SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6507, 4 January 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

OBIMINAL SITTINGS.

Tpbbday, Jaw. 3. (Before Bis Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) His Honor took his seat at II a.m, GEANB JUBT. The following were sworn as the Grand Jury:—Messrs B. J. 6. Harman (foreman), James Gapes, senr., F. H. Briltan, W. Day, J, Taylor, H. J. HaU, W. Beeves, J. Fulton, O. Louisson, J. T. Ford, B. Steele, John Inglis, H. Hawkins, and O. Wansey. JUDQB’B OHABGB. His Honor charged the Grand Jury to the following effect:—Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—l am very happy indeed to be able, at the commencement of the new year, to congratulate you upon having before you a calendar as light in its character as any 1 have seen for many years past. There is, ,1 am happy to say, no indication in the depositions which 1 have read of the spread or growth of any serious kmd of orime, and 1 do hope that I am not too sanguine in expressing a somewhat confident trust that the manner in which certain classes of criminals have been dealt with by this Court, that the exemplary punishment inflicted on them has tended to suppress the worst classes of evildoers who, I have always feared, might be formed into a permanent criminal class. I see no cases of larceny with violence in the present calendar. We have had snob cases at other times recently, and (bey have been severely dealt with. There are no eases of drunken men being followed and robbed. There is one case of larceny of a not very serious character. There is a serious case against one person indicted for forgery and embezzlement, who endeavoured to escape from the Colony, but fortunately for the ends of justice was overtaken in England and brought back to the Colony. With regard to certain almost historical events which have happened in another part of the Colony since we last met, it becomes me in my position to say no more than that every good citizen must desire that all measures of the kind may produce permanent good to the Colony. As subjects of Her Majesty we should all participate in the satisfaction arising from such a result. 1 am sorry to say that while I can speak as 1 have done of the calendar there are one or two sad facts of which it would be affectation of indifference on my part to take no notice. Within the last few days we have lost a gentleman who had retired from the service of the Colony which he had for many years conducted as a member of the Bench of the Supreme Court. He was a gentleman whose career has been connected with the history of the Colony, a gentleman of great ability, brightness, and talent. And more recently (he inhabitants of this place have lost a magistrate who had earned for himself the good-will, respect, and admiration of (his supreme tribunal of the Colony, as well as of all who knew him. And still more recently we have heard that there has gone from among us a genial gentleman, who, as a grand and a special juryman, has assisted in the administration of justice. I could not avoid making allusion to so sad an occurrence, bnt this is not the time or place to say more. (His Honor then briefly alluded to the special features of the cases to be brought before the Grand Jury, who retired to their room.) aw--™. iAEowry fbok a dwelling. Morgan Harper, who was indicted for stealing' a watch and chain, valued at £l4, the property of John West, of Upper Selwyn, on Deo. 18,1881, pleaded “ Hot Guilty.” Mr Duncan, with him Mr Martin, prosecuted for the (Frown. , The prisoner was undefended by counsel. The following evidence was led:— Constable William Hilyard, stationed at Leeston, proved the arrest of prisoner for stealing the property produced. A handkerchief was found on prisoner when searched. Witness received the watch and chain from Mr West.

