SUPREME COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 182, 17 December 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Bi.knhkiai, Thursday, Dec. 10. (Before 11 is Honor the Chief Justice.) Tick Court sat at noon. The following Oaand Jurors were sworn: -—C. Coulter (foreman), W. 15. Barker, .1. Campbell, A. T. Thompson, W. Synis, A. C. •). Ward, 'l'. Calloway, W. I\ Tosworthy, C. Carter, E. Paul, J. I>. Dalton, R. Beatson, \V Douslin, 'l'. Williams, C. A. Smith, I*. R. Mcßae, 'l'. E. Ililey, A. Brown, J. 0. Western, W. Litchfield, and Alfred Ward. .1. Hornby wascalledhnt did not answer. The Court was about to impose a penalty of Lf> when Mr Williams said lie was absent in Canterbury and had been there for some time, which statement appeared to satisfy the Court, and no penalty was imposed. His Honor then proceeded to charge the Grand Jury, saying lie was happy to say that their duties were very light. There was only one prisoner who was charged on two indictments with stealing a horse (mare), and saddle and bridle. It was unnecessary for him to make any comments on tlio case, which did not appear to present any difficulties. The Grand Jury then retired to their room.

The following Common Jurors were then called and answered to their names : C. O’Sullivan, J. Barton, J. Brydon, W. Soper, C. Brimlle, H. O’Longhlin, J. Burton, T. Neal. J. Beatson, J. McAllister, R. Hornby, A. Dillon, W. Campbell, T. Woolley, M. Rickerton, J. Bartlett, .1. Murphy, A. Dobson, W. Pyke, J. Lambert, J. Crosslcy, C. Smart, T. Hopgood, J. Burrows, A. Jackson, W. Tapp, J. Cane R. Craig, J. Mackenzie, and D. Raymond. M. Leonard and D. Wemyss, junior, were called, but did not answer to their names. Subsequently Mr Wemyss came into Court and was sworn. No fine was imposed in Leonard’s case. Mrßi'indle was excused on the ground that he was over 08 years of age. TRUK dill. The Grand Jury found a true bill against Emanuel Ambrose Simpson for stealing a mare and saddle and bridle. The foreman made a presentment that the jurors suffered great inconvenience in consequence of postponement and that this being a very busy season of the year it would be far more convenient if the Court sat earlier. About 100 jurymen had been summoned here and kept waiting. The Chief Justice said that the business of the country would hardly permit the Court sitting at another time. This was a very small place and it might perhaps be better that the Supreme Court should not sit here at all. Was that what the G rand Jurors meant by the presentment? The foreman said it was not.

The Graml Jurors were then discharged with thanks by the Registrar for their attendance. HOUSE STEARIN!!. Emanuel Ambrose Simpson was placed in the dock and pleaded not guilty to the charge of stealing a mare and a saddle and bridle. The following jury was sworn :C. O’Sullivan, I?'. Woolley, A. Dobson, J. Brydon, J. Rubb, M. Ricker ton. d. Bartlett, E. Neal, R. Hornby, Alfred Dillon, and W. Bike. J. Burton, W. Soper, and J. Maeallister were challenged. .1. d. P.eatson was excused on the ground of deafness. Mr Sinclair conducted the prosecution.

The prisoner was undefended by counsel. The facts of the ease have already appeared in our report of the case as it came before the Resident Magistrate on the occasion of the prisoner’s committal for trial, and it is therefore needless to reproduce the details here at length. The mare in question belonged to Mr Robert Register, who tethered her at the back of Ewart’s Hall, on the Mist of August, and then missed her, and he did not see her again until the 7th October. In the meantime she was traced to the possession of the prisoner, who took her to Nelson and sold her with saddle and bridle to Mr'Twist, livery stable keeper, for £lO. Prisoner said he got the mare from a man named West or Western, who, however, he is unable to produce. He also took away from M r Pritchard’s premises a bridle and saddle, the property of Harry Tnrnley, a lodger in the house. The prisoner was charged on two indictments : the first with stealing the mare, and the second with stealing the saddle and bridle. Messrs Register and W. Twist and Mr Pritchard of the Commercial Hotel, Grove Road, where prisoner resided at the time of the mare being lost, were examined on the first indictment.

