SUPREME COURT. FURTHER ENGLISH TELEGRAMS.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 16, Issue 862, 9 November 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

FURTHER ENGLISH TELEGRAMS.

Yesterday. LA.EOBNX. [Continued from last evening's Times.]

Mr Britten deposed to having received a JSIO note (produced) from prisoner on the Sunday, and having detained it, in consequence of certain information he had received. The number of the note was 312. The prosecutor was very drunk on Saturday, hut was much more sober on Sunday morning. John Franklin, barman to the previous witness, deposed that the prisoner and prosecutor were drinking on Saturday and Sunday, 7th and Bth May, and were drunk each nigbt. On Monday, the 9th, they were in the bar, and he heard prisoner say, *' I took your money, Hotson ; its all right, old fellow ; when Britten comes down I'il give you .£9, that's all there is left of it." Was certain this was spoken seriously and in earnest. Hotson appeared satisfied. They left the bar some time after, while witness was absent.

Thomas Bo wen wa3 then called, but failing to appear, was ordered to forfeit his recognizances (-£SO). For the defence, the prisoner called H. Nott, dining-room keeper, who deposed that the day after prisoner was taken in charge for the robbery, Hotson was in his place, and said he had been too drunk to know how much he lost or how he lost it,

The prisoner began his defence by saying that Mr Britten, on receiving the <£lo note, said he would stick to it; that in consequence of this he summoned him to the Resident Magistrate's Court for the change, and that it was not till then — 28th May-r-that the evidence just adduced had,been brought against him.

His Honor said that if this was the prisoner's line of defence, he should have cross-examined Mr Britten with reference to what he was now stating, That witness must be re-called.

W. Britten, re called, deposed that on the Sunday when the note was given him by prisoner, he gave him change equal to <£l, less five or six shillings owed to him by prisoner. He said he ' could not give him more change then, but would see

about the Jed ou Monday. Previously to this he had refused him further credit, as he appeared to have no money. He afterwards refused to pay prisoner the £9, on the ground that the note was stolen, but, on being summoned, paid the money into the Resident Magistrate's Court. It was afterwards returned to him by the police. He also gave the 410 note into the custody of the Court. The prisoner then went on to say that the money was his; he had just come from the Front with a good deal. Mr O'Donnell, his employer, and Mr Inspector Scully, could give .evidence as to his character. These witnesses were called, but could give no opinion as to prisoner's character. E[is Honor summed up. He said that the prosecutor, Hotson, had tempted the robbery by the manner in which he had acted, He was evidently a drunkard, —in fact, it was doubtful if he was sober even in the witness-box to day. From the reckless and positive manner in which some of his statements were made —relating to matters which he was not in a fit state to notice or remember —no great weight could be attached to his testiraouy. If, however, they thought his statement was so far corroborated as to leave no doubt that the prisoner bad committed the offence, they must find him guilty. The jury, after a brief deliberation, found the prisoner not guilty, His Honor informed the prisoner that he bad but little ground for triumph in the decision to which the jury had arrived —in fact, that his escape had been a very narrow one. With regard to the prosecutor, it ought not to be allowed that a man who voluntarily placed himself in such a condition as to tempt his more or less drunken companion to rob him, should burden the public with the costs of the prosecution. He should not be sorry to see the law give the Judge disc r etion in such a case to say that the whole of the expense of the prosecution should be dis allowed. In this case, with the exception of she actual cost o( transit from and to,

Dunedin, no expenses would be allowed to the prosecutor. J.i.ECBJf?. John gimmonds was charged with having, on the 2nd June, stolen one coat, one waistcoat, and one pair of trousers, of the goods and chattels of Miles Hudson. M. Hudson deposed that he was an hotelkeeper at Wallingford, and knew the prisoner, who was staying at his house at the end of May and beginning of June. Ond the morning of 2nd June, at half-past 5, he found his bar had been broken open, and missed about .£4 in money from his till, two watches, and the key of his store, He also found that the store had been opened, and on the 4th he missed from it a cloth coat, cloth vest, pair of cord trousers, and a pair of boots, Suspecting the prisoner, he searched him with his own consent, and found nothing. In consequence of further information be went in pursuit of him with a search-warrant, On reaching White's public house, Porangahau, he was joined by Mr White, and they overtook the prisoner at Cook's Tooth, on the road to Wainui, On searching him found the trousers, coat, waistcoat, aud boots in a sack on prisoner's back. [Sack and contents produced.] These were afterwards given to to the police. He could swear to the coat by marks on the breast, apparently caused by bad packing; the other articles he could not swear to, but they were exactly similar to those he had lost. The prisioner cross-examined this witness at some length, respecting the marks on the coat. J. White deposed that he assisted prosecutor to search the prisoner. Found the clothing as described, and also twelve Jul notes, ten of which were concealed in the lining of his cap. Saw certain marks on the coat like those on the one now in Court. Prisoner said he had bought it between Porangahau and Eparaima. [Dnring the evidence of these witnesses, the prisoner repeatedly asserted that they had represented the matter differently to the magistrates. His Honor, on com* paring the depositions, found on each occasion that these assertions were with* out foundation.] In defence the prisoner said he had bought the goods three months before iu Wellington. The articles taken from him were not given to the police till three days after. John Farmer, police constable, deposed that when the prisoner was given in charge, prosecutor showed the goods in his presence, pointing out the marks on the coat. The goods were delivered to the police a day or two after. His Honor summed up. He said that one, at least, of the missing articles was identified by the positive oath of the prosecutor. He knew it by certain marks* which he showed to Mr White, when the goods were taken from the prisoner; he had pointed them out to the police in the prisoner's preseuce, aud they could still be seen in the garment. If, however, they believed the defen.ce raised by the prist oner, that the witnesses were guilty of gross perjury and conspiracy to blacken the character of an innocent. man, they must find a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner here said he could account for the marks on the coat. He had spilt some grease on it from a candle. If hia Honor examined' the coat he would find this was true.