John West, proprietor of the Upper Selwyn Hotel, proved that he had undressed on the day named for the purpose of taking a bath. Left his clothes in the scullery, where prisoner was at the time. On returning from the bath witness found prisoner sitting on the clothes. Had left the watch and chain in the vest pocket, and was absent only about five minutes. Told prisoner not to sit on the clothes and pushed him outside. Went into his own bedroom and put on another suit. Then missed the watch and chain. Searched the whar£ of prisoner, and found them in the handkerchief produced. They were in an old sack which had been used as a mattress. Prisoner was present, and when accused of taking the property he said he had not taken it, bat a “swagger" who had gone away two hours before witness had his bath. Subsequently prisoner said that if witness would say nothing, he would give him a new saddle and bridle, which ho had “planted.” Witness subsequently gave prisoner in charge of Constable Hilyard. The scullery is under the same roof as the rest of the house Cross-examined by prisoner: You had your feet on the sack when I examined it. I told you, “that is my watch and chain:” I showed them to you. I wouli not let you sit at the dining table. Prisoner ; I was too drunk all the time. Daniel Griffiths, stableman to the last witness, proved being with tho prosecutor when (he watch and chain were found. Prisoner made a short statement denying all knowledge of the theft, but called no evidence. His Honor briefly summed up. The jury, without retiring, found the prisoner “Guilty.” Superintendent Broham informed the Court that prisoner had been previously convicted 11 times. Sergeant Hughes gave prisoner a bed character, and proved that he had been convicted five times for larceny, and once for breaking out of prison. His Honor sentenced prisoner to four years* penal servitude. HOKBB STEALING, The Grand Jury found a true bill against John William Crabtree, who was indicted for stealing a mare, the property of George Holt, on Nov. 29. Mr Duncan informed tho Court that he did pot intend to lead evidence against tho accused, as bo was not prepared to prove a felonious intent. His Honor ordered the accused to stand down; and after another jury had been empanelled, directed the jury to find a verdict of “ Not Guilty." Tho jury did so, and tho prisoner was discharged. BEHAOH OP TUB KABBIAGB ACT. Frederick Edward James Hunter pleaded "Guilty” to an indictment charging him with a breach of tho Marriage Act by falsely declaring (hat Mary Ellen Henson was 21 years of age, she not being of that age. Mr Holmes appeared for prisoner, and said ho would prove that it was a case of amentia amori.i. Samuel Johnson, Bogistrar at Eaiapoi, in reply to his Honor, said that the father of the young lady had informed him of tho falseness of (he declaration. Witness had

prosecuted only after receiving instructions from Wellington. His Honor asked if there had been many offences of the kind. | Mr Johnson said this was tho only case he bad met with. j Mr Broham said several ca?es «f a similar i character had occurred in other parts of tho Colony. M r Duncan would not press fur a heavy punishment. His Honor would take it for granted that prisoner bore a good character, and would, therefore, give the slight punishment of imprisonment without hard labour for six days, and a fine of £lO at tho expiration of that time. IBDBOBHT ASSAULT. William Henry Sntton pleaded “ Not Guilty,” to an indictment for indecent assault. Be was defended by Mr Stringer. The evidence was unfit for publication. The jury, after d-liberating some time in their box, could not egree upon a verdict. His Honor read over to them his notes of tho evidence. Tho jury then reared, and after an absence of three-quarter* of an hour, returned with a verdict of “ Guilty of an indecent assault,” with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of the prosecutrix and prisoner having been drinking together. Constable Brooks gave prisoner a very good character. His Honor sentenced prisoner to imprisonment with hard labour for twelve calendar months. BECBITIHO BTOLBIf GOODS. Daniel Mark pleaded “ Not Guilty” to an indictment charging him with receiving, on Oct. 21, 1881, two pieces of tweed cloth, the property of J. Wyvill, he knowing them to have been stolen. Mr Joyce appeared to defend the prisoner. The following evidence was led for the prosecution:— William Eddington, living in St Asaph street, deposed to having been in the employment of James Wyvill, in Manchester street. Prisoner, who kept a tailor’s shop for secondhand clothes, asked witness to get him a piece of cloth to “ cuff” a pair of trousers. Prisoner meant witness to steal it. Witness did take the cloth produced, and prisoner gave him 2s for it. Could not say the value of it. There wae If yards. Had stolen the cloth. Gave prisoner cloth on another occasion. Could not say the date. Prisoner asked witness to get it, and paid Is for it. There was about Jof