SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2649, 3 October 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, October 2. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] ABSON, William Avenell was indiotod for setting fire, on the 13th August last, to a dwellinghouse, situated at Graham's road, Ashburton, the property of Julia Wood, tho ssid Julia Wo.id and John Burn being at the time in the dwelling-house. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Joynt. Mr Duncan conducted the prosecution, and led the following evidence : Charles Compton Fookes, surveyor, at Ashburton, deposed that he made the plan produced, showing the relative positions of the houses in the locality. Julia Wood deposed that she was the wife of Barton Wood, and lived at Graham's road, near Tinwald, in a sod house, thatched, containing three rooms. On the 13ih of August she and her five children were in tho house. She saw the prisoner on that day, and told him to take Bway his cow, which was running in her paddock and was troublesome. He was very angry. Thie was about five o'clook in the afternoon. The only fire burning in the house that day was in the kitohen, and it was put out at about four o'clock. '. Witness and the children went to bed at about J 9 o'clock. Was awakened about 10 by one of the children crying in the next room. She struck a light and found that the front room was full of smoke. She dragged the children out through the kitchen. The fire was amongst the straw on the roof over tho front room. The cries of the children attracted the neighbors, who assisted witness to|put the fire out. It had burnt be thatch along the top of the walls. The night was calm and dear.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—The prisoner had been living in the neighborhood for about two years. Had nob been very friendly with him. He was a man with whom no lone woman could be on good terms. He had made immodest proposals to her, and she did not consider him a decent respectable man. Had never said that prisoner set fire to the home. By His Honor—Did not know where her husband was. He had deserted her and had been absent for about four years. The children were those of her first husband, whoso name was Byrne. John Byrne, aged eight years and ten months, s n of the last witness, gave similar evidence as to the occurrence of the fire. John Small, farmer, deposed that he lived in Graham's road, about 2J miles from the house occupied by Mrs Wood. The prisoner was at his housa on the evening of the 13Lh August, and left in company with a .man named James Bishop. He went in the direction of his own house, whiah was on the other side of Mrs Wood's. Gross examined by Mr Joynt—Had known the prisoner for about five years. Had never heard anything against his ohuraoter. Had always thought him a quiet respectable man. He was perfectly sober when he left witness' house on the Sunday evening. James Bishop, farmer, deposed that he left Small's at about 9 o'clock on the evening of the 13th in company with the prisoner. Left him about a quarter of a mile from Mrs Wood's house. He was then going in the direction of his own home, and would have to pass Mrs Wood's. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Had known the prisoner well for seven years, and always considered him an inoffensive and respectable man. John Wood, farmer, deposed that he assisted to extinguish the fire, which had burnt away about three parts of the thatch along the eaves. It seemed to have started from the end of the house near the road. A man could easily raaoh the eave of the house.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Had known the prisoner for about five years as a respectable quiet man. Ho believed Mrs Wood was a little hasty-tempared. Richard Edgeoombe, ploughman, deposed that in August last he was staying at the prisoner's house, Oa the 13th he returned homo between twelve and one o'olook at night. Prisoner was in bed then. Shortly after -witness turned In the prisoner had a good lough to himself. An hour after hs had another gocd laugh. Witness rpoke to him, ond ho siid he had had some words with Mis Wood about a cow. He said ho had it sticking in hia guto for;fcb.e last twelve months. It was not the cow that was sticking in his guts. Ho said he would havo revenge upon the woman, and that he bad put hez house on fire. He said the old b drove him to do it, and that he would roast her. Ho said he had a grsat mind to go and set the house on fire again, and se.fr the trees half through, ao that a nor'-wester might blow them down. The conversation, in which the prisoner ap;;ko about the fire, occurred a wesk after fie house was burnt:. Prisoner wanted witness to go matfs with him in some land, and witness said, pointing to Mrs Wood's house, " Don't you know that I know you did thst over thore." Prisoner then used the words just mentioned. Ho said he "did not intend to cause any danger to life, ea he was watching all the time, and was not far away. On the 19th prisoner told witness that if he stoppad much longor in the district he would h3ng himself. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Witness and prisoner had always been good friends, and had known each other for five years. Prisoner wanted witness to tafce the farm off hiß hands. Witness entered inly negoeiaiions about the farm, to that ho might, find out whether prisoner set the house on fire, as he wanted to know before entering into partnership with him. Was led to suspect that, trie prisoner set fire to the house from remarks he had made during the previous week about the dispute he had with Mrs Wood. Hud no inteation of taking the farm. Before the magistrate he did not say that he considered it his duty to find cut about tho because he wnnted to aet the priuoec-r lucked up aa ho thought he was unfiti to bo at large. That was a mistake. What he said waß that the prisoner ought to be locked up becausahewiiA not fit to be at large. He was very excitable. Know Mrs Wood. Went to he? house once or twioa with the prisoner. Had visited her house since the fife, Was staying With prisoner as a friend, and without paying for bis board. Told the constables of his suspicions, and laid the information against the prisoner. Would swear that in the convocation referred to prisoner several times used the word " revenge." David Smart deposed to having arrested the prisoner on a oharge of arson.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—The information was given to him voluntarily by EJ^ecomba. This was ali the evidsnoe. Mr Joynt ad:lieißud the jury for the pvisoner, and his H<mor summed up. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of "ifat guilty." The prisoner wm THUS BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills in tho following oases : —Alexander Olark, forgery and uttering ; Frank Henry Williaias, embezzlement (two cases) ; Wm. Herbert Harding, robbery with violence; Wm. Avenall, arson; F. Innes, perjury; M.sry Berry, receiving stolen goods j Matilda

