SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1987, 7 July 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, July 6. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The following oases were disposed yesterday after we went to press : FALSE PEKTENCEB. ! George Schmidt was indicted for having on. the 9th March falsely pretended to one Jacob Grossman that he was a farmer at Waimate, and had a large quantity of loud, 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 the 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 large tract of land there. The prisoner, it was alleged, drew a diagram of the land he said was his. Upon the strength of these representations the prosecutor gave the prisoner & quantity of jewellery. Subsequently it was found that these representations were false, and the prisoner was arrested. Mr Duncan called evidence in support cf the case for the prosecution. Jacob Grossman, the prosecutor, gave evidence similar to that given by him in the •ourt below. On cross examination by Mr Joyce, the witness deposed that when he met the prisoner at the Addington Hotel it was the first time he had seen the prisoner. The latter wanted to honor witness with his custom. Being a countryman, of course, he wanted to honor witness with his custom. The main inducement to part with his property was the statement of the prisoner that he was a farmer at Waimate, confirmed by the introtion to him by a respectable hotelkeeper, whoso character was beyond suspicion. He looked up the prisoner on the Mopday afterwards. He was under the verandah of the hotel, and pulled out sundry documents which he said ho had received from his tenants. Being under the impression that he was dealing with a man,[and not a deceiver, he said to him, “Do not show me your private letters.” Witness knew that there was a place in the North Islar d called Waimate Plains. Prisoner told him that he had been in the North Island, Witness had no doubt that be was dealing with an honorable man. He began to doubt when ha heard that the prisoner had panned the jewellery. The prisoner never came near witness, and his tenants who were to pay him rent never came. In response to a request from prisoner, witness gave him 20s and 9s at two different times. Witness could not say whether he would have given the prisoner further time to pay if he remained at the hotel for a month. Robert Taylor deposed that he was an hotelkeeper at Geraldine. Tne prisoner was at his house on the 2nd April, and stayed for eight or nine days. He had a watch and chain in his possession. On the 10th April ia asked witness to lend him £lO ou the watch, which he did. Cross-examined by Mr Joyce : In witness’ experience he had seen it not impossible for a farmer to be a blacksmith or a bushman. He had frequently known farmers hard up in his district. Sergeant Gilbert, stationed at Waimate, deposed to the arrest of the prisoner on April 12th at Waimate. The prisoner said, “ I told the old Jew at the lime that I had no money.” Witness had been one year in the Waimate District but never knew the prisoner ns a farmer or landed proprietor. Cross-examined by Mr Joyce : Witness had made strict enquiries all over the district and had searched the rate rolls hut was unable to find any land held by a person of the name of the prisoner. Witness searched the rato roll of the County and Borough Councils and made enquiries. J. A. Hansmann, proprietor of Feathers’ Hotel, Addington, gave evidence similar ia purport to that, given by him in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. On cross-examination ty Mr Joyce the witness deposed that the prisoner told him hie house at Waimate was about half a mile from the Waimate Junction. Prisoner had only paid for three nights' lodging out of the six or seven weeks he was in the house. Witness introduced ‘.he prisoner as a farmer from Waimate. He said : “ Here’s another German—a fanner from Waimate.” The reason why he trusted the prisoner was that ho believed what he