a-yard. Prisoner knew where witness had been employed. Cross-examined: Was acting as clerk. Got 15s a week and “ found himself.” Was .at Mr WjviH’s for some months. Was living at hia mother’s. Mr Simpson paid his wages. Did not go often to the theatre. The money witness received was not spent, but was given to Detective Neil. Tail was not a trap to catch prisoner. Mr Simpson did not know that prisoner was getting cloth from him. Witness was still working with Mr Simpson, who told witness that he wanted to get at prisoner. After getting the money witness went home. Shortly afterwards Mr Simpson came to the house in a cab, and said be wanted witness. Witness rent with Mr Simpson to Wyvill’s shop where Simpson had Mr Beece. Simpson asked what witness had done with the parcel he had had at Beece’s. Witness said he had taken it to prisoner. Witness had been convicted of stealing the cloth. Alfred Simpson, manager for James Wyvill, confirmed the evidence of the last witness. In prisoner’s shop a conversation between prisoner, the last witness, the detective, and witness took place. The cloth was worth about 4s 6d a yard. Prisoner said that Eddington had brought it to make a waistcoat for him. Eddington said: “Ton gave me 2s for it.” Witness said to the boy : “ If yon tell me all abont it 1 will not punish you more than I can help; 1 want to get at the receiver.” Saw more of hia doth at prisoner’s. It was worth Ss 6d a yard Cross-examined: Eddington could please himself as to when be got his waistcoats made. Witness had been a master tailor, but was now a manager. Eddington had been imprisoned for six days for stealing tho oloth. Detective O’Connor proved that when charged with receiving, prisoner had said that Eddington wanted a waistcoat made of the oloth. Mark also said the boy had brought another piece. The boy had replied: “ No, yon gave me a shilling for it.” Mr Joyce addressed the jury, and His Honor summed np. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of abont twenty minutes returned with a verdict of “ Guilty.” The police knew nothing against the prisoner. Hia Honor sentenced him to imprisonment, with hard labour, for eighteen calendar months.

IAEOEKT HT A DWELLING. Matthew Keen pleaded “Guilty” to an Indictment charging him with stealing a watch, a chain, a locket and tickets, valued at £1616*, the property of Archibald MTntyre, in the dwelling of James Match, of Ashburton. Superintendent Broham informed the Court that prisoner had been previously convicted. Hie Honor sentenced prisoner to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. 1 ~ eohgbby|and embezzlement. ■ William Womb well Charters was indicted for forging and uttering an acceptance on a bill of exchange for £147 12s sd. He pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The same prisoner pleaded “ Guilty” to several charges of embezzling the moneys of the Christchurch, Sydenham and Suburban Building Society (Permanent), with intent to defraud. There were six sums named on the indictments, making a total of £920. Mr Joyce defended the accused on the charge of forging and uttering the acceptance. Mr Duncan led the following evidence for the prosecution:— % Margaret Chapman, wife of John Chapman, farmer in Heathcote Valley, proved that she had some property of her own. Prisoner bad acted as her agent from April, 1880, to April, 1881. Had never given him authority to draw a bill of exchange on her, or to accept a bill of exchange for her. Mr Tipping brought the bill produced to witness on the Thursday before prisoner’s departure, on the Saturday. Had never seen it before. Was sorry to say she could not write. Prisoner never informed witness (hat he had accepted a bill of exchange for her. (The bill was dated July 28,1880.) Got the receipt produced for £64 4s on Feb. 53,1880, from Mr Charters, on account of Draper, Charters and Co. Prisoner wrote the receipt. Cross-examined: I first engaged Mr Charters to do my business in April, 1880. I asked him to take in tenders for a house for me. He did to. I told him to settle with the men, and I would settle with him. Ho paid £9l for me. The house was to cost £164,1 think. It was finished at the end of April. There were other things that brought the price np to £170,1 think. Prisoner was receiving the rents of three house*. He continued receiving them till ho left, I have had no money from him, and have paid no money since Feb., 1880. If I owe him anything, I am not aware of it. He was his own book-keeper, and if I owe him anything it is his own faglt. I could have paid him the £9l, but he said; " It does not signify, as I am receiving your rents.” To His Honor: One tenant pays ISs, another 14», and another 12s per week. To Mr Joyce; The account put in was given to mo. The prisoner had £sl from the Building Society. He had £3B from rents. My husband had an account, which will be produced to-day. I went with prisoner to the post-office, and asked him to sign my name. He did so. I don’t forget asking him te sign an acceptance.*! have too good a memory for that. The bill was four months duo when it was brought to me by old Mr Tipping. I have not been asked to pay the bill. The account shows that he had received £29, and had paid away £24 on my account during six months. He should have got in more rents. I should have paid him whatever he said was due, because I had no doubt that he was an honest man. John Chapman, husband of the last witness : Had never seen his wife write. Had not been authorised by his wife, nor had he

