SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 265, 6 December 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. [Before his Honor Mr Jusnca Gillks.] The Circuit Court commenced its sittings this morning, When the following gentlemen were sworn .on the Grand Jury:— Messrs C. Hunter Brown (foreman), Hodder, Symons Stafford, Sclanders, Watkins, Dodson, W Oldhatn, R. M Rae, 11. Buckeridge, A. Scaife H. B. Darnell, F. H. Blundell, C. A. Muntz W. Wastney, H. Goulstone, T. Nicholson