SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2264, 5 July 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July 28. [Before Hi? Honor Mr Justice Johnston.J The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. FOBGBBY AND UTTBBINO. Thomas Miller pleaded guilty to forging and uttering a cheque for £5 on the Colonial Bank of New Zealand. The proseoutor in the case, Samuel Freeman, had his costs disallowed. The prisoner was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labor. TOBGBBY. George Sadler was indioted for having on the 25th October forged an endorsement on a letter of credit on the Bank of New South Wales. Mr J. W. White prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr Stringer appeared for the defence. The case for tho prosecution was that the prosecutor, George Sadler, whose name is identical with that of the prisoner, obtained a letter of credit in England, leaving the duplicate to be sent after him. On hia arrival in Christchurch he went to the Post Office for his letter, but found that none had arrived. He then proceeded to the Bank, but found that the money had been drawn out by a person bearing the name of George Sadler, afterwards found to be the prisoner, who had signed the acknowledgment on the back of the letter of credit. Prisoner was afterwards arrested in Sydney. Mr White called evidence in support of the case. Mr Stringer, for the defence, submitted that the prisoner had no intention to defraud, as he understood that tho money came to him from his father. Mr Stringer called the following evidenoe for the defence as to previous good character:— John Richard Gorton deposed that he had known the accused for about fifteen months, he having been in his employ in 1877 and 1878. He was steady and industrious, and witness never heard anything against him. He believed that tho prisoner could write, because he had received a letter from him, asking witness to speak for him. S. H. Horneman deposed to having known the prisoner for four or five years, during which period he had borne a very good character. Witness could not say whether prisoner could read. He could only sign his name. He believed that the prisoner was entitled to the money from the statements made to him by tho prisoner. By Mr White—The prisoner asked witness to read the letter accompanying the draft to him, but witness told him he had not time.

Elizabeth Ellis deposed that she knew the prisoner, and in October (he believed he received money from home. Prisoner had also made arrangements to leave for Sydney prior to the arrival of this money. Mr White called Ueorpe Sinclair Beaton, the gaoler at Addlngton, who deposed that the prisoner since his committal had constantly had books from the library, and had written two letters. Mr Stringer addressed the jury for the prisoner, urging that as the prisoner could not read or write beyond his name, it could not be expeoted that he should know that the money waa not for him. Mr White replied and his Honor summed up. The jury returned a verdict of •' Guilty of forgery of the endorsement on the back of the letter of credit," and expressed their opinion that sufficient care had not been taken to identify tho applicant. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to nine calendar months' imprisonment, with hard labor. HOBSB STEALING. William Baker was charged with having stolen a gelding, the property of Hugh Stace. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr White prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that the prosecutor left his horse outside a publichouse at Spring ston, and on wishing to go home, found that his horse was gone. It was subsequently found in the possession of the prisoner. The prisoner, in defenoo, said that he was suffering from the effects of drink at the time, and did not know what ho was doing. He had no intention of stealing the horse. Tho jury, aftor a short consultation, returned a verdict of " Guilty." Constable Weatherly, stationed at Lincoln, gave the prisoner a very bad oharaoter. He had stolen a horse from his father and sold it, but the father would not proseoute. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to three years' penal servitude. ROBBHEY WITH VIOLENCE. Mark Kearvell was indicted for having, on the 16th June, 1881, committed a robbery with violence on the person of Geo. Waldook Ell. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded guilty. LABOBNY. The same prisoner was indicted for robbery of a watch and chain from John Wilson on the 15th June, and pleaded guilty. Detective John Neil deposed to the prisoner having been sontenced to three months' hard labor in December last for larceny, and since then that he had been continually in oompany with convicted thieves. His Honor said that this was a sort of person who must be made example of. If the prisons of the colony were what ho hoped they would be ere long the prisoner would" not be so indifferent to a sentence of penal servitude. The sentence of the Court would be five years' penal servitude concurrently on each charge. lABOBNY. FBOM THE PEBSON. George Thos. Lovett was indicted for having stolen the sum of £6 from the person of one Dennis Murphy. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guiltv. Mr White prosocutcd on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that on the night of the 2nd May prosecutor went into the Now Zsaland restaurant where he met the prisoner, with whom ho went to several public houees. The prisoner put his hand into the pocket of the prosecutor, and took therefrom the sum charged in the indictment. Mr White led evidence to prove the case for the prosecution. The prisoner, in defence, denied any attempt on his part to rob the prosecutor. On the contrary, he averred that he acted the Good Bamuritan to him, and had supplied him, though unknown, with several meals and drinks. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short delay, returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor. HO BELL. In the cose of Begins v Bobert Biohardson, attempted suicide, the Grand Jury returned no bill.

