SUPREME COURT

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2218, 5 April 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

CEIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Aphil 4. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The following cases were heard yesterday after we went to press : DEBASING INTO AND ENTBEING A DWKI LINO. Edward Wells was indicted for having on the 12th February broken into and entered the premises of Thomas Yates, Colombo street, and stolon certain property therefrom, i The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty." The case for the prosecution was that on the night in question the shop of the prosecutor was securely locked up. The next morning the shop was found to have been broken open and property stolen, including a cheque tor £3 Is 6d, drawn by Mr G. 8. Eeston. On the same day that the robbery was discovered the prisoner went to Mr H. A. Davis’ shop, and there tendered the cheque which had been stolen in payment for a ring. Mr Davis, who had had notice of the stealing of the cheque, detained the prisoner and gave him into custody Mr Duncan led evidence to prove the case for the prosecution. The prisoner said that he came by the cheque in a house in the southern part of Christchurch. He did not know where he had goue to the house or where it was. A person came in there with a cheque, and prisoner advanced him 10s, and also gave him a seal, making an appointment to meet the man next day, which was not kept. His Honor summed up, pointing out that the prisoner when apprehended hod staled that he found the cheque in Colombo street. Now he told a different story altogether. Even if ho had found the cheque and turned it to his own use, then be was guilty of larceny. The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty ot Larceny.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment, with hard labor, remarking that the jury had taken a very peculiar notion of his case, as they had evidently believed that the prisoner had found the cheque, though he must say there was nothing to support such an idea.

DBBTBOYING A THEESHINQ HACHINB. Henry Jackson was indicted for having, on the 24th February, destroyed a threshing machine, the property of Wm. Judson. There were several other counts charging the prisoner with damaging the machine. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The case for the prosecution was that on 24th February the prisoner was engaged with a thrashing machine belonging to one Judson, on the farm of Mr Buss, at Woodend. The prisoner during that day got intoxicated and was discharged, when he made use of threatening language. In the evening the prisoner, in company with other persons, passed near the farm where the threshing machine was, and left them, saying he was going in there. About an hour after this a witness named Hill, who was in charge of the machine, was awoke by the barking of doge, and found the threshing machine on fire. The machine had that day been cleaned out after the close of the day’s threshing, but straw was found to have been introduced into the machine and set fire to, though when the machine finished work for the night there was no straw left in it.

Mr Duncan led evidence to support the case for the Crown.

His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor, in passing sentence, said the act was that of a drunken reckless fool rather than a destroying of a machine in pursuance of a conspiracy. Therefore he was prepared to look upon it as a much lighter offence than it would be in the former case. He would be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

SHOOTING WITH INTENT TO KILL. John Boanfleld was indicted for having shot at one John Spring with intent to kill, and also to do grievous bodily harm. The prisoner pleaded guilty of firing at Spring, but said he had good cause for so doing. His Honor said he would take this as a plea of “ Not Guilty,” and have it entered as such. NO BILL. The Grand Jury returned no bill in the case of Begina v Alfred Westlake, unlawfully wounding a horse. This closed the calendar for the session, and the Grand Jury wore discharged without having made any presentment. The Court adjourned at 5.20 p.m. till 10 a.m. this day.

This Dat. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston. 1 The sittings of the Court were resumed at 10 a.m.

DESTROYING A REAPING AND BINDING MACHINE.

Bobort Wyatt was charged with having on the Ist February destroyed a reaping and binding machine, the pr porty of J. P. Morshead. There were also counts in the indictment charging the prisoner with damage. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Mr Joyce appeared to defend the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty.

The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner had been employed by Mr Morshead with the reaper and binder. He was discharged for some offence and left. Shortly after this the prisoner came to town, and in the evening obtained a lift back to Tai Tapu, where the machine had been at work. He told the persone who gave him the lift that he would get down near the farm, where the machine was. This ho did, and on tho following morning the reaper and binder was found to have been damaged. Suspicion fell upon the prisoner, because he had said before leaving Mr Morshead’a that be could build stacks that would let in wet, or, if he drove the machine he could break it. Evidence was led by Mr Duncan to prove that the prisoner had used certain threats about tho machine being broken when he was leaving. Tho words used were that he would bet any amount of money that the machine would be broken within two days. At the close of the case for the Crown, Mr Joyce addressed the jury for the defence. Bis Honor summed up, and read over the evidence to the jury, who, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” Mis Honor sentenced tho prisoner to nine months* imprisonment, with hard labor.

SHOOTING WITH INTENT TO KILL. John Beanfield was indicted for having on the 3rd March shot at one John Spring with intent to murder. There were also other counts charging the prisoner with shooting at John Spring with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The ease for tho Crown was, that, on the date mentioned, the prisoner, in Hereford street, drew out a revolver and shot nt the prosecutor. The following evidence was led for the

Crown John Spring—l am a licensed carrier, and 1 came out in the same ship with the prisoner some eighteen years ago. I had not seen him but once during the past fourteen years, and that, during the past two or three months, casually in tho street. On the 3rd of March I was on the carriers’ stand and afterwards went towards Dunning’s corner. I saw prisoner on ahead of me going towards Hereford street. He crossed over to Brice’s corner, and when I was about half way over the crossing in Hereford street the prisoner pulled out a revolver, levelled it at me, and fired. The first shot was aimed straight at my body. Prisoner was then about fourteen or fifteen feet from me. The shot went through my trousers •nd grazed my groin. Prisoner looked at mo very particularly and then fired again, aiming as before. The shot passed by me and went towards the Bank of New Zealand. A cabman seized prisoner, and seyerrl persons coming up at the time, ho was put into a cab and taken to the Police station.

