SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2417, 4 January 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tuesday, Januaby 3. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.! The following oases were heard after our going to press yesterday. INDECENT ASSAULT. W. H. Sutton was i . dieted with having oomnitted an indecent assault on December 16th. Mr Stringer appeared for the defence, Thi principal portions of the evidence having been read over, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of three quarters of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty,” adding a strong reoonmendation to mercy on account of his previms good character and the fact that the parti® were drinking together at the time. Goistable Brooks deposed that the prisoner had teen for years employed on the railway, and had always borne a good character. _ Hii Honor said he would take into oonsidention the recommendation to mercy, and pass Ihe comparatively light sentence of twelve months’ hard labor. DECEIVING STOLEN PBOPBBTY.

Daniel Mark was arraigned on an indictmentoharging him with having, on the 21st Ootoler last, feloniously received two pieces of tweed cloth, the property of James Wyville, well knowing the same to have been stolon. He prisoner pleaded “ Not guilty,” and was defeided by Mr Joyce, The Crown Prosecutor having opened the case, sailed Wiliam Eddington, a youth of about fifteen years of ago, who deposed that he knew the prisoner, who carried on a second hand tailoring bisiness in Manchester street. Witness was fa the employment of Mr Wyville. He was fa the prisoner's shop on the 18th October last, when he asked witness to get him a piece of cloth from Wyville’s to lengthen a sair of trousers with. The prisoner asked lim \o steal the cloth, and he took ayard and a half md handed it over to prisoner, receiving 3s far it. Ho also gave the prisoner about throe quarters of a yard of cloth on another occasion under similar circumstances, receiving Is fo> it.

Cross-examined by Mr| Joyce—Had been engaged for two or three months previously with Mr Wyville as clerk at the rate of 15s a week, Did not commit the theft for the purpose of convicting the prisoner. Was still working with Wyville. Mr Simpson, the foreman, told him that it was the prisoner he wanted to get at, and that it witness would tell everything he would speak for him. Witness was afterwards convicted for stealing the cloth. The prisoner’s shop was not far from Wyville’s, Alfred Simpson, manager for the prosecutor, deposed that the piece of cloth produced was worth about Bs. Went to the prisoner’s shop with the witness Eddington and a detective, and saw the piece of cloth there. Prisoner said Eddington brought it for him to make it into a vest. The latter then said, "You gave me 2a for it,” and produced a two shilling piece. Witness put the matter into the hands of the police, and Eddington received seven days’ imprisonment for stealing the cloth. Told Eddington that he wanted to get at the receiver.

Detective O’Connor deposed to the arrest of the prisoner. On the way to the watchhouse the prisoner said, “ Can’t I buy what I like ?” Witness replied, “ You will see tomorrow.” The prisoner afterwards said the boy had left the cloth to be mode into a vest. This concluded the evidence, and Mr Joyce having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, and the jury, after an absence of a quarter of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” The prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labor for eighteen calender months. LABOBNY. Mathew Keen pleaded “ Guilty ” to an indictment charging him with stealing one watch, one chain, one locket, and a book of tickets, value £l6 16a, the property of Archibald Mclntyre, from the dwelling-house of James Mutoh. There was a previous conviction. Sentenced to imprisonment for two years with bard labor. POBOBBY AND EMBEZZLEMENT, William Wombwell Charters was arraigned on several indictments charging him with these offences. Ho pleaded “ Guilty ”to two indictments of three counts, each charging him with having at different dates, extending from November, 1880, to January, 1881, fraudulently applied to his own use various sums of money, amounting in all to £920, belonging to the Christchurch, Sydenham and Suburban Building Society (Permanent), of which he was at the time a public officer. The prisoner pleaded “ Not guilty ” to an indictment charging him with having on July 28th, 1880, forged an acceptance to a bill of exchange for £147 12s 6d, and with having uttered the same on August 28th, 1880. He was defended by Mr Joyce. The Crown Prosecutor, having opened the case, called the following evidence ; Margaret Chapman deposed that she was the wife of John Chapman, farmer, of Heathcote Yalley. She hud some property of her own, and prisoner acted as her agent from April, 1880, until about the time he went away in 1881. Did not give him any authority to accept a bill of exchange for or draw one upon her. First saw the bill produced when Mr Tipping brought it to her on the Thursday before the Saturday when Mr Charters went away from Christchurch. The acceptance was nob in her handwriting. She was sorry to say she could not write. Prisoner never told her he had accepted a bill of exchange for her. In February, 1881, she got a receipt for £64 4a from Draper, Charters and Co. She saw Charters write the receipt. Cross-examined—Asked prisoner to receive tenders for building a house. The cost to be £164. The house was finished at the end of April. The total cost was about £l7O, Charters paid about £9O to the contractor, and when the house was finished witness owed him about that amount. He was receiving rents from these houses on her account at the time. The receipt which had been produced in Court was a final one, and wound up the account, and witness owed Charters nothing now. Prisoner went with witness to the Savings Bank on one occasion to draw some money out, and she gave him authority to sign her name. It was not possible that she bad given him authority to accept the bill of exchange in her name, and had forgotten all about it. John Chapman, husband of the last witness, said he was never authorised by his wife to sign the acceptance produced, nor did he authorise anybody to do so in her name.