Sergeant Goodall stated that in September and October last he was stationed at Wanganui, and saw the prisoner there on the charge of stealing a mare at Blenheim. He admitted that the mare had been in his possession, but said he got her from a man named West or ’Western, who told him to ride her to Nelson and sell her, and that he did so for CIO, paying £8 to Western, and keeping £’2 himself. In his defence prisoner repeated the story that he got the mare from a man named Western, who authorised him to sell her for anything over £B, but he was unable to produce him, and lie had been unable to get evidence from Nelson in support of this statement, owing to want of money for expenses. He had a receipt for £8 from Western, but he left it in an overcoat which he left behind on Nelson wharf by mistake when he went to Wanganui, and lias not seen it since.

His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and after an absence of a quarter of an hour returned into Court with a verdict of guilty on the first indictment of stealing the mare. Prisoner was then tried for stealing the bridle and saddle from Mr Pritchard’s hotel.

Mr Tnrnley identified the, property, which he valued at £4 lOs, and stated that

lie left it in the harness room at the Commercial Hotel where he was staying. He last saw it on the 29th September, and used it on that day. In reply to the prisoner, the witness said that day was not very wet, and he was not drinking most of the day with Mr Andrews, the schoolmaster, nor was he in bed during the day time.

Mr Pritchard deposed to the bridle and saddle being missed from the harness room, and to making an unsuccessful search for it. Mr Twist ileposed to the purchase of the saddle and bridle produced in Court from the prisoner. The prisoner, in his defence, repeated that he got the saddle and bridle along with the mare from the mail Western.

His Honor summed iqi, telling the jury that a person found in possession of property recently stolen was presumed to be thief unless he could satisfactorily account for it. Jt was for the jury to say whether the prisoner’s story was consistent with his having obtained the property honestly. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty. The Court then sentenced the prisoner to IS months’ hal’d labor on the charge of stealing the mare, and for the larceny of the saddle and bridle six months’ hard labor, the sentences to run concurrently. This concluded the Criminal business of the session. CIVIL CASES. FARIA. V. K NIC! I IT. Mr Couolly, instructed by Mr Rogers, appeared for the plain tiff’. There was no appearance on the part of defendant who is absent from the Colony. The following jurors were sworn :—Matthew Rickerton, J. Crosslcy, .1. Brydon, .1. McAllister, T. Hopgood, J. Buhl., ('. O’Sullivan, A. Dobson, W. Soper, T. Woolley, J. Lambert, and R. Craig.

This was an action to recover the sum of Ll.lff (is 7d for work and labor, and L2OO for monies lent on mortgage with interest at ten per cent, from 31st January, IS7S. Mr W. B. Earll deposed : —I am a contractor, residing in Blenheim. John Knight was a contractor also and contracted for this building. [By the Court :—The ceiling included.] From March, ’77, to July, ’7B, I did the carting for him and rendered accounts from time to time. I also found a portion of the material—the gravel for tin contract, some timber and rope. There is a balance now duo to me for work and labor on that account of Ll7i(> (Is 7d. I also lent him money at various times, and a sum of L‘2oo, secured by deed of mortgage, is due to me with interest.

Alfred Rogers, solicitor, produced the mortgage deed referred to and proved defendant’s signature. The document bore date January 31st, 1878, repayable on the 31st January, 187 ff.

His Honor summed up, explaining that this was an undefended action and that plaintiff’s object in bringing it was to prove his claim so as to attach defendant’s property in the Colony. The jury found for plaintiff for LI off (Is 7d oil the open account and L2oo on the mortgage deed. The Court then adjourned until a quar-ter-past 10 o'clock next morning.

Friday, Dkckmbeu 17. GRIFFITHS V. JOHNSON’ (1.11iF.1,.) The following special jurors were sworn : —R. Beatson, R. W. Parker. A. .T. Norberg, M. Healy, A. C. .1. Ward, W. Wei ford, J. B. Green, G. A, Smith, J. B. Rayner, F, 15. Ward, A. Brown, ’J’. Redwood (foreman.) Mr Couolly and Mr Rogers appeared for plaintiff, anil Messrs Travers, Sinclair, and McNab for defendant.