said as to his being a former at Waimate. The prisoner presented witness with a ring before he went away. Witness did not know that prisoner had got any jewellery from tho prosecutor. Detective Thomas Neil gave evidence as to receiving several of the articles of jewellery from Mr S. Stewart, pawnbroker, and the ring from Mr Hansmann. Mr Joyce addressed the jury for tho defence. Hia Honor summed up, and after a short retirement the jury brought in a verdict of “ Guilty.” The chief gaoler, Mr Philips, said that tho report of the surgeon of the gaol was that the man was in the last stage of consumption. He had been in gaol since the 20th May, and had been in bed for the last three weeks. Inspector O’Donnell said that the prisoner had received two years’ imprisonment for stabbing in 1871. His Honor said that he regretted that the prisoner was in the state he was, but he -thought the most humane course would bo for him to sentence tho prisoner to such a term of imprisonment as would mark the class of offence. The sentence of the Court would be nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Tho latter meaning, of course, such labor as the prisoner could perform. At a later stage, His Honor said that on reconsideration he would strike out the addition of hard labor, as the prisoner would not, as in other cases where the prisoner was in health, obtain better rations for doing hard labor. In this case the prisoner would bo under medical care, and would receive medical diet. The sentence would be altered to nine months’ imprisonment without hard labor. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Charles Petersen and Karl Brnn were indicted for having on the 27th May assaulted one Hugh Hewitt and robbed him of tho sum of £6. The prisoners, who were defended by Mr Stringer, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The facte, as alleged by tho prosecution, were that the prosecutor having fallen in tho street went into the washhouse of the SomerBet Hotel and removed Borne portion of his apparel. Whilst doing so, the prisoners came in and assaulted the prosecutor, ultimately rifling his clothes and taking away the money he had in his pockets. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of ; the prosecution. Joseph Gale deposed to the prosecutor coming into the washhouse of the Somerset Hotel to take off hia clothes, as ha was drunk 1 and had fallen into tho mad. Witness 1 assisted him to take off his clothes, and pro- < gecutor took five £1 notes out of his pocket and put them on the boiler. The prisoners J come in to the washhouse. The prosecutor took the notes off the boiler and put them iu * the pocket of the trousers he had just put on. ‘ Petersen then up with his fist and knocked • the prosecutor down like a bullock. The moment he fell, the prisoner Brnn got on top of prosecutor and took the notes out of his pocket. Witness made a grab at tho money and secured four £1 notes out of it, t and took it to Mr Shearman. [ Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—The 1 prosecutor was very drunk. Witness counted t the notes twice over in presence of the f prosecutor. 1 Tho prosecutor, Hugh Hewitt, corroborated f in the main the evidence of the last witness as ] to the occurrence in the washhouse. c On cross-examination by Mr Stringer, wit- < ness deposed that be did not speak to the prisoners at all. He did not recollect pri- t sonar Petersen saying a word to him. I Bobert Shearman gave evidence as to pay- c ing Hewitt £7 10s on 27th May last in seven c single notes and 10s in silver. The witness 1 then detailed tho circumstance of Gale giving the alarm of robbery and handing him £4. e James Quid deposed to seeing the two { prisoners going to the washhouse of the hotel about a quarter or half-past eleven on May c 27th. The prisoners were intoxicated. They s came out of the washhouse quietly. t Evidence having been given of the men c spending money at tho hotel at Tinwald, c Mr Stringer submitted that there was no t evidence to go to the jury of the corpus v delicti being traced to the prisoners. His Honor said that there was the evidence J of the witness Gale who saw the robbery. ‘ This was evidence enough, surely, to go to the f jury. Mr Stringer called evidence. c Joseph Shearman deposed that on the 23th May he leat the prisoners a £1 note each. They said they -were going to get their wages next day from their employer, Mr Clark, at 1 Tinwald. Both men paid for drinks after this in silver. J Mr Stringer addressed the jury for the defence. His Honor summed up. c i The jury, after a short deliberation, returned 1 a verdict of “ Guilty ” against both prisoners. His Honor said it was a most startling I thing, though no one could doubt that the jury had arrived at a right conclusion in returning the verdict they had. He should like ( to have some suggestion from the prisoners as to how they could' have come to do such a thing as this, one of tho most serious crimes known to the law. It was a most painful thing to him to have to pass sentence upon young men like these, because he had power to send them for penal servitude for life. The prisoners had nothing to say. J His Honor said that he was unable to find • any reason for giving them a short sentence. ( TTth duty to the public compelled him to give f each of them a sentence of three years’ penal servitude. TRUE BILLS. 1 The Grand Jnry during the day brought in ' true bills in the following cases :—Begina v - Charles Petersen and Karl Brnn, robbery with violence; Eegina v W. Major, setting ( fire to stacks ; Eegina v Jervis Wilson, do.; , Eegina v Benjamin Corry, shoepstealing. ( The Court then adjourned until ten o’clock this morning. , Wednesday, Judy 7. j [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The criminal sittings of the Court were . resumed at 10 a.m. HORSE STEALING. _ , Prank Eomer was indicted for having stolen one gelding, the property of George Oordy. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty.” The facts of the case for the prosecution were that the prosecutor was at the races, and there saw the prisoner, who spoke about buying his horse. The prosecutor then allowed the prisoner to get on the horse and ride away. Ultimately the prisoner sold the horse to a horse dealer for £7 10s. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of hia case. The prisoner said he had asked Dr, Davies to come and give him a character. His Honor said that any character the prisoner might get would not avail the prisoner at that stage. Had ho anything to say to the jury. The prisoner declined to make any statement, . . His Honor shortly summed up, pointing out that the circumstances of the case were so clear that it hardly required comment to them. The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, returned a verdict of “Guilty.” Hia Honor said that if it was any use ho would postpone passing sentence until Dr. Davies came, but he did not think that it would do him any good. Tho prisoner said that Dr. Davies could aay that he was presented with a medal for saving men’s lives. The night he took the horse he was intoxicated, and knew nothing about what had occurred. His Honor said the prisoner might be a very gallant man, but that did not alter the fact that there had been a moat impudent robbery committed. The prosecutor was recalled, and, in reply to hia Honor, first said the prisoner was sober when he rode his horse away, and then admitted that he himself was drunk and that tho prisoner was also. TTia Honor said that he should treat this case as a first offence, and as if tho prisoner had proved the good character he had spoken of. The sentence would be imprisonment, with bard labor, for one year—a very light sentence indeed for horse-stealing. LARCENY FBOit THE PERSON. James Eyan was indicted for having, on tho 12th April, stolen from the person of one Donaldson, money, the property of one James Welch. Mr Stringer appeared for the defence. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that the prosecutor went into the Bank of New Zealand and changed a cheque for £SO. The prosecutor, with some other men, went to several hotels, and whilst in one of them tho prosecutor dropped some money on the floor, which was picked up by one of tho persons with him. He took the money to them, and irhilst shewing them tho money, which wm