Cross-examined—He had never seen bis wife give receipts for money. She signed a deed once, writing her name over a pencil mark.

William Tasman Twinning deposed that he was a teller in the Bank of New Zealand. Knew the accused’s handwriting. He had an account at the Bank in the name of Draper, Charters and Co. for two or three years, up to tho time of his departure. Tho acceptance produced was discounted on the 28th July, 1830, for Draper, Charters ond Co., and the amount placed to the credit of that firm. The body of the bill was in the handwriting of the accused. The signature to the acceptance— Margaret Chapman—was unknown at tho Bank. Had examined it through a powerful magnifying glass, and compared it with the receipt produced, which was in the handwriting of Charters. Parts of the signature were very much like the writing in the receipt. It was usual to put bills for discount into a box in the Bank, but ho believed it was handed in by the accused. Cross-examined—lt might have been put in by Draper, Did not think Draper could have accepted it also. The bill remained overdue from Ist December until some time in March. It was debited to Draper, Charters and Co. Before being discounted it lay in the Bank some time for collection. It was possible for the accused to have drawn tho bill out after it was discounted by giving a cheque. Edward Tipping was the next witness called, but he did not answer to bin name.

Mrs Chapman, recalled, deposed that the Mr Tipping who brought the bill to her was the father of the Mr Tipping whom|sho heard afterwards was a partner in tho firm of Tipping, Charters and Co. W. J. Twinning, recalled, deposed that the firm was called Tipping, Charters and Co. about a month or so before Charters went away.

This concluded the case for the proseoution.

Mr Joyce having addressed tho jury on behalf of the accused,

His Honor summed up the evidence, and the jury, after consulting together for about ton minutes, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor asked the Crown Prosecutor what he had to say with regard to punishment.

Mr Duncan said there were numerous other

1 charges of embezzlement besides those which had been brought. !Xhe prisoner, before sentence was passed, made the following statement: —“I hare to say with regard to the case of forgery that 1 must bow to the decision of the jury. At the same time, I state here before the Court that that bill was not forged. I signed it at the request of Mrs Chapman, in consideration of the amount she owed me. With regard to the Building Society, although the Crown Prosecutor has stated that there are other amounts, at the same time I think I hare proved to the satisfaction of the directors that although those other amounts were charged against me they had no right to be ; and I have done all I can to restore a very large amount that was falsely charged against mo. At the same time my late partner is dead and gone, and I don’t wish to say anything about him. But had he been living the thing would have been very different so far as I am concerned.'- I should not bo here bearing the brunt of all this. I have a wife, your Honor, and a fine young family, and this is the first charge that has ever been brought against me. I am only a young man—twenty-six years of age—and I can only throw myself on the clemency of the Court. I can say no more. I am sorry I went away, and I am only glad I came back and am here to take my trial, and that the thing has been settled, for I should never have felt at rest until the thing was settled. At the same time my partner is gone, and I don’t wish to say anything about it. That is all I have to say.”