r Hanson, stealing from the person ; Tepene te Arowhitu, rape. ABSBHT JtTBOB. Thomas Moore, a common juror, was fli.ed 40s for non-attendance. The Court rose at twenty minutes past Cve o'clook until this day at 10 a.m. Ihis Day. His Honor took his seat at ten o'clook. PBBJUBY. Francis Innes was indicted for perjury alleged to have been committed in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Ohristchuroh on the 19th July last, during the hearing of a suit brought -y ¥. Innes and Co. against W. M. Gentlemun. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Holmes; Mr J. C. Mariin conduoted the prosecution. The following evidenco was led for the Crown:— Walter George Walker deposed that he was olork to the Eesldent Magistrate's Court, Ohristchuroh, He produced a description of the boundaries of the Ohristohnrch distriot. The racecourse was within the district; Temuka was not. Produced the papers in the suit of Innes v Gentlemun. The plaint was issued en the 27th June, and the amount sued for was £79 6s Id. Amongst the items in the account was " one oow, £B." Caleb Whitefoord deposed that he was one of the Besident Magistrates for the Ohristchuroh distriot, holding jurisdiction to the extent of £IOO. He presided at the Court on the 19th July last, and heard the case of I\ Innes and Co. v Gentlemun. The acoased was the plaintiff, and gave ovideuce. One of the items sued for was a oow, £B. Counsel was engaged on both sides, Mr Joynt being for the defendant. A question of jurisdiction was raised as to the item of the oow on the ground that the purchase took place outside of his distriot. He deoided that the purchase had taken place outside of his district. The accused g&ve evidenoe on the point, and said that the sale of the oow was made by him to Gentlemun at the Ohristchuroh races in Novembar, 1880. He was cross-examined, but did not qualify his statement in any way. The racecourse was within the Ohristchuroh distriot.

By his Honor—Evidence was tendered by the dependent to show that the Bole of the cow took place elsewhere. Cross-examined by Mr Holmea —Under the rules of the Court there was no mode by whioh the defendant could give notice of the grounds of the defence. The question of jurisdiction arose in Court at the beginning of tho case. The trial was a very short one. Detective Thomas Neil deposed that the Chrietchuroh. races took place on the 9ih, 11th, and 12th of November. William MoSheehy Gentlamun deposed that he was n farmer living at Tomuka. He was not in Chrietchuroh during the month of November nor at the races. He bought a cow from the accused, but purchased it in October, 1881, at Temuka. It was nine years since he attended races at Chrigtohureh.