two £lO notes and a £5, the prisoner saw Item. In Durham street the prisoner came up to them, put hia left hand round Donaldson’s neck, and his right hand into the pocket c£ the latter, taking the money.: Mr Duncan proceeded to call evidence. Thomas Donaldson deposed to the facts stated above. On cross-examination by Mr Stringer, the witness deposed that he offered the money to Welch—opposite the Norwich Union Insurance Company’s office in Colombo street. Witness did not see the money in prisoner’s hand. Prisoner pushed his way in between Welch and witness. He did not ask them to go into the hotel and search him. There was a struggle when prisoner attempted to escape. Witness did not search the pockets of the prisoner. By his Honor —There was about a quarter of an hour elapsing from the time witness put the notes in hia pocket until they mtt the prisoner. Edward Welch gave testimony corroborative of the evidence of Donfildson. Messrs. James Welch and W. Bateman also gave evidence. In cross-examination by Mr Stringer, the latter said that when they came up to the prosecutor, and Edward and James Welch they wanted to fight the prisoner, but he prevented them. Constable Lawler deposed to the arrest of the prisoner. Mr Stringer addressed the jury for the defence, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to convict the prisoner. His Honor summed up. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of a quarter of an hoar returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” Evidence was given by Constable Stevenson to the effect that the prisoner had been convicted on two separate occasions of gambling, and was sentenced to nine and six months imprisonment respectively. Detective Neil had known prisoner for six years. He associated with the worst characters, oonvictod thieves and the like, and he never worked. Mr Stringer, for the prisoner, remarked that he had a wife and children.

His Honor—They will bo very well rid of him indeed. Such men were a pest to society. In the present case he was convicted of a most impudent robbery. The sentence of the Court was that prisoner be kept in penal servitude for four years. PERJURY. Henry Davis was arraigned npon an indictment charging him with committing perjury at tho Eesident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, on the 13th of May, 1880. Mr Duncan prosecuted; Mr H. H. Loughnan appearing lor the defendant. Mr Walker, clerk to the Eesident Magistrate’s Court, explained to bis Honor that Air Mellisb, was absent from Christchurch through indisposition. The evidence in this ease has been already jnblished in reports of the proceedings of the ower Court.

The case out of which the charge arose was that of Duncan v. Henderson, in reference to a transaction in cattle, and prisoner was a witness for the plaintiff. Mr Walker read the evidence given by the prisoner, in which the perjury was alleged to have occurred. In reply to his Honor, Mr Walker informed the Court that the civil action out of which these proceedings had arisen was not yet disposed of. The bailiff to the Eesident Magistrate’s Court testified to administering the oath. Matthew Henderson was next examined as to the transaction between himself and the prisoner, and as to a certain bill the subject of the alleged perjury. He was crossexamined at considerable length by Mr Loughnan. Evidence was produced as to the signature attached to the bill being that of the prisoner. Mr Loughnan then opened the case for the defenoe, remarking that the evidence ho should bring would tend to show that the transactions out of which this case arose were of a nature which would seem to throw discredit on evidence adduced for the prosecution, and that the evidence as to the signature was not reliable.

The only witness called was Mr Heath, the manager of the National Bank, as to the bill said to have been presented for discount, and of which he had not been able to find any trace. Another witness was to have been called, but did not appear. Mr Loughnan then addresse the jury. His Honor having summed up. The jury retired to consult, and returned with a verdict of “ Guilty,” On the application of Mr Loughnan, |his Honor deferred judgment till to-morrow. ARSON. Jervis Wilson pleaded “ Not Guilty” to two charges of arson, alleged to have been com. mitted on March 24th. Mr Loughrey, with him Mr Stringer, appeared for the defence. Left sitting.]