SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2265, 6 July 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, July 5. HOBBEBY WITH VIOLENCE, Thomas Heeter Knibbs was brought up under indictment for having on May 7th last stolen from the person of Benjamin Hurst the sum of £5, the theft having been accompanied with violence. Prisoner was defended by Mr Holmes, and pleaded “Not Guilty.” The facts of the case according to the prosecution were that the prosecutor, Knibbs, and one Scott, and one Adams had been drinking at various hotels in Christchurch on the day named in tho indictment. Prosecutor finally wishing to get rid of the prisoner got into a cab about 5 p.m,, into which prisoner followed him. After being driven from the cabstand at the City Hotel as far as tho Albion, prosecutor refused to go further with him, saying he was a loafer, and stopping the cab got out and paid the cabman. Prosecutor then went up Colombo street, and after a while hearing footsteps following him ho turned round and saw prisoner running towards him. Frightened at this, prosecutor endeavored to run away, but being the worse for liquor was easily overtaken. Prisoner said “ You call mo a loafer, do you ?” and then struck prosecutor, knocked him down, and beat him with hie fists. Prosecutor could not say exactly what took place immediately afterwards, as he was otupifisd by drink and the blow he had received. He, however, afterwards missed money (£5 in single notes) that had been in tho right hand pocket of bis trousers before he got into tho cab. Ho was sure the prisoner could have taken the money out of the pocket while beating him. Prisoner ran away, and it was then prosecutor searched for his money and it was gone. Cross-examined—Prosecutor stated that ho brought with him from Ohertsey, wheroho had been working, a cheque for £l2 18s, tho proceeds of which he paid nearly all away. He afte wards got another cheque for £5 10s cashed by five £1 notes and 10s in silver, and that, with what remained from tho £l2 18s, was all tho money he had during his visit before tho alleged robbery. Ho admitted having had a considerable number of drinks during tho afternoon, and ho was the worse for liquor. Ho had been engaged in shaking dice at the White Hart Hotel for shillings, but had not lost more in that way than nine shillings. Did not remember doing the same thing at tho Queen’s Hotel. Was not sure where he hired the cab, but had since found it was from the City stand. Knew the time pretty certainly. Ho felt the money in his pocket before getting into the cab. Had no suspicion of his companions before losing his money. He felt for his money because he was naturally careful, b'cott loft prosecutor before the cab was taken. When prosecutor stopped the cab prisoner said something which prosecutor did not remember. The night was dark, but ho was .certain that prisoner was the man who followed and knocked him down. Ho found 23s in bis left trousers pocket after being knocked down. David Scott, a jeweller, deposed to having seen prosecutor receive at the White Hart, in change for a cheque, five £1 notes and half-a-sovereign. He was spending money freely and shaking dice for money—half-a-orown in and the winner each time paying for glasses all round. They went from the White Hart to the Queen’s. At about half-past four witness asked prosecutor if he would like prisoner to see him home. He replied that he would like that. Witness then advised him to get a cab and left. him. Cross-examined —There was a man named Adams in their company, to whom prosecutor gave some money; he did not know how much. Prosecutor was flashing his money about and shouting freely. After leaving tho White Hart the party went to the Queen’s, ano the same thing went on there —gambling and drinking. Prosecutor was then capable of walking.

Wm. Vincent, a cabdrlver, deposed that on the afternoon of May 7th, about six o’clock, two men got into his cab at the City stand. They resembled the prosecutor and prisoner. One of them ordered witness to drive to the Caledonian Hotel and the cab started. When it reached opposite tho Albion one of the men called out to stop, and the other go on. He pulled up, and both got out at opposite sides. Prosecutor paid tho fare, and, calling prisoner a loafer, went on up Colombo street. The witness was not cross-examined. Alfred Roleton, a sailmaker, deposed that on the evening of May 7th, at about 5.30, he passed prosecutor, who was walking up Colombo street. After passing him about a chain, he heard a noise, and looking back, saw prisoner strike prosecutor, knock him down, and beat him while on the ground. Witness called out, “Hold on, old man,” and ran towards them. Prisoner ran away. Witness was positive as to his identity. On picking prosecutor up, who was bleeding, he made a complaint to witness. On June 6th witness picked out prisoner from nine men who were paraded. Cross-examined Directly witness called out to prisoner, tho latter immediately bolted down Salisbury street. This concluded the evidence.