authorised anyone to sign, tho acceptance produced. Cross-examined: I never saw my wife give a receipt. Once I saw her write her name over pencil. It wne for Hanmer and Harper, who eaid a mark would not do. William Taiman Twinning, teller in the Bank of New Zealand : Accused had an account in the Bank in the name of Draper, Charters and Co. It had been there for two or three yoari. The acceptance produced had been discounted for Draper, Charter* and Co. on July 28, 1880. They got credit for the proceeds.. Accused was a member of the firm. Witness knew his handwriting. The body of the bill was in prisoner's handwriting. The signature of the acceptance was unknown in the Bank. Tho handwriting of the body and the signature were similar ; at least, so far as t»o letters were n> Had examined tho writing through . -’'■■■ i; magnifying glass, 'ihe whole of r« were not alike, but tome portions v - v • much alike. The body of the r<>■ - uced was in accused’s handwriting ■. . v.dMr Charters put in the bill for It ia usual to put bills for discount a box for the purpose. Cross-examined: I cannot say that Charters put it in, but 1 think it probable, as he Eut ia all the bills. His late partner might ave done so, but bis writing would not have been so like. I think Charters could have got the bill out at any time after it was overdue by giving a cheque on the firm. I don’t think it had been presented to Mrs Chapman. Draper, Charters and Co ’s bill had been debited with the overdue bilh The bill had been put in for collection at first, and after lying at the Bank for some time bad been discounted. Edward Tipping was called, but did not appear. His recognizances were ordered to be forfeited. Mr Duncan said this wae the case for the Crown. Mrs Chapman, recalled hv His Honor: Mr Tipping’s father brought the bill to me. Mr Tipping told me that he was a partner of the prisoner. Mr Twinning, recalled by Kis Honor: Knew that Tipping was a member of tho firm “ Tipping, Charters and Co.” The firm “Draper, Charters and Co.” ceased about a month or two before Charters went away. Mr Joyce addressed the jury for the defence, but called no evidence. His Honor summed up. The jury, without retiring, found a verdict of “ Guilty.” In reply to His Honor, Mr Duncan said that the cases of embezzlement were only a few selected from many. These six had occurred in the months of November, December, and January. Superintendent Brohanr. said he had seen many other cheques upon which the prisoner might have been indicted. ihe prisoner asked if he coaid say a few words. _ His Honor said it was the proper time for him to do so. Prisoner: All that I have to say, your Honor, with regard to the case of forgery, is that I must bow to the decision of the jury, but at the same time I state to you and to the Court that I signed the acceptance at tho request of Mrs Chapman. With regard to the embezzlement of the money of the Building Society, I think I have proved to the Directors that though other sums were charged against me, they had no right to bo so charged. At the same time, my partner, Mr Draper, is dead and gone, and I don’t wish to say anything against him. Had ho been alive, I should not have been here alone to stand the brunt of all this. I have a wife and a fine young family, and I am a young man, only 26 years of age. I throw myself on the clemency of the Court. As to my endeavour to escape, I am glad that I was caught, as I shall be only too glad to have the whole thing settled. His Honor passed a sentence of penal servitude for four years on the six charges of embezzlement, and a like term for the forgery; the latter sentence to come into effect on the expiration of the former. TEUB BILLS, In the course of the day the Grand Jury brought In true bills in the following:— Morgan Harper, larceny from a dwelling ; William Henry Sntton, indecent assault; F. E. J. Hunter, breach of Marriage Act; John W illiam Crabtree, horse stealing; Bridget Payne, arson ; Donald Mark, receiving stolen property; Matthew Keen, larceny; James Marshall and Thomas Peart, larceny; William Wombwell Charters, embezzlement, two indictments; do forgery. BO BILL." The Grand Jury found no true bill in tho case of Alexander M’Millan, indicled for embezzlement. The Grand Jury made no presentment, and on their disposing of the cases submittod to them, they were discharged by His Honor, with the thanks of the Queen and Colony. The Court adjourned at; 5.45 p.m. till 10 a,m. on Wednesday (to-day).