His Honor sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for four years for each of the two indictments for embezzlement, the sentences to run concurrently, and a further term of four years for the indictment for forgery, making in all penal servitude for eight years. TBUB BILLS. The Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases during the day Regina v W. H. Sutton, assault with intent; E. J. Hunter, false declaration under the Marriage Act; J. W. Crabtree, horse stealing; Matthew Keen, larceny ; James Marshall and Thomas Peart, larceny; William Wombwell Charters, forgery and embezzlement (two charges). NO BILL. The Grand Jury returned no bill in the case of Alexander McMillan, charged with embezzlement. The Court adjourned until ten o’clock this morning. This Day. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. BBTBEATIKQ OP BECOQNIZANCBS. Mr Tipping, the witness in Charters' case who had not answered to his name when called as a witness, and whose recognizances had been estreated, now appeared to show cause. He stated that he had been before the Grand Jury at four o’clock, and understanding that the Court rose at five o’clock, he had gone away. His Honor said that this was a most absurd excuse. The Court had no regular time for adjourning, and sometimes sat until twelve o’clock at midnight, when the exigencies of public justice demanded it. Fortunately the absence of the witness had not defeated the ends of justice, or it might have been a most serious thing. He had no power to mitigate the fine which was £25. It he had he should certainly have made the witness pay something, because though he had made an explanation it looked very like contempt of Court. However, he would not order the recognisances to be estreated. ABBON. Bridget Payne was indicted for having on the 29th November maliciously and unlawfully set fire to a house in Oxford terrace with intent to injure. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Stringer, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The facts of the ease for the prosecution was that on the date mentioned Mr and Mrs Hislop, who were residing in the house, left it at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, locking the doors, except the scullery door. They returned in the afternoon, and found the house full of smoke ; some articles of clothing which had been left near the fire appeared to have been set on fire, and also a mat. Besides this, a quantity of kerosene had been sprinkled over the boards of the house. A piece of paper partially burned was found, which corresponded with some paper discovered in the house of the prisoner. The prisoner, who resided next door, had on an apron when arrested, which smelt strongly of kerosene. On the return of Mrs Heslop to the house, the fire was just starting to burn the kitchen door, and about two inches of the door step was burnt. Mrs Heslep put out the fire with water, and then went to ths prisoner and accused her of having set fire to the house, some boys having told her that the prisoner had been in the premises of Mrs Heslop on that afternoon.

Mr Dutoan led evidence in support of the indictment.

Mr Stringer cross-examined Mrs Heslop at tome length, and her evidence was somewhat contradictory. Mr Stringer having addressed the jury,

Hi* Honor summed up. The Jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. LiBOBNr.

James Marshall and Thomas Feart were indicted for having, on November 10th, 1881, stolen seventy-four sheepskins, the property John Tucker Ford and another.

Mr Stringer appeared for Marshall and Mr Holmes for Peart,

Prior to the jury being empannelled, Mr Holmes applied to have the prisoners tried separately, as the prisoner Marshall could give evidence to show that Peart was merely an agent of his. His Honor granted the application. The prisoner Marshall was first arraigned. Mr Martin opened the case for the Crown. The facts relied upon were that Messrs Lance, Chapman and Homersham, and another, sent certain bales of skins for sale to Messrs Ford and Newton, which were duly received into store. Subsequently some skins were missed from the lots sent in by Messrs Lance, Chapman and Homersham. Subsequently the prisoner Peart brought some skins for sale to Messrs Ford and Co., which, on examination, proved to bear the same brand as those missed. The prisoner Marshall afterwards brought some twenty-eight skins to Messrs Ford and Newton for sale, of which thirteen bore Mr Lance’s brand, eight that of Mr Chapman, and the remainder that of Mr Homersham. The prisoners were arrested, and Marshall made a statement as to where he obtained the skins, which was afterwards found to be untrue.

Mr Martin called Mr Lance, who deposed that no skins had been sold off the Horseleydown elation subsequent to November, 1880, up to the sending of this consignment to Messrs J. T. Ford and Co. That lot was also consigned to Ford and 00. Mr Lance identified the brand of a spur on the skins outside the Court, which was his registered brand. [Left sitting.]