Cross-examined by prisoner—l never advised your wife to poison you whilst living in Boss. I went up to your place some nine years ago. I did not then advise her to poison you. There is no ill-will that I am aware of between me and you. I did not threaten to strike you in Ashburton when I met you. By the Court—l was not aware till lately that he said that I had advised his wife to poison him. He asked me twice to meet him at eight or nine o’clock. I did not meet him. He never said anything about poisoning until I came to the Magistrates’ Court I could not say whether the prisoner is out of his mind. His Honor asked Mr Eeston whether the prisoner had evinced any symptoms of insanity whilst in Addington Gaol Mr Eeston replied in the negative.

Witness, to the Court—l had no reason to think that the man was mad. I went up to prisoner in Ashburton, and he would not speak to me. 1 asked him what l had done to him. Some words passed between us, and prisoner told mo I had better take care ot myself. Cross-examined by t'riaonor—l had nothing to meet you in Christchurch for. William Charles Garrett, the cabman who collared the prisoner, gave evidence as to the shooting. Mr Kiddey gave evidence as to taking the revolver from prisoner. Constable Byan deposed to the prisoner being brought to the Police Depot and charged with shooting at John Spring with intend to kill. In reply to the charge prisoner said—" I am sorry I missed him. I meant to shoot him right enough. He has crippled me so that I cannot carry a swag.” William Garrard, a gunsmith in Victoria street, deposed to prisoner purchasing a revolver from him on the 3rd March, in the forenoon. The revolver was not loaded when sold to prisoner. The revolver produced was the one sold. Edward Duckworth gave evidence as to bis having known the prisoner for seventeen years. On the 36th February prisoner said that he had asked Spring to meet him, and if he did not he would level him down. This closed the case for the Crown. The prisoner asked if he could call his wife as a witness. His Honor said this was inadmissible in point of 1-w. The prisoner said that his wife was the only witness he could call. His Honor said that prisoner’s wife had written a letter to him which he would allow the prisoner to read. The prisoner said that his home had bsea broken up, his children persecuted, and himself poisoned by the cowardly villain Spring. From what he could see from the letter his wife would not speak the truth if she was called. His Honor said if there was any truth in the suggestion made by the prisoner as to the unfaithfulness of his wife —for which there was not the slightest foundation—or even if the prosecutor and his wife had conspired to poison him—for supposing which there was not a title of evidence —it wonld not in law excuse the act which the prisoner hud voluntarily committed. The prisoner raid he thought it was very hard that ho should not fca able to call his wife as a witness. His Honor said that prisoner had not even suggested to the jury what he intended to prove by calling his wite as a witness. The prisoner said he would say no mote. His Honor summed up. and the jury, after a short corsaltation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty of shooting with intent to kill.” ■Mr Inspector Broham said that he had made enquiries into the matter, and he found that there was not the slightest foundation for the idea in the mind of the prisoner that there was anything between his wife and the prosecutor. His Honor said that the prisoner had hod a very narrow escape of forfeiting his life for hia act. He might say that even were the existence of a delusion proved by most competent medical evidence, it would not allow in law of a man committing a great crime with impunity. The prisoner had broken the law of the country, and it was uecc-sary for the preservation of the peace of the country that such offenders as the prisoner should bo put down with a strong hand. He could have sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for life ; but he would not do this. Iho sentence, however, that he felt it his duty to pass would be one which would at least give an assurance that the strong arm of the law would he exerted to suppiess such outrages as that of which the prisoner had been guilty, The sentence would be penal servitude for ten years. The prisoner —Before three years are up, I shall hear of the downfall of the British Grown. The prisoner was then removed, DEFAULTING JUEOE,

Mr C. Newton appeared to show causa for his absence as a juryman. Ho now explained that an engagement had been made by the firm oi which ho was a member prior to receiving the summons, entailing his absence from Christ

church. H.a Honor i aid he wou ; d excuse Mr New tor up to the present time, but he would have to attend on the next day FALSE PRETENCES. Patrick Donelly was indicted for having ob tained from Adolphus Moore the sum of jE.I! 8s 7d by falsely pretending that his rent o certain land at Bal aim was paid, and that ho possessed certain property, all of which wai afterwards proved to be false. The prisoner pleaded “ Not guilty.” The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner wont to Mr Moore to obtain an advanci of money and in order to do this, stated tha the rent of bis section at Balcairn was paid nj to May, 1881, and that ho was possessed of certain horses and drays over which ho gave t bill of sale to Mr Moore, whereas tbo facts were proved to be that his said rent was not paid af stated, nor bad he the horses and drays as pre tended. George Eitchio, clerk to Messrs. Wym Williams and Deacon, proved the execution o a bill of sale over certain horses and drays by the prisoner to Adolphus Moore. Crosa-examiced by Prisoner—Witness real the deed to prisoner, and also explained it t( him. Adolphus Moore deposed to the prisoner coming to his office early in December to get ai advance on his crops, for which ho wouh give a lien and a bill of sale. Hi asked for £l5O to enable him to buili a house on Lis land, tolling witness that hi rent was paid up to May, 1681, and nisi the list of horses, implements, &c., included ii the bill of sale The bill of sale was signed, one prisoner received £ll9 8s 7d in two cheques one of which, £76 8s 7d, was due to Vnughai and Cordnor to extinguish their lien over pri soner’s property. Subsequently prisoner ab sconded, and witness wont up to Balcairn t( enforce his bill of sale, but t iere wore no implments or horses. Witness had also to pay ren! for one year up to January, 1881, to save hi lien. [Left sitting.]