Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7919, 27 September 1904, Page 5

Supreme Court.

PACMERSTON-tTUESDAY,

(Before Mi- Justice Cooper.)

(Continued.from page 3.) FOE SENTENCE..

Eobert Humphries, found guilty yes terday of arson, appeared for sentence.

Addressing the ■ Court, previous to sentence being passed upon him, prisoner denied he wilfully sot Sre to the whare. He said it was an accident such as might occnr to aDyone. There were, he continued, instances related in Court that were not true, and he asserted there was a conspiracy between Ashwot-th and the others?, to send him to gaol. He had. already been three months in the Wanganui gaol awaiting; trial, and he hoped the Court would take that matter into consideration and deal leniently with him. •

His Honor, after referring to the seriousness of the crime, *aid the verdict of the jury was the only one they could come to on the evidence. The plea of accident set up hsd"be<*n entirely disproved. His - Honor said he whs sorry to see a man of the accused's age in such a "position, but at the same time he intended to inflict a tertti of imprisonment that would be a warning to others similarly inclined. Accused was sentenced to two years' imprisonment' in Wellington gaol.

ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT.

Peter Micklesen (Mr Baldwin) pleaded not guilty to a charge of . embezzling £10,. the property of Neil Small, of Hunterville.

i Mr H. S. Fitzherbert prosecuted. j The following jury was empannel- ; led :—&. J. Dawick (foreman), F. G. Baker, R. Neil, W. S.. Maunder, G. Greer, A. V. Merriman, G. Dale, J. J. Hickey, W. Mathieson, G. Dixon, Geo. Davidson, F. Herring. Neil Small, the informant, said he saw the prisoner at Mangaweka last August. He asked witness if he could sell certain sleepers for witness. The sleepers belonging to witness were all branded with Ms private mark and they also bore the Government condemned brand. Prisoner told witness he could get him 2s each for the sleepers, and he (prisoner) would want twopence per sleeper commission. The terms were accepted. Witness subsequently learnt :th'at-.a ; number, of. the'sleepers had been sold by prisoner. On applying to him foi* the money he said'he had not received it yet. At a later meeting prisoner asked witness if he should pay the money to-witness or to his credit at the bank. '> Witness gave prisoner the name of his bank, but no money was paid in and had not been since. The money was still owing. Prisoner subsequently told witness that he had made use of the money. Cross-examined witness said that prisoner had agreed to pay him ten per cent, on the amount involved and then when he found the accused was hard-up he (witness) treated it as a criminal matter. He admitted his solicitor had asked accused £84 to settle the matter but thought that' sum included the amount for all the sleepers. When bis solicitors found there was no chance of getting the money by civil process they advised criminal proceedings. Witness expected prisoner to receive .the money for the sleepers and pay it to his (witness's) credit less the commission. Witness could not recollect if, prisoner was to pay him 2s 9d for certain sleepers if they were sold to the Government. Witness treated the £10 as a debt between he and prisoner. . Alfred Barnes, manager for Abraham and Williams,'Mai*ton, said he purchased sleepers'from the .prisoner, 200, in" all. The latter did not state the sleepers be?-' longed, to Small and' witness, believed they belonged to the ' accused. They were purchased at £5 per 100 and the money was placed to the credit of the prisoner on November 18th last year. The evidence of .the last witness closed the case for the Crown.

Opening for the-defence, Mr Baldwin contended there was no case to go to the' jury, the evidence led for the Crown not being sufficient to convict, even if it had been proved. Counsel contended the case was an ordinary transaction between tha accused and the informant, the former having power to receive the whole of the moneys received on account of the sleepers.