TBT/B BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills in the following oases :— Regina v George Sadler, forgery; Regina r Thomas Miller, forgery ; Regina v Wm. Baker, horse Mealing ; Regina v • George Wood, forgery ; Regina v John Scott, forgery and uttering (two charges); Regina v Robert Pollock, cattle stealing; Regina v Thomas Hester Knibbs, larceny; Regina v George Thomas Hulaton, larceny as a bailee ; Regina v George Thomas Lovett, stealing from the person ; Regina v John Duncan, arson (two oharges) ; Mark Kearvell, robbery with violence and l>irceny from the person ; Regina v Charles Geddis, embezzlement; Regina v Alfred Walter Wright, malicious injury to property ; Regina v Patrick Duncan, embezzlement; Regina v Frederick Fannin?, stealing from the person ; Regina v George Gustave Sohmidt, larceny in a dwelling. This concluded the calendar, and his Honor discharged the Grand Jury, with the hope that their labors would not be so severe noxt time. The Court, at 5.45 p.m., adjourned till 10 a.m. this day. This Day. [Before Mr Justice Johnston.] Tho Court re-opened at 10 a.m. LABCBNY AS A BAILBB. George Thomas Hulston was indioted for having on the 21st May, then being the bailee of a horse, dray, and harness, stolen the same. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr J. W. White prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. His Honor pointed out that the indictment, as drawn, contained two charges of different kinds of larceny. The stealing of the horse was a statutable offenoo, and subject to a certain punishment, whilst tho stealing of the chattels was another kind of larceny liable to another punishment. Mr White mußt therefore elect upon which he would go. Mr White submitted that as the prisoner was charged as a bailee of the horse, it did not matter as to the effences being two different classes. His Honor said that the punishment for horse stealing was fourteen years' penal servitude, whilst for larceny of the chattels only three years' imprisonment. As the indictment now stood, he thought that u general verdict upon the indictment would be bad. Howevor, the case might go on, and he would consider the point. The case for the prosecution was, that the prisoner obtained from one Horeman the loan of the horse, dray, and harness mentioned in the indictment. On the 21st of May the prisoner was at the Riccarton Hotel, and when there he threw dice to see whether he should get £3O or £ls for them and lost, receiving the money from Walter Lewie, the son of the licensee of the hotel. Mr White called evidence in support of the case. His Honor spoke strongly of the conduct of Lewis in gambling for the artioles, as it must have been patent that they were stolen. The prisoner said that he had a witness to prove that he had been swindled by the Lewis people. He (prisoner) never had the money, as it was taken by Lewis's brother, and they kept on forcing him to sell the articles while he was drunk.

George Gustavo Schmidt deposed that ho was present at the Riccarton Hotel when the prisoner sold the horse and dray. The prisoner was the worse for drink. Lewis asked him if he wanted to sell the horse and cart. The prisoner replied in the negative. The prisoner then went to the bar and had some more drink. Lewis and the prisoner oame out again and made a sort of a bargain. The prisoner said "If you givo me £3O you can have it." Lswia then said he would shake him Yankee grab whether it should be £3O or £ls. Prisoner threw sixteen, and Lewis caught one of the dice, when he threw, with his little finger, and put it down with the six uppermost, a five and three being the other two. In the next throw Lewis put the three in the box and left the five. He then turned the dice out of the box and caught it with his finger, bringing it up a six, making seventeen. The prisoner was too drunk to see this. Young Lewis then brought out some money and paid prisoner £ls. A £lO note and a £1 note formed part of the money paid. Alfred Lewis slung the £lO note and £1 note away behind the bar, so that the prisoner could not see it. He never had this part of the money. In answer to questions from bis Honor, the witness said that he was now awaiting trial on a charge of stealing a gun, and had been in trouble before. Walter Lewis re-called, said that he traced he £lO note which he had • iven prisoner as far as Oram's Royal Hotel. The prisoner was robbed of the money on the road. Half an hour after witness paid the money the prisoner went away. Witness threw first, and threw fifteen, and prisoner fourteen. He was pure that prisoner threw second, and that he (witness) did not throw seventeen. The prisoner had offered to sell the horse and oart a fortnight before several times. His Honor then read over Sohmidt's evidence to the witness, who denied the truth of it. He had not handled the dice so as to secure for himself a high throw. Prisoner was not very drunk. To Prisoner—The last I saw of you was when being led down the road between my father and another man. Detective O'Connor recalled, stated — When prisoner came to the station he said he had been robbed. Witness went to the Ricoarton Hotel and made enquiries. Lewis, sen., and witnesr, went to the Royal Hotel. The barman there said ho had taken a £lO note, which ho exhibited, ond which Walter Lewis identified as one he had paid to prisoner. The priaonor stated that the only exouee he could make, was, that ho was drunk at the time of the offence, and he did not know what he had been doing. His Honor direoted the jury that if they were satisfied that the goods had been made away with unlawfully, his plea of drunkenness could have no effect, and it was their duty to find him gmilty. His Honor went on to comment in strong terms on the prevalent vice of gambling, which he said prevailed more or leßs in all ranks of society. Alluding to the conduot of Lewis, jun., he said that if ho had been guilty of the conduct stated by the witness Schmidt, he had committed a gross orime. On the evidence, however, perhaps they were not warranted in going so far as to say that the cheating had been done, and if it had it would be no justification of prisoner's offence.

