Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7921, 29 September 1904, Page 5

Supreme Court.

PALMERSTON -THURSDAY.

(Before Mr Justice Cooper.)

JOBBERY WITH VIOLENCE,

, Chas. Cannon and Patrick Calpin appeared for sentence on the. above charge. ■ In passing sentence, his Honor said ! the verdict of the jury was^ entirely justified upon the evidence produced in the case. Each of the .accused had been convicted of various offences on different occasions previously. : These cases of robbery with Violence were becoming common in this colony.,-and they were offences that had to be punished severely. He noticed .from the police report that one of the prisoners came from Victoria and the other from New South Wales. He was aware that a number of undesirables came to New Zealand from the other colonies and were increasing the criminal population' in tins colony. When two men attack another man,' assault him and rob him, as was done in this case, it was a crime the law looKed upon as of an exceedingly serious nature. They were liable to imprisonment for life and also liable to flogging, if the .Court thought fit to impose°that penalty. He had never ordered flogging in a case of this kind, but if thereon- ' ■tinuedto come .before the Court he would be reluctantly compelled to order it in the* interests of the community. He would not order a flogging in this case but would impose a heavy punishment. The public must be protected against men who way-lay peaceable citizens and not only assault them but rob them. Prisoners were each sentenced to five years' imprisonment with hard labour.

BIGAMY.

James Dobbs, convicted of bigamy, also appeared for sentence.

Prisoner's counsel adduced the following evidence relative to the previous good character borne by-the prisoner. J. C. Nathan said he had known the accused for fourteen years. He had always found him a hard worldng, honest and industrious man.

_ S. R. Lancaster and J. A. Nash gave similar evidence.

In applying for probation counsel pointed out there were several mitigating circumstances in connection with the case. Prisoner had had a great deal of domestic trouble and no doubt in order to provide better for his children he had committed the offence. He had'previously borne a very : good character, and if probation could'be granted, counsel •had'; no doubt prisoner: would riot be found; before 'the ;Court again^,. He had nearly twenty children dependent vipon him and, concluded counsel, if there were only a few more colonists like him there would not be the present outcry in the colony as to the want of population. His Honor said he had considered the matter and it was difficult to decide whether for offences of this description probation should be granted. Where there was a doubt he thought it should always be resolved in favour of rather than against . the person' convicted. Prisoner, no doubt, had done a grievous wrong, he had committed a breach of the criminal law, a wrong, as he had pointed out yesterday, more to Mrs Seabright than to his first wife, because it was quite clear' that the latter and prisoner were unable to live happily together, and separated by consent. The difficulty in a case of this kind was what would be the effect upon the community if he admitted a man to probation who had been guilty of an offence of this nature. _ The Court also had to consider the previous character of the prisoner, and, also, hi a case like this, which did not involve a. charge of dishonesty or/: no • actual' violent conduct, the prisoner's family .; He did not seeany real good could be gamed.by sending, prisoner 'to ga01... He -had"a large family of young children dependent upon lhim "for support" and if .he.was sent, to gaol, the result would, in all probability, be that they would be rendered practically destitute. He though the conviction would be quite sufficient warning, not only to the prisoner, but to all those who carelessly marry a second time without making proper enquiry as to the whereabouts of or if the first wife is alive, that they will come within the j scope of the criminal law of the colony, j He was always reluctant io. send a man to gaol against whose character there had been no previous suggestion." He proposed to take a charitable view of this case and admit the prisoner to probation. He did. so because, although prisoner's conduct was not, from a legal point of view, at all excusable, there may have been circumstances connected with the first marriage and with the position of the prisoner in relation to his own family, which tempted him to. go beyond the proper limits of the law and procure someone to look after his children. It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that he ad.mitted. prisoner to probation. If a man committed bigamy, without any circumstances that could be looked.upon :sis extenuating," he would not admit him to. ■probation, but there.were'certain special circumstances in this case,, which, while not excusing the prisoner's,conduct from a legal point of view, justified the Court in considering the interests of prisoner rnself and the care, specially, of his children. Prisoner would be admittedto probation for twelve months, subject to the ordinary conditions and paying the costs of the prosecution,' approximately .^£23, which were to be paid in four instalments.. Addressing the prisoner, particularly, his Honor said he would understand, that although. admitted to probation, if he failed to pay the instalments, or failed to perform the conditions in. respect to probation, he would not escape from the conviction. He would be brought before the Court again and receive sentence for the crime committed. He hoped the result of the present proceedings would be a lesson to prisoner, and that he would do what he could to repair the injury he had done, that he would' live a reputable-life and look after his children.- After referring to, the/particular. position1 which prisoner, was in,.his'Hon6rsaid that if Mrs : Seabright -chose to;forgive him andlive with him, no one, he thought, under the cir- ' cunisiahees would blame; her. . > ■