Cross-examined by Mr Holmes Rented a farm frem accused ; it was about six miles from Temuka. Was in Christohurch in Deoembor, 1880, and saw Mr limes at his brewery, and had some conversation with him. Did noc know whether any one was standing by at the time. Drank some prize ale while there, and purohased somit. Could not say whether there was a horse and trap there at the time. Did not have lunoheon there. Did not remember what time of day it was. Had some conversation about a reaping machine, which it was arranged Innes was to order for him. Nothing was said about purchasing a oow. Did not say to accused at his brewery, in the presence of his servant, that that cow of his was a nuisance, nor offer to purchase it for £B. Had no conversation then with acouied about tho oow. The oow was brought to his farm by Mr Olivier, hotelkeeper. Shs was a red cow with white spots; branded W. W. on both sides. Bought the oow three or four days before she calved. Olivior brought the oow to his farm in July. Witness returned from Ohristohuoh to Temuka in Decomber, 1880. Did not know whether he travelled with an excursion ticket. Never told Olivier that he had seen limes in town and lunched with him. Mr Innes naked him to have luuoh, but he declined. Recollect tcme one calling Mr Inuess to lunch. Owed accused for the cow. Had been on the very best of terms with acoueed eve? since the present proceedings commenced.

Fanny Gantlemun, sister of the last witness, deposed that she was in Christohuroh in November, 1880, and went to the Cattle Show and the Bsoea. Her brother drove her to the railway station at Temuka and did not oome to town. Saw him at Temuka when she returned on the Sunday after the races. Cross-examined by Mr Holmes—Had two other brothore, one of whom (Gsorge) was at the raoes. Did not see the acoused at the raoes nor see him speaking to her brother. The cow that Olivier brought to the farm was a red one with white spots. Might have told Olivier that sho was a nuisanoe, as she sometimes endeavored to get away. She might have told her brother that the oow was a nuisance.

John Day, ploughman, deposed thai he lived at Temuka, and in November, 1880, was working for Gentlemun. Was with him on the 9th November. During the race week ha was ploughing with Witness at Temuka. Saw him erery day in that week exoept on the Monday, when he drove h : s sister to the rail•kej station.

Cross-examined by Mr Holmes—Monday, the 9th November, was a fine day. Coa.d not say what sorb of a day it was on Monday, the 16th, nor where Gentlemun was on that day. Left his employ last harvest. Sarah Livery deposed that she lived at Miliord, boyond Temuka. In November last she was keeping honey during Miss Gentlemun's absonce in Ohristohurch. Saw Mr Gentlemun thero every dsy during the weok She went there on the 7th November, and left on the 14th. Orosj-examined by Mr Holmes—Went to Mr Gentlemun'a houso again. It was when Miss Gentlemun was ill. She did not reool leot the date of her seoond visit, neither the month nor the year. Remembered the dates of her first visit, because »ho"had a cow calved on the 9jh November. Was elsven years old when she first went to Gentlomun's. This wss the ease for the prosecution. Mr Holmes submitted that the evidence given by the accused in the Court below was not material, as it related only to the question of jurisdiction, namely, as to whether or not the sale of the cow took place within the Ohristohurch district. His Honor thought the evidenoe was material for tho purpose of enabling the Resident Magistrate to decide whether or not ho had jurisdiction in respeot to the item of tho cow. Mr Holmes a so raised the point of whether tho words " oacso of action " in tho Resident Magistrate's Act meant eaoh separate olairn or included all the items. He contended that they had the latter meaning, und that therefore the Magistrate had jurisdiction. His Honor was also of that opinion ; but supposing that the Magistrate was wrong in hia decision in that respeot, still it did not follow that the evidence was immaterial. Mr Holmes cubmitted that if there was no jurisdiction it was immaterial. His Honor held that the evidence might bo material to enable the Magistrate to decide whether h.-i had jurisdiotion or not, and that receiving it ho was acting vrithiu hid powers. The point was reserved. Mr Holmes having opened tho case for the defence called the following evidence : Henry Stevenson deposed that he was a carter living at Waltham. Was in tho employment of the accused in November, 1880. Saw Mr Gontlomua at the brewery after tho C.ittlo Show in 1880. He was with Mr lanes.

Witness was cbout four yards away. They ■were drinking some prize ale which witness had brought from the show. Ho heard some of their conversation. Soraething was said about a reaper and binder aud aboufcao&w. Gentlemun said the oow was a nuisance, and Innes said he had better Bend it to Ohri'itehurcb, and that he could have it for £9. Gentlomua said its full value was £B, Mr. Innca said £1 was neither her>s nor there. Witness did not hear the rest of the conversation. Some one thrn called M? Inne3 to lunoh. iientlomun first declined to go in to lunch, but Mr Innes said ho would go up town with him aftor lunoh, and he wont along the passage with accused. Cross-examined by Mr Martin—Could not jwear that Gentlemun went into tho houss.