His Honor ruled against counsel, stating that at this stage he could not say theve was not a case to go to the jury. Mr Baldwin proceeded with his address to the jury, detailing the main facts of the defence, and then called the following evidence:—

Prisoner, giving evidence on his own behalf, related previous" transactions he had had with the informant previous to ■the transaction that led to the present case and in which witness received the whole1 of the : money arid paid, it to the informant. Alluding, to. the ?" present transaction witness stated he arranged with informant to give him Is each for the worst sleepers, >2s each for better, •.ones.and, if he got some passed by the Public Works Department, he would share the profits with informant. The latter agreed and stated, in reply to witness, that the money would do later. Witness altogether sold 420 sleepers to Mr Barnes, 200 for his own firm and 220 for Bonny Glen. Witness had never sold on commission, alwaysbuyingor selling straight out. . Witness was unable to pay informant when he wanted his money and agrded to pay him ten per cent .until the money was paid. Informant agreed and witness knewnothing of the criminal side of the case till he was arrested. In a telephonic communication with Mr Small's solicitors the latter said the matter could be settled if their costs, £3 3s, and the £10 was paid. Witness asked for a telegram or letter to that effect and the following morning he received one (produced). Neither in the verbal demand or an order .written by informant was any reference made to' commission.- Witness did not hearanvfthing of the latter till'he was arrested:"

Uross-examined, witness said he had never paid cash for any sleepers he purchased. Informant had already been paid for 1438 sleepers. Re-examined by counsel, witness detailed reasons that led to him filing his schedule, recently, legal proceedings and bad roads, apparently, being the primary causes. '" ''';"'?'■

The informant, recalled, gave evidence.j relative to his previous transactions with the prisoner and his brother-in connection with sleepers, in which the money I had been paid. ? '~

The evidence of the prisoner closed the case for the defence.

Counsel addressed the Court, his Honor summed up and the jury retired, returning after a short interval with a

verdict of not guilty.? ? Prisoner, was accordingly discharged.

THEFT; PROM; ?A vDWELLING?

?- 'Charles;Miller;-.(Mr Moore), pleaded not guilty toa charge,; on three counts, of entering the boarding house of Robt. Searle, Palmerston, on April 29th, 1903, and. stealing therefrom a leather bag and a quantity of silver jewellery, the property of Michael Tyrell.- Accused was also charged, on two counts, with the theft of a silver watch, the property of Michael Tyrell. Mr H. S. Fitzherbert prosecuted. Thcfollowhig jury was empannelled:--A. G. Dawick (foreman). F.H. Mowlem, C. T. Keeble, T. D. Manson, J. Hensen, C. W. Alve, F. G. Baker, A. C. Bennett, S. Palmer, W. Moore, C E. Crozier and W. Mathieson. '

The facts of'the case were that informant arrived in Palmerston on April 24th, 1903. He put up at the Welcome Restaurant, kept by R. Searle? His luggage included the leather bag containing 19 silver watches and three metal watches. There were also five watch chains, some watchmaker's tools, a bank book and a lot of miscellaneous articles. The bag was left in the room, carefully hidden amongst the rest of the luggage. ' There was-no key in the door of the room and informant, when he left, took the handle of the door withhim. When he returnedthe room had been entered, the luggage ransacked, and the leather bag' taken. Next morning "the police were informed of the occurrence. The watches were lost sight of for some time, but the numbers were sent to the various pawnbrokers in the different towns in the colony, and, eventually, one of the watches was .pawned in Napier by a man named Aurelius on behalf of a man named Galbraith .who, it appeared, purchased the watch from the accused for'los. Galbraith retained possession of the watch until it was pawned for him in Napier, Galbraith having samples about pawnnig watches. There was no difficulty about. recognising the watch,, the informant having, before he endeavoured to sell it, sent it to Mr Jenness, Wellington, to be cleaned. From the latter the number of the watch was obtained before it was, subsequently, recovered from the pawnbroker's at Napier. The silver chain attacned to the watch was also similar in make and design to one that was in the bag. They were both positively identified by the informant in court.

The whole of the facts were published in the Standabd,when the case was previously heard in the lower court, Pal merston. Evidence to'the above effect was given by the; informant, G. A: Jenuess, watchmaker, Wellington, W. Findlay,'pawnbroker, Napier, and? Jas. .Gal-, braith, flaxmill hand.

(Left sitting)