His Honor said this was au thought. The prisoner, by his questions, had tried to make it appear that the marks had been made after the coat was taken from him. Possibly they were grease-marks—the superior astuteness of the prisoner might have discovered what had escaped the notice of the prosecutor —hut the jury would see that this did not affect the real question. The jury having examined the coat the, foreman stated that the marks were not caused by grease. The jury, without hesitation,, found the prisoner guilty.

His Honor could not treat this as aa ordinary larceny. It was really a case of housebreaking. The prisoner had first broken into the bar and committed a robbery, and finding tLje key of the store,, had gone there and helped himself to such, articles as suited his fancy; after which he had gone on to the next public house, and repeated the process. The crime,, too, was aggravated by the impudent defence he had set up. —Sentenced to iuu prisonment with hard labor in Naj)i&s Jail for twelve calendar mentis

FAIiSE FBETENCES.

Arthur Wellesley was charged with having, on the 27th July, obtained £5 5s 6d from T. Reynolds by false pretences. Thomas Reynolds deposed : I am an hotel keeper at Havelock. In July last prisoner owed me an account of .£lO 4s 6d. On the 27th he asked me for his account, which was given him, and he gave in payment a cheque on the Union Bank for 10s. The day before he had said he was going to Napier, and asked if I would take an lOU for £lO. I told him I would not—that when he got the money he had been talking about he could pay me. He had told me for some time that he had lent £2O to a man in the Armed Constabulary, and was «xp€fcting daily that It would be repaid. It was to be paid into the Union Bank. He had been several times to Napier, to look after the money he said. On the 27th it was after returning from Napier that he drew the cheque. He said, "The money is all right, Reynolds; it's paid into the Union Bank; now I'll settle the account." He told me the amount in the bank was J 215 10s, and said he would give me a cheque for the whole amount, an dl could give him the change. I took the cheq'o and gave him a cheque I bad for i>3 and £2 15s 6d in money. On the following day I presented the cheque at the Union Bank, when I was told that they had no account with Arthur "Wellesley, and did not know the man. I took the cheque to the Bank of New Zealand, thinking there might have been some mistake, but they told me the same as at the other bank. By Mr Lee —He did not tell me he would go to town with me and see about it. After he got the change, he spent a shilling or two with me, and went to the other public house. J. Torre, accountant, deposed that he remembered the cheque produced, signed •' Arthur Wellesley," being presented by Mr Reynolds at the Union B ink. No person of that name kept any account; in fact, there was no trace of the name in the books.

In defence, Mr Lee argued that bis client was evidently under the impression that the money had been paid to his account, as was proved by the bond fide manner in which he had acted. For testimony as to his character, he called Capt. Bower, who deposed that he had known the prisoner since 1863, when he was in the Colonial Defence Force. Knew nothing against him. H. M'Kenzie deposed that prisoner had been working for him for three months. Knew nothing against his character.

His Honor said this was no proof of good character. It was evident that he had set a clever trap for the prosecutor, and that the latter had fallen into it. If there had been any truth in the story about the debt, his debtor would have been .called to give evidence. Not only had he cheated Mr Reynolds out of the amount he owed for board and lodging, but had contrived to get £o 10s to the good out of him. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor, in passing sentence, said he would treat this as a first offence. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for twelve months. BAPE. John Hammond, aged 33, was charged with this offence upon a little girl named Jessie M'l.eod residing at Hampden. The prisoner was defended by Mr Lee, and the case was gone into at great length. His Honor having summed up, the jury, after a few minutes absence, returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six years penal servitude. This concluded the criminal business, and the Court rose. This Day. J. J. rritchard v. flenry Parker. A claim of .£SOO damages for seduction of plaintiff's daughter, Elizabeth Ann Pritchard, aged 14 years, Mr Stedman appeared for plaintiff; defendant did not appear. The case having been heard, the jury fouud for plaintiff on all the issuesPamages, .£125. John Stocjcman Buchanan v. Roper. Action for false imprisonment. Pamages awarded, .£75. Tom Baldwin Buchanan v. Roper. Action for false imprisonment, Pamages awarded, 41Q,

The following additional items of European intelligence appears in the Sydney Evening News, of 24th October ;- London, Oct. 1. The French say they can hold out in Paris all the winter. Aid to the siek and wounded is flowing to the seat of war ; also from India and the East. The Prussians occupy Orleans. Paris calls upon the country to disavow the action of Ministers, and light to the bitter end. Prussian despatches say that the Garde Mobile is deserting, and that 200 have been shot for disobedience. The heights of Vilieguia, four miles from Paris, have been captured. The Chinese are preparing for war, and ugly rumours are coming from Northern India. Little is doing in wool in expectation of peace. Copper, £69 to .£73 10s; South Australian debentures, 100; consols, 93£; bank rate, 2£ per cent.