Mr Duncan said there had. His Honor asked how it was this evidence had not been led. Mr Joyce said that he would not take any advantsgo of a slip. Constable Nield deposed that he went to

the ship Waimato and inquired for the man spoken of by the prisoner, but could find no one answering to the name. Mr Joyce continued his address, contending that even the evidence of tho police constable proved nothing because he had not taken the proper steps to ascertain whether such a man was on board the Waimate. His Honor having summed up, The jury, after nearly an hour’s absence, returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty. ” Taira rills. During tho day the Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases : • Regina v Robert Henry Rogers, forging and uttering (two indictments) ; Regina v Edgar Ballinger, embezzlement; Regina y William Maddans, housebreaking; Regina v Matthew Dongdin, embezzlement; Regina v Richard Hood, larceny ; Regina v John Felts Bandy, larceny; Regina v George Schmidt, obtaining goods under false pretences ; Regina v Michael Higgins, larceny ; Henry Hayes, forgery ; Henry White, larceny from the person; Regina v Jane Matthews, infanticide ; Regina v Jane Matthews, concealment of birth; Regina v James Ryan, larceny from the person. Tuesday, Judy 6. The sitting of the Court in its criminal jurisdiction was resumed. INFANTICIDE, Ellen Matthews was indicted for having wilfully and maliciously killed her infant child. There was also a second indictment charging the prisoner with concealment of birth. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joyce, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on tho part of tho Crown, and, having briefly stated the facts of the case, which have already been fully reported, proceeded to call evidence in support of the case for the prosecution. The first witness was the lad, George Hams, who gave evidence similar to that given by him in the Court below. In cross-examination by Mr Joyce, the witness said that it was about a quarter to two on tho Eriday when he saw the baby in the river. He was going along leisurely. He passed along by the river on the_ preceding morning, but did not look in the river. Ho had very often seen cabs about the terrace where he saw the baby. Detective Benjamin was called, and repeated tho evidence already given by him. In cross-examination by Mr Joyce, tho witness said ho had never seen the prisoner before the day he arrested her. Ho spoke to her on the subject of tho charge, and asked her if she had not had a child. Prisoner did not know who he was until after some conversation had passed. Witness said, “ Don’t be frightened, there’s nothing going to happen you.” His Honor said if Mr Joyce had taken the objection that the course pursued by the detective was such as to exclude all statements made by the prisoner, he did not know but that he should not“have excluded them. Mr Joyce said that he was in this position, that he could take no objection, as it might prejudice tho prisoner’s case at that stage. His Honor said of course Mr Joyce could not take the objection now, as it was too late, but ho must say, as a matter of law, that it was not right for an officer charging a person with so serious a crime as child murder to endeavor to allay their fears, and thus in some degree throw them off their guard. Detective Thomas Neil gave evidence as to the finding of the body of the child. Mrs Shannon gave evidence similar to that given by her at the Resident Magistrate’s Court and before the coroner.

On cross-examination by Mr Joyce, the witness deposed that she bad five children. She did not know the prisoner before she came into her service. She came as a single girl, not as a married woman. She was engaged as a general servant. Wit ness told the police as to tho statement made by the prisoner to her. The witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Joyce, but nothing important was elicited.

Dr. Anderson deposed to making the postmortem examination at the police morgue on the body of a child. He had attended the inquest held at the Clarendon Hotel on the 4th Juno. Dr. Anderson then proceeded to give the desails of his post-mortem examination. The child was full grown, and recently born. The lungs bad been partly filled with air, the right one more so than the left, which had only imperfectly been so filled. Neither lungs were fully inflated. He could state that the child had breathed, but he could not say whether after it was bom or before, or both. It rather appeared from his examination that there had been circulation of tho blood, as there was indications of some bleeding. One cause of death might be the bleeding from the cord not being tied. Such cases were rare, but it had been recorded in the books. The fact that the lungs were not fully inflated seemed to point to this conclusion that the child might have breathed whilst being born, but that afterwards, from protraction, the breathing of the child became obstructed, and it was stillborn. Exposure to cold might have been a cause of death. The contraction of the limbs of the child found to exist when the body was taken out of the river did not assist him in forming a judgment as to the child being born alive, but it was probable that it might have been. The rigor mortis had set in, and was present when witness made the post-mortem. There were no marks of violence on the body. His Honor commented on the necessity, without for one moment impugning the professional skill of Dr. Anderson, of additional medical evidence having been called in on such an important case as a charge of child murder.

