CRIMINAL SESSIONS

Manawatu Herald, 9 August 1894, Page 3

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

Monday, August 6. (Before Mr Justice Richmond.) The criminal sittings of the Supremo Court were begun at 10 a.m. THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were em,pannelled as a Grand Jury : — Messrs ■^Joseph Nathua (foreman), D. Mahoney, E. Blaauw, W. Clayton, H. P. Higginson, F. S. Allan, T. J. W. Gale, W. G. Tustin, D. Williamson, L. Hoggard, W. Fergusson, J. J. Curtis, G. Wiltshire, R. Tnrnbull, J. H. 0. Schwartz, G. Saxby, W. Ray. mond, A. A. Corrigan, G. Irons, I. K. Samuel, J. P«therick, J. Halley, C. E. W. Willeston, T. Ancell, A. E. Exley, J. Barry, C. A. Knigge. his honour's charge His Honor, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said thero was only eight charges on the calendar. Since the adoption of the statute known as the Criminal Code, judge, counsel, and jury had to go to school, as it were. The old familiar terms of larceny, embezzlement, and false pretences had disappeared, and all these crimes were comprehended under the term of theft. In some respects, no doubt, the change was a good one. The section with which they were chiefly concerned was the 218 th. The essence of theft was now defined as a fraudulent converting to a person's own use of something belonging to somebody else, and not depriving merely the owner of his property, but any person having any special interest in it. That was also the old law, and it resulted, strangely enough, that the owner of property might steal his own chattel. If a person should happen to take his own shirts off his washer-woman's line with intent to deprive her of her washing bill, that would be a crime, ; because she had a special interest in the clothes. This was still the law. Taking a chattel with intent to deprive a person having property or interest in it was theft. There was a case which would come before them which would make it necessary to apply what he was now laying down. It was a very out-of-the-way charge, namely, a charge by a solicitor against a man of snatching up and carrying out of his office a bill of sale in favour of the man himself, and which the solicitor had been holding. The act was said to be defrauding the solicitor of his lien upon the instrument, or with intent to do so. A solicitor had a lien for his costs, generally speaking. In this case the bill had been given for part of coats, and the evidence of the solicitor was that he had a special lien upon the bill. Intent to deprive the owner permanently must be made out. If the person accused «-r took the bill only for a particular purpose, and intending to return it, that would not constitute theft. There must be an intent to deprive the person having property or interest in the chattel permanently. If the jurors found any difficulty in the matter they should of course, return to him. His Honour also referred to two other cases, and that the remaining charges were nofe of a character he need mention. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned true bills "in the following cases : — Frederick Parsloe, alias Pratt, five charges of forgery and uttering ; John Best, theft ; Reginald Bleckley, uttering forged cheque ; Frank Masters, indecent assault ; William John Moreland, theft ; John Wheeler, alias 44 Crooked Mick," burglary ; Arthur George Henge, robbery from the person. Frederick Parsloe, with several aliases, pleaded guilty to five separate charges of having forged and uttered cheques for £3, £5 ss, £3, £i and £i 10s respectively in the name of E. Tonks, of Wellington. The accused had nothing to say in defence. The prisoner was sentenced to three years imprisonment on each charge, the terms to be concurrent. John Best pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, at Otaki, on the 14th July, stolen a cheque or order on Levin and Co., for £5 ss, the property of Wi Parata, of Waikanae, or, as an alternative charge, of hay ing received the order, knowing it to be stolen. Mr Gully prosecuted on behalf of the Crown", and Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for the prisoner. The jury were locked up for the night. Tuesday, August 7th. The Grand Jury returned no bill in the case against Wra. J. Moreland, charged with theft. ■ The jury empannelled in the case of John Best, charged with having stolen an order for £5 os at Otaki, which had been locked up all night, having failed to agree, were discharged. The Crown Prosecutor left it to His Honor to say whether there should be a fresh trial. His Honor said under the circumstances he thought he would discharge the prisoner, who, however, must understand that the charge was not disposed of, and there would be nothing to prevent the Crown from bringing the case up again. Prisoner was then discharged. Miohael Wheeler was charged with '

having entered the premises or William Shaw, a new and seconihand dealer, at Mastei*ton J and with stealing therefrom a number of greenstone pendantsj three loeliats, and six knives", algo With having received the same knowing them to have been stolen. He pleaded not guilty. Mr Gully prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The jury, after a short retirement, found the prisoner guilty. His Honor sentenced the accused to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. A young man named Reginald Bleckley pleaded not guilty to a charge of having forged and uttered a cheque for £10 los 6d in the name of T. Oxenham, publican, of Petone, on the 6th July. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was remanded to the next morning for sentence.