Mr Holmes addressed the jury, urging that tho evidence showed that the probability was that prosecutor had not been robbed. It was almost clearly shown that what money prosecutor had had been spent in drink, given, or gambled away. He claimed that nothing more than a common assault had been committed. Tho jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” His Honor warned tho prisoner ae to his future conduct. He had already been convicted. Mr Holmes objected to his Honor referring to the previous conduct of the prisoner. In all the Courts in which ho had practised be had never hoard of such a thing. His Honor said that be had before him o record of the fact that the prisoner had been previously convicted, and until Mr Holmes could impeach him for anything that he did he should exercise lr : s right as an independent Judge to say what he pleased. Mr Holmes said that ho knew nothing of the antecedents of tho prisoner. His Honor said probably, had Mr Holmes known tho antecedents of the prisoner, ho would not have evinced such virtuous indignation. Tho prisoner was then discharged. EMBEZZLEMENT. Charles Geddes was indicted for having, whilst acting as Treasurer of tho Loyal Hof ton Lodge of tho 1.0.0.F..M.XJ., embezzled certain monies the property of the trustees of the said lodge. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Button, pleaded “Not Guilty,” Mr J. W. Whito prosecuted on behalf the Crown. Tho case for tho prosecution waa that the prisoner, while acling as treasurer of the lodge, had embezzled tho monies, ao laid in the indictment. After the case had proceeded some distance, His Honor suggested to Mr White that the case had broken down. Mr Whito said that ho felt it to be useless to proceed with tho case. The jury, under the direction of his Honor, returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The Court at 0,45 p.m, adjourned to XOa.m, this day. This Day. fßefore His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.J Tho criminal sittings of the Court resumed at 10 a.m. BOBGLAEY. George Gustav Schmidt was indicted for having broken into the premises of W. Lewis 1 and stolon a gun therefrom.

Tho Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr J. W. White prosecuted on behalf of tho Crown. The cate for the prosecution was that tho prisoner had been stopping at the Biooarton Hotel for some days prior to the sth of June, on which day a forcible entrance was made into tho house and a gun and cartridges stolen. Subsequently the prisoner sold the gun to a man iu Chain's Bay. Mr White led evidence in support of his case. At the conclusion of tho case for the Crown, His Honor pointed out that the evidence did not go so far as to enable the jury to make up their minds without any reasonable doubt that there had been burglary, as there was no evidence regarding the hour at which the alleged burglary was committed. Mr White submitted that, while this was so, tho prisoner could be convicted of breaking a-d entering a dwelling-house and stealing therefrom to tho value of £5. His Honor was not sure upon that point. There was no doubt the prisoner could bo convicted of simple larceny. He should allow tho case to go to tho jury, but ho should tell them that there wao no evidence as to burglary, but they might, if they believed the evidence, find the prisoner guilty of stealing from a dwelling to the value of £5. The prisoner then made a statement to the effect that young Lewis had borrowed money from him, and had given him the gun and cartridges instead of paying it back. The Lewis people had a down on him because he exposed their swindling with regard to Hulston. Young Lewis had first offered him a wjitch iu payment of what ho owed him, and then when ho refused it, tho gun was given to him. His arrest was pure malice.

His Honor summed up to the jury, and directed them that they could find the prisoner guilty of larceny in a dwelling. His Honor pointed out that for the first time the prisoner set up this defence, though before the Magistrate, when he had young Lewis there, he never mentioned a word of it. Tho jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty” of stealing in a dwelling to tho value of £5. His Honor called attention to Iho fact that a year before ho had sentenced tho prisoner to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor in consideration of his state of health. He spoke very strongly of the inefficiency of their penal system in reforming or deterring, that tho prisoner should again make his ap pearonce there. Ho could not do less than give him a substantial sentence, which would bo psnal servitude for five years. EMBEZZLEMENT. Patrick Dunn was indicted for having embezzled a cheque for £52 15s, the property of John Oassin, his employer. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not Guilty.” The case for tho prosecution was, that the prisoner, who was working with tho prosecutor at Lincoln, was sent to Christchurch with tho cheque to get it changed, and instructed to return by tho next train. The prisoner did not return by tho train as requested, and when the prosecutor went in search of him he discovered that the cheque had been cashed Tho prisoner was arrested, and a portion of tho money found oa him. In cross-examination by tho prisoner, the prosecutor stated that he owed prisoner £6O for wages. Had he asked him to allow him to take what ho (prosecutor) owed out of the cheque, ha would have consented. The prisoner said that ho understood that a portion of tho money belonged to him, and he spent it believing that it was his, and that he was doing nothing wrong. The prosecutor spoke very strongly in favor of tho prisoner as an honest, hardworking man, but addicted to drink. His Honor sentenced tho prisoner to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. CATTLE STEALING. Robert Pollock was indicted for having stolen two cattle, the property of George Budge. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The case for the prosecution was that Budge missed the cattle in March. From information received, tho prosecutor wont to Oxford, whore the prisoner was working, and there saw the cattle, which tho prisoner offered for Bale. Budge claimed the cattle, but prisoner said they were his and that he bad a receipt for them. The prisoner produced the receipt, purporting that he had purchased tho cattle from a man named Brown. At the close of the case for the Grown, His Honor asked Mr White whether he could ask for a conviction, as no evidence had been led to show that the story told by the prisoner as to his purchase of tho cattle was not a true one. Mr White said that he should submit that there was enough evidence to go to the jury. The prisoner then called evidence as to character. George Alfred White deposed that ho had known the prisoner for some years. He was a hard working, industrious man. He knew nothing against him; on the contrary, much in his favor. T. W. Barker also deposed to the good character borne by the prisoner. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired, and returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced tho prisoner to Iwo years’ imprisonment with hard labor. STEALING FEOM THE PBESON. Frederick Fanning was indicted for having stolen money from one James Gibfcs. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not Guilty.” The case for the prosecution was, that the prisoner and prosecutor were drinking about together all the day, when tho prosecutor got drunk, and then tho robbery took place, a portion of tho money being traced to the prisoner. Mr White led evidence in support of the charge. [Left sitting.]