Supreme Court.

Manawatu Herald, 2 May 1903, Page 2

Supreme Court.

THE CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

The criminal sessions were resumed on Wednesday at the Supreme Court, before his Honor the Chief Justice. . .. SBNTEGBS. ... :

Thomas Maguire, found guilty of theft from the person of an an old man named Francis Ingmire, was set in the dock for sentence. His Honor said that in this case the bad point was that prisoner was only one out of a gang of four who waylaid this old man and robbed him ; the case was not like One in which a man was subjected to sudden temptation The sentence he would pass on Maguire would be two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. Stanley Edwards, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of theft from a relative, was next placed in the dock Mr Myers intimated that he had authority from the Solicitor-General to enters a nolle prosequi in respect to another charge against Edwards His Honor, addressing Edwards, said it was hard to know what to do with a lad like him. If the offence had been the first one committed by Edwards his Honor would have discharged him, but Edwards had been already in prison for thirfy-five days’ hard labour for wilful damage to properity, and has also served two concurrent terms of a month for theft. His Honor, however, taking into consideration the plea of guilty entered by Edwards, and in the hope that the youth would yet reform, would only pass a, short sentence on this occasion. Edwards would be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour. A LEGAL FLAW. John Hutcheson, charged with indecent assault on a girl under the age of sixteen, was indicted and arraigned, but the Crown offered no evidence against him. His Honor, when Mr Myers had intimated that the Crown did not see its way to go on with the case after the judgement delivered by the Appeal Court a day previously in the case of Blight, said he had read the depositions and he quite concurred in the view taken by the Crown, The position showed the absolute necessity that the law should be altered so as to protect'the children of the colony. As now interpreted, the law provided that where an indecent assault charge was not commenced within one month (in an instance where the girl shall have consented) no case should lie. The anomaly was one that should be instantly amended. The prisoner was discharged. “ MAJOR ” RUNCIMAN’S MONET MATTERS. William Runciman was charged with having, on August 21st, at Wellington forged a promissory note for £250, purporting that three months after date H. Phillips,

major, would pay to William Bunciman, major, £250, moneys advanced. There wae a further charge that Bunciman forged, as an endorsement to the said bill, the name of . Dudley Alexander, major,, aide-de-camp to his Excellency the Governor? There were three subsidiary charges laid also. ■ ' . - ' ;,J Mr Myers conducted the case for the Crown; the accused ■ defended himself. Evidence was called to prove that on the date when Major Phillips was supposed to have given and signed the bill in Wellington, he was either in Auckland or out of the colony (more probably the latter). Major Alexander gave evidence that he never endorsed the bill which-formed.,the -.ground of the charge, and expert evidence was called to prove thalHhl'iaee of the bill and the endorsements on the back were caligraphically similar, though the signature of Major Alexander was a wellrexecuted forgery. ' ■ Addressing the jury, accused maintained that thp : signature- of Msjor Phillips to the bill was genuine, and be contended that the Crown could have put Majo? Phillips in the box had it chosen. . As to Major Alexander’s signature* the accused said that the drawer was responsible for that, -not .the accused. The accused made the most of the failure or inability of the prosecution to put Major .Phillips -n the b<»* A**•’, f* (2jk W Sis Honor, in' summing up,, Emphasised the fact that evidence was 1 given to show that the signature of Major Phillips on the bill yras quite unlike that gentleman’s sigh manual as shown in the visiting-boolf vernmerit H6us6. * Major*,' -Phillip^, It. was jalsq .proved,, was a man in Loirodtiisiances; and, further, it had not been shown by accused that he was in a position to advance’ money ; to anyone. , At 1 pirn, the jury retired-; twfj an absence of ah hour and ff half they returned to Court with n verdict of guilty. In answer to the statutory inquiry the prisoner said he had nothing to say as to why sentence should not be passed on him. His Honor said it was clear that the prisoned was one of a elass that was a pest to the community. He had been sentencedon two charges to three months* imprisonment at the beginning of last yaar at; Wanganui f, w»d (- beginning of the present year.'he was sentenced at -Wellington .|Q twelve • months imprisonment for false pretences, Bunciman would be sentenced to be imprisonment for two and a half years with hard labour, the term to commence after prisoner had served the sentence passed on him at the beginning of the,present year. ? ■ 1 A RISKY ROBBERY. , . , Edward Gerald was indicted for having, at WpodviUe, stolen £io : from * the person of Henry Ramsden, at the time the latter was engrossed in watching the running of the Woodyille - Cup. , Mr Myers conducted the Crown s case, and Mr Jellicoe defended the dCCUSCdi f - - I -v.. f . r. The evidence for the Grown went to show that.the money (two £5 notes) was extracted from the inside .breast pocket of Ramsden's coat. Ramsden’ deposed thlat he saw accused .bringing his hand, palm upwards, out of Ramsden’s pocket, Atter he had examined his pocket, and bad missed his money he tried to catch Gerald, who ran awav and jumped over a fance-out -of the lawn. He was arrested a minute or so afterwards and then he asked to be searched. The search revealed only £3 xSs 3d, of which, amount £* was in gold. The defence sought to establish that accused was running to see tha,J|nißh of a race, but a constable said be never before on a racecourse saw a -man ran ashardas accused did, and thatitwas nnhoard of for a man to jump oot of a lawn enclosure (to which entrance was obtained by payment) to the, outside part of the course, from which. irp-aoF mission to the lawh could sot be obt aimed without a pass./ r- vj The Accused gave evidenCe-ora Ha own behalf. He said, hs invested on the Cup, but he could not now Mlthe name of the horse he hacked,- H« was standing on the- opposite side of the Judge’s box as the horses galloped up the straight, and the horse"*Ccfha«d backed was beingproclaimed aTwihner. There were two horses locked together ; colours alike. Accused thought ! 'thl? his horse might have ran seedtiil, so he jumped the fence tp make ..sure by looking at the aaddletcToth humD«K Accused ran past the,;cj»a9ta^> when the constable called out accused thought he bad done so became., ,J}ji was running down the accused jumped another fence into the people's stand. He had newer 1 lat«s fered with Ramsden in any way*..,. Cross-examined by Mr Myers, accused said he cameto New : Zealand for a trip froni Queensland. Had £7 when he left Wellington to go' to Palmerston. Had other money deposited wdth a friend.' Declined to say where he stayed in Wellington. Had a sister in Palmerston’ North; would not give her name for family reasons. He had been on a raccj course before. . ; > i j ' The jury returned a verdict of guilty of attempted theft. Sentence was deferred until Monday next.