All witnesses were ordered out of Court, with the exception of Mr Browne, of the Times, who requested to be excused, as he was reporting the ease for this journal. Mr Conolly opened the case, and stated that it was an action for libel, to which the defendant pleaded a denial. The plaintiff had for a number of years carried on business here as an auctioneer and commission agent. At the tune of the libel defendant was the proprietor (or at all events the publisher), of the Marlborough Erpretut, which iiad then a large circulation. The libel was contained in a letter to the Editor. The name of Mr Griffiths was not mentioned, but by implication it applied to him : and in order to show that they did apply to Mr Griffiths, it would he necessary to refer to matters which took place 1G years ago. In ISG4, Mr Griffiths, than a very young man, wr.s teller of the Pioton branch of the Bank of New Zealand. He then resigned, handing over his cash, Ac., to Murdoch. Shortly afterwards a sum of L3OOO was stolen from the Bank, and Murdoch was arrested and tried for it at Nelson. The chief witness against him was Mr Griffiths, and of course the counsel for the defendant had to make out that what he said was not correct and that Murdoch never had the money, which Mr Griffiths swore he handed over to Murdoch. To the surprise of everybody, Murdoch was acquitted. Air Griffiths had carried on business with unblemished reputation here for a number of years, and it was a very cruel and unwarranted libel to accuse him of the double offence imputed to him. Mr Griffiths occupied for some time subsequently the office of Clerk to the Resident Magistrate, and during his term of office in November, IS7G, the building was burnt down. The fire arose in Mr Griffiths’ room according to the verdict of the jury, and this led to gossip that he had caused it. Mr Griffiths had taken a part in political matters, and people circulated rumors that he was about to be arrested on a charge of setting fire to the buildings. A detective came over from Wellington and a reward of LSOO was offered for the discovery of the person who set fire to the building, and some people did say that Mr Griffiths was the person who was to be arrested, but he never was arrested, and no charge against him was made. A general election took pi a ce in IS7O, and Mr Griffiths was on the committee of the successful candidate, Mr Seymour; the paper of which the defendant was then proprietor supporting the unsuccessful candidate, Mr Henderson. The letter which contained the libel appeared shortly afterwards, and appeared to have been drawn forth by a letter which appeared in the Maulkorocou Times, in which no attack was made on the private character of the defendant. It was not written by plaintiff. (He here read the letter which formed the subject-matter of the libel, arguing that it stated by implication that Mr Griffiths robbed the bank and made a scapegoat of Murdoch, and that Mr Griffiths set fire to the Government buildings.) He should call a number of witnesses to prove the libel. The defendant had put in no plea of justification, their only plea was a general denial of the material allegations. The question for the jury was, did the libellous words apply to Mr Griffith*, and, if so, what amount of damages should be awarded to the plaintiff, who claimed £IOOO. The action was not brought with a view by Mr Griffiths to make money out of his reputation, but he submitted that it was a case that ought to be marked by substantia! damages, as an example to those