FALSE PEETENCES. ,

Henry Hopkins (Mr Hurley) pleaded not guilty to a charge of obtaining, with intent to defraud, tho sum of .£37 10s from Alfred George Hutchensoh. -Mr H. S. Fitzherbert prosecuted. ■ The following jury was empannelled: —Ed. Burnes (foreman), A. V. Merrunan, Jas. Davis, A. G. Dawick, W. J.. Archer,, Geo. Dale, G. T. Keeble, Jas. Allen, p. E. Crosiier, G. Davidson, J. Henson, and Geo. Hobson.

The. facts of tho case, which have already been published in. the Standard, were that, the informant, A. G. Hutchenson, purchased an express from prisoner

on August 2oth, 1903. A sum of £25 was paid the following day and £10 on the 29th. Informant ' subsequently leceived . a demand for - moneys, •due on the express from M>Baldwin, solicitor, on behalf of a. client named West. The demand was for .£lB lls 2d or £19 11s 2d The express was taken from informant in. satisfaction of the amount due on it: toMr. West. Prisoner had informed: Hutehenson the express was his and made no mention of there being an encumbrance upon. it. Money had been ient upon the express by C. E. Waldegrave, a. promissory note being made out by prisoner and indorsed by F. Kavanagh. -Subsequently a renewal of thebill, was endorsed by J. McKenzie who later, disposed of his interest to West. Evidence in support of the case for the Grown was. given by C. N.Waldegrave, A. Ct. Hutchenson, J. McKenzie. Giving evidence on his own behalf r the prisoner said he borrowed £28 from C. E. Waldegrave in August, 1903, on the express. The bill was endorsed by F. Kavanagh. When the bill became due £12 was paid off it. Witness told Mr Waldegrave he had sold the express to informant. Replying to Mr Waldegrave prisqner assured him of payment due on the express. &. second bill was given and endorsed by J. McKenzie. He was under theimpression that the pavement of £12 satisfied the bill of sale on the express. He went home after tins and on his -return to Palrnerston was: threatened with a criminal prosecution unless he paid the two bills. An information was laid some time after. Counsel having addressed the Court his Honor summed up in favour of the prisoner, pointing out that before they could convict they would have to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prisoner sold the express with the intention of defrauding. He suggested they should consider the degree of life m which the prisoner lived and whether he was capable of comprehending an mvolved mercantile transaction such as the evidence disclosed. The jury retired at 2.20 pan. They returned with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. ALLEGED ROGUE AND- VAGA-

BOND,

Daniel Egan (Mr Cooper) pleaded not guilty to a charge of being a rogue and a vagabond. Mr H. S. Fitzherbert prosecuted. The following jury was empannelled : —E. N. Barraud (foreman), W. Moore, F. H. Mowlem, J. O'Connor, C. W. Alve, J. J. Hickey./W.Mathieson, G. Green, S. Palmer, E. Hepburn, R. Neil, W, S., Maunder and A. C. Bennett, ■• Opening the case for "the Crown Mi ,' Fitzherbert said the accused was charg-,' ed under the1 Police'Offences.Act.. He had previously been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code. He was a young man, knocking about Palmerston North for some years. At one time, counsel alleged, accused was private secretary for a turf commission agent and he had done various little jobs. Evidence would be called to show that he had no lawful visible means of support, or, if he had, they were not sufficient, and, it was ' alleged, he. was simply ; a loafer about the town. ■

Acting-Detective de Norville was the first witness called, but before he proceeded Mr Cooper took objection to any evidence being adduced beyond si:? months of the hearing of the charge, that is, no evidence should be admitted dealing with events prior to January, 1904. His Honor said' that prisoner was charged with having no lawful visible means of support, and any evidence relating to that charge was relevant. He ruled accordingly.

(Left sitting.)