The, jury without rotiring, returned a verdict of " Guilty." The police knew nothing of the prisoner's antecedents. The prosecutor stating that he had known him for seven or eight years as of good character, and asked his Honor to deal leniently with him. He thought if prisoner were gently dealt with it would be a sufficient warning to prevent him being guilty cf such an action again. He himself would be willing to give him work the next day if he were free. His Honor said that under the oircutnstanoes, and owing to the recommendation of the prosecutor, he would take a merciful view of the offence, and give him a chance of recovering his position as a honest man. Ho would be sentenced to the nominal punishment of one day's imprisonment, and it was to be hoped that what had occurred would have its proper effect. Prisoner was then removed. NO BILL. Robert Bichardson, against whom no bill had been found by the Grand Jury, for attempted suicide, was discharged by proclamation. His Honor statc-d that Mr March had informed him that arrangements had been made to find employment tor Bichardson. ABBOZT, John Duncan was indicted for having, on May 30th last, set on fire a house in Oxford Terrace, the property of Wtn. Brico. Mr White appeared for the Crown. Prisoner was undefended. He pleaded "Not Guilty." Charles Barnes Shanks proved tho making a correct plan (produced) of the premises referred to. Wm. Brice, Vincenzo Berti, and James Meehan Connel, repeated the evidence given in the lower Court. The latter, a contractor, stated that he had been assisting the police in this matter, and detailed how he became connected with it. He had known prisonor two years before, and on meeting him he told witness hs was hard up. Witness gave him some food, and asked how and where ho lived. Prisoner took him to the house in Oxford terrace, and showed him a back window, through which he said he had entrance. , j to food, prisoner said he robbed meat safe! and begged from hotel cooks. Y< itnass the;i informed the police, and in oompany of Detective O'Connor, systematically watched prinoner. To Prisonor—On the night of May 28th, ho

[and O'Connor fonnd prisoner asleep in the water-closet of the haute that was fired. Witness was about to rouse prisoner, but was prerented by O'Connor. About a quarter to four on the morning of the 30th, witness went to the house, and from the back entrance gate saw prisoner standing in the back doorway, and there was a email of fire, and the glare of if. He assumed that there was a fire, but he did not try to extinguish it. He ran direot to the Police Depot and gave information. Witness had never mado a proposal to prisoner to join him in something by which money might be made. Had been out of employment for some time. Had never been a companion of the prisoner. Had been contracting at the South Rakaia and was road overseer for a year at Amuri. Had resigned that billot—had not been dismissed. Last winter he was working overseer at the Waimakariri for the Government. He was not dismissed for misoonduct,[but be cause the staff was reduced. Had nothing to do with the setting fire to the houßo. What he was watching prisoner for was not for fireraisingl; it was for quite a different thing, whioh he d ; d not wish to mention. Francis O'Neill, a laborer residing at Ohristchurch, deposed to having met prisoner shortly before five o'clock on the morning o' May 30th near Brice's houses. Ho was running away from them. He stopped running and passed witness in a walk, after whioh he agoiu broke into a run. Witness knew prisoner formerly at Ashburton, and had no doubt he was the man ho met. Prisoner cross-examined this witness at some length, but got out no other evidence. Maurice O'Connor, a constable stationod at Christohurcb, sworn, stated that he arrested prisoner on the morning of May 30:h, at ab >ut 6.45 o'clock. Prisoner said when told the charge, "Good God, where was the fire?" Witness took prisoner to the site of the fire, and he said he had never been there. Witness corroborated Connell's statement about finding prisoner in the closot on the night of the 28th. Witness found after the fire a partially burnt bucket, some oakum, a bag, and an old pair of trousers, all more or less damaged by fire. Prisoner addressed a number of questions to the witness. They were quite irrelevant. Mr Brice, re-called, said he saw, on the day before the fire, the things descrided by the last witness as being partially bnrned. This was the case for the prosecution. Tho prisoner said he had no witnesses to oall, and that he was not guilty of the crime he was charged with. His Honor summed up, alluding at length to efforts of the prisoner to damage the character of witnesses, which he said the jury would probably consider had been made in vain. On the other hand, it Connel was to be believed, the character of prisoner was of the worst kind, being a vagrant, without any plaoe of abode, and living on the fruits of theft. He then pointed out the ohain of evidence, which seemed to connect the prisoner with the occurrence of the fire. The jury retired, and after an absenoe of half an hour returned a verdict of " Guilty." The police stated that there were previous convictions of larceny, &0., recorded against prisoner. His Honor said he thought the verdiot was a perfectly correct one. Prisoner was as dangerous a criminal as he had ever known. His sentence would be six years at penal servitude. [Left sitting.]