Dr Anderson said that he had suggested the calling in of another man, but it was not considered necessary. His Honor then asked whether Dr. Anderson could say if the appearances presented by the body were consistent with an accident having prevented the full inflation of the lungs, and not any act on tho part of the mother ?

Dr. Anderson said he was of opinion that the appearances were consistent with the stoppage of the inflation of tho lungs being accidental. This might have been the cause of death.

His Honor: Have you any other medical witness, Mr Duncan. Mr Duncan : No, your Honor. His Honor : Then I suppose [you will not attempt under the circumstances to press the charge of murder. Mr Duncan—No, your Honor. His Honor —I quite agree with you, Mr Duncan, though it is a case of extreme suspicion. Do you intend to go on with the charge of concealment of birth ? Mr Duncan—Yes, your Honor. His Honor —Do you intend to contest the charge, Mr Joyce. Mr Joyce—Certainly, your Honor.

His Honor then addressed the jury, telling them that though there was not the slightest doubt as to the competence of the medical gentleman in the box, it was still very much to be regretted that there had not in the interests of public justice been dditional medical evidence in the case. The jury must at so early a stage bo relieved to find that the life of a fellow-creature was not in their bauds, still he could not but say that the way in which the matter had been conducted was not such as should be. However, now the jury would have to consider the minor charge of concealment of birth.

Examination continued —Witness examined the prisoner at the depot, and found that she had been confined within five or seven dayo. Prisoner said that she thought she was not all right, and in answer to questions from witness said she was not right in her mind. In answer to Mr Joyce the witness said he could not say whether tho child was the prisoner’s. His Honor said he did not think this was a case in which it was necessary that Mr Duncan should sum up. Mr Duncan declined to address the jury. Mr Joyce referred His Honor to a case in Cox Criminal Cases, 684, in which the judge directed the acquittal of the prisoner on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence connecting the prisoner with the birth of the child whose body had been found in the river. His Honor said that there was sufficient evidence in his opinion to warrant tho case going to tho jury, who would have to decide the point whether there was enough evidence to enable them to say without reasonable doubt that tho child found was born of the prisoner. Mr Joyce then proceeded to address the jury for the defence, contending that no evidence was given to connect the child found in the river with the prisoner. They had evidence that the prisoner had been delivered, but beyond that they had nothing. They were asked to assume that the child found was tho prisoner’s, and that she had placed it in the river to conceal tho birth. But was there one tittle of evidence to sup-