who conducted newspapers. If a pnAu. expression of regret at the publication <■* the letter had been made by defendant, j there would probably have been an end to I the action. Mr Griffiths, in order to clear hi* character had to take proceedings. If lie li.’id not- done so people would say naturally that the Marlborough /depress charged' .Mr Griffiths with robbing the Bank, and burning * ]ic Government buildings, and lie sat silen* thu cha, « f> - He then proceeded to call . us witnesses. C. .1. W. Griffiths, the plainer, deposed : 1 am an auctioneer and comtnisJion *igen residing in Blenheim. I have IB C< -, ,eu lff years. In 18(54. J was in the service ol the Bank of New Zealand at Picton. I gave up the appointment early in tluit year. On leaving 1 was succeeded bv Murdoch. T was teller. T had charge of a quantity of cash, which I handed over to Murdoch. Afterwards 1 heard that a large sum was missing. Murdoch was arrested, committed for trial, and tried at Kelson before the Supreme ('ourt. 1 was a witness against him—the principal witness. He was acquitted. My evidence was that had handed the money over to him. Ibe amount was £3700 that was missing. he amount 1 handed over was much hrgei After leaving the Bank, I came to Blenheim, and have lived here ever since, was Clerk to the Resident Magistrates Gourt for some, years. 1 was ( lerk m 1 IS7ff, when the. fire occurred by winch the i Government Buildings were destroyed. ! The date of the lire was November I the Ist, 187”>, on the morning of the j of the 2nd. 1 occupied a room ill the buildings. There were an inquest at which 1 was present and gave evidence. Tt took place a few days afterwards. 1 lie voidict was that the origin of the fire was not known. One witness stated that it arose in my office. ; I do not remember tbe wording of the jurjr on that point. There were a good many rumors about. Several of my friends tole me there was a rumor that I had caused the fire. As a matter of fact was a consiaerable loser by' it. In Januaiy 1879, £.'>()() reward was offered by Government, and a further large sum by the Insurance ('ompanies for such information as would lead to the discovery of the originator for the lire. Detective Constable Broun came over from M elllington about the matter. I have taken some interest in polities. 1 remember a general election that took place oil September, 1579. I was a mombei of Mr Seymour’s committee, but did not take so active a part in the election as on a former occasion. Mr Seymour was elected. I saw the Repress of the 24th September, and read the letter referred to signed !< Disgusted. ’ It refers to a letter signed “ Marina ” which appeared in the Marlborough Times of the lfftli September, which I have also read. I had nothing to do with the authorship of that letter. (I lie publication of the letters was admitted by the issues.) Mr Couolly here asked the witness what lie understood by the passage in the letter alluding to Murdoch as “a scapegoat,” but Mr Travers objected to the question unless a foundation were laid for it. Mr Couolly resumed, and the witness proceeded I handed to Murdoch several thousands of pounds, and I handed to him a parcel of £3700, which, technically, was not in the cash. It consisted ofbauk notes issued by’ other branches of the Bank than Picton. At that time at Picton we only issued Picton notes. The branch notes were charged to the different branches and transmitted every mouth to them. The parcel referred to was the one that was missing, and which Murdoch was accused of stealing. At the trial the point for the defence was whether I handed over the money to Murdoch. There was no other money missing. A month after 1 left the Bank, I was written to by the Manager at Picton, who had written stating that the amounts of certain notes with which they had been debited, and which they should have received, had not come to hand. I was asked to come through and explain, as I had dobted these notes. The amount had been debited in tile books. I went through to Picton, and found that on a certain date £3700 had been debited, and not one of the branches had acknowledged tho receipt of any of this money'. I remembered that 1 had handed over to Murdoch when I left the Bank all the notes which had been debited on a particular day. Mr Murdoch had known of the practice of debiting. He had been in the Bank’s employ some time. He had been in charge at Wakamarina. The bundle of notes referred to was larger than usual, and different in appearance to others in the Bank. It was ticketed. Murdoch counted the notes in the presence of another clerk. Shortly afterwards I knew that Murdoch had quarrelled with the Manager, and got suspended, hut not on account of having stolen any money, but on account of insulting the Manager. Murdoch remained in the Bank about a month after I left. I saw reports of the trial of Murdoch in the Nelson papers. The reports were fairly full and accurate. The question at the trial was whether I had handed the notes over to Murdoch or kept it myself. The point raised for the defence was that I had taken the money. Tt was jnputed that 1 stole the money and committed perjury in order to screen myself. It was impossible for anyone except Murdoch or myself to have been guilty. The Judge, in summing up, made some reference to a witness named Blundell, but defendant’s counsel said lie bad east no imputation on him. In reference to the passage in the letter referring to Murdoch as a “scapegoat ” —— Mr Travers again objected to the question, contending that sufficient foundation had not been laid for it. There wai nothing to show that Griffiths could be considered to have used Murdoch as a “ scapegoat.” Mr Couolly submitted the reverse, and pressed the question, observing that Mr Griffiths was the person who instituted the prosecution by telling tho Manager that it was Murdoch who stole the money. The Court took a note of the objection ; in support of it Mr Travers called attention to the ease of Danes v. Hartley. The examination proceeded :—By the words referred to, I understood that it is meant that I was guilty of the larceny and not M imloch, The Nelson Examiner of May 20th, ISff.i, witli a report of Murdoch's case was put in where the Judge (Johnson) is reported to have stated that unless Griffiths was a felon and a perjurer then Murdoch was undoubtedly guilty, [The Colonist and Wairau Record report* were also put in as evidence.] The Judge said so. I had taken a receipt from Murdoch for the money. This receipt I left in the Bank. The Manager at Picton was Mr J. T. Warren. I told him Murdoch stole the money. Mr Warren and myself were the witnesses against him at the Police Court. I made the charge. With respect to the lire at the Government Buildings, I was told that some people said I had set fire to the buildings. At first I thought the report was jocular. Some of my friends told me I was to be arrested on the charge. This was when the detective officer was over here. I took the words in the letter relative to the reward, to mean that I was the person who set fire to the building. [Mr Griffiths’ cross-examination was proceeding when we went to press.]