Tho passage led to Mr Innes' house. In about tsn minutes or a quarter of an hour both gentlemen returned into the yard and drove awey to town. Hi 3 Honor asked if this line of evidence was relevant.

ilf Holmes aaid tho gist of tho ohargo wae that, with the view of inducing the Magis«

irate to exeroise jurisdiction over a cause which had arisen outside of hi, district, the accused swore that the cause of the action in a material paxt arose in Christohurch, Hit Honor laid the charge was that the prisoner swore that the contract was made at the Ohristohnroh raoeoonrie. Mr Holmes submitted that if he could show that, though the acoused was mistaken as to the particular place within the district, yet if he was correct as to the distriot itself, the rest of his evidence was immaterial. His Honor thought it amounted to this—that the learned gentleman, by the line of evidence which he wished to lead, was establishing more fully than had already been proved the faot that the acoused swore that which was false. Mr Holmes oontended that he was establishing that the eooused was iacorreot in what he j aid, but that it was not a corrupt incorrectness.

His Honor said—Was it not oorrnpt if the statement was sworn to for the purpose of iuduoing the Magistrate to decide upon the oatof

Mr Holmes thought not, because the acomed was oorreot as to the district in which the sal9 ooourred. The evidence he was bringing would prove that the incorrect testimony given was immaterial, proving, as it would, tha» the sale occurred in theGhristohuroh district. He submitted that if ho shoTrod that the evidenoe was merely a mistake and not corrupt ho was entitled to an acquittal. Mis Honor did not think so, and maintained that the evidence was not immaterial. If the learned gentleman could show that the accused in swearing that the sale took place on the racecourse made an innocent mistake it would be a different thin?, but he did not contend anything of the kind. Mr Holmes said he did. Ho held that the evidence was not a corrupt misstatement, but only an innocent mistake as to whether the contract was made on the racecourse or at Waltham, whioh was also within the Christchurch distriot. Hio Honor—You make the innocence the test whether it was material or not. Mr Holmes—lt would not be material if be made a mistake as to the particular place in Ohristchuroh where the sale was effected, and so long as it was in the distriot it did not matter whether it was at Waltham or at the races.

His Honor—lf yon say that the aoonsed innocently mistook the Waltham brewery for the Christohurch raoecourae your argument would be good, but not otherwise. I am of opinion that the evidence was material. Ho trover, you may go on with your evidence, Mr Holmes.

John Milton Ollivar, of 'jTemuka, deposed that he had heard Missi Gentlacuun complain of tho cow being troublesome, and that subsequently Grentlemun told him that when at Christohuroh he was at the brewery and had some refreshment with Innes. W. G. Walker, olerk of the Eesident Magistrate's Court, proved that Waltham was in the Christohuroh distriot. This was all the evidesce. The learned counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. The jury, after an absence of ten mintues, returned into Court with a verdiot of " Not Guilty," and the accused was discharged. BEOEIVINQ STOLEN GOODS. Mary Berry was indicted for feloniously receiving, on the 15 th of July last, six yards of velvet, knowing the same to have been stolen from Henry E. May. She was further indioted for feloniously reoeiving the following articles, the property of Henry E. May, viz., 12 yards alpaca, 4J yards insertion, 2£ pairs stockings, 3J yards embroidery, and 1 yard velvet. Prisoner pleaded guilty to both charges. His Honor said this was a olass of offenoe whioh was of a most serious nature, and he would like to know something about the oase.

Mr Martin explained that the goods were stolen, by the daughter of the prisoner and another girl from the shop of Mr May in High street. Inspector Broham said the woman had been deserted by her husband, and had been in the habit of obtaining a livelihood by was Lin?. Other goods were found in her possession. Her children were in the Industrial School.

The prisoner, in her defence, said her daughter had been led into the commission of crime by evil companions, and that she did not know that all the goods had been stolen.

His Honor, in passing sentence, said this class of offenoe was not like oommon theft, but was of extreme gravity, owing to the facilities it afforded for the creation of juvenile criminals. He sentenced the priacner to penal servitude for three years. [Left sitting.J