port this ? He said there was not. The only reason why the jury were asked to believe that the prisoner had put the child in the river to conceal the birth was that it had been found there. But was there any ovi- • dence that the child was that of the prisoner ? Might there not be other unfortunate woman who might have disposed of the child ? He said it was within the bounds of possibility that the child was that of some other person. The prosecution had to prove the fact to the satisfaction of the jury that the child found in the river was that of the prisoner. Had they done so ? He said not, and ho asked them to consider whether the evidence was such as would justify then in finding the prisoner guilty of the charge of concealment of birth. The theory of the prosecution, he submitted, was full of assumptions, which the jury were asked to believe. For tho reasons he had adduced he asked the jury to acquit the prisoner. His Honor summed up, and congratulated the jury upon not having to consider the graver charge of murder. The law, however, had provided that whore a woman was charged with the murder of a newly-born child the jury could consider whether the circumstances did not show that concealment of birth had taken place. This was a very wise provision, and the jury had now first to return a verdict of “Nob Q-uilty ” on tho charge of murder, and then to consider whether tho circumstances warranted them in returning a verdict that tho prisoner was guilty of disposing of the body of tho child to conceal its birth. What they would have to do was to look at the evidence as men of common sense, and say whether the circumstances warranted their coming to the conclusion, without reasonable 5 doubt, that tfce prisoner had disposed of the body of the child to conceal its birth. The prisoner, it would bo remembered, had told two different stories, and it would bo for tho jury to consider how far the stories coincided with the facts in evidence. They must remember that the statements made by accused against themselves were evidence against them, but that their statements in favor of themselves, unsupported by oath, could not be taken ; therefore, they must consider that the statement made to the detective must be taken as being probably the true one, because she was aware, from hearing her mistress reading about tho inquest, that the police were enquiring about a child. This being so, she told the detective that she had had a child on the banks of the river. She being aware prior to this of the circumstances must be takeu as knowing that the child referred to was the one found. If they were.'satisfled that the prisoner went to the bank of the river, and was there delivered, it was competent for them to consider whether they could have any reasonable doubt that tho prisoner was the person who put the child in the river. If they did this as men of common sense, and not being led away by any false sympathy, then they were bound to find her guilty of concealment of birth. (_Eis Honor then read over the evidence, commenting upon it as he proceeded.J There could be no doubt as to tho prisoner having become a mother. He had said that she was delivered on the banks of the river, and on the next morning a child was found in tho river. The question was whether they had or had not any reasonable doubt that the prisoner put the child in tho river, and doing so that she was endeavoring to conceal the birth.

The jury proceeded to consider the verdict, and in about five minutes returned a verdict of “Not Guilty ” of infanticide and “ Guilty” of concealment of birth.

His Honor said tho prisoner had had a narrow escape of ending her life at a very early stage by an ignominious death. Indeed the evidence left the impression on the minds of those who heard it the strongest possible suspicion that she wont to tho riverside with the intention of getting rid of the child, whether born alive or not. It was for her own conscience to say whether it was eo or not. There was nocrimewhich did more to deprave the moral tone of a community than concealment of birth. It, therefore became necessary to hold up before the young persons of the colony the terror of punishment for such a crime. It was especially necessary that they should guard the moral purity of their daughters and impress upon the young women of the colony the hoinousness of the offence which was regarded unfortunately as a somewhat venial crime. Ho hoped that this case would prove a solemn warning to the young people of the colony, and that though light in comparison to the punishment which would have followed on a conviction for tho graver offence, the sentence ho should pass would have a deterrent effect. Ho was afraid from what ho had seen of the conduct of the prisoner that she was a person who was not possessed of much moral rectitude or delicacy. He did not know what influences had surrounded her, but he trusted that tho sentence now about to be passed would be a solemn and lasting warning to her and to tho young women of the colony. The sentence of tlio Court would be imprisonment for two years with hard labor. FALSE PRETENCES. George Schmidt was indicted for having on the 9th March falsely pretended to one Jacob Grossman that he was a farmer at Waimato, and had a large quantity of laud, thereby obtaining from the said Jacob Grossman a quantity of jewellery. The prisoner, who was seriously ill and was accommodated with a chair on the floor of the Court, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Joyce appeared for tho defence. Mr Duncan prosecuted on the part of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner met the prosecutor, who was a travelling jeweller, at Hansmann’s Hotel, Addington, and there told him that he was about to purchase a watch, that he was a farmer living at Waimate, and had a largo tract of land there. Tho prisoner, it was alleged, drew a diagram of the land ha said was his. Upon the strength of these representations the prosecutor gave the prisoner a quantity of jewellery. Subsequently it was found that these representations were false, and tho prisoner was arrested. Mr Duncan called evidence in support c f the case for the prosecution. Jacob Grossman, tho prosecutor, gave evidence similar to that given by him in the court below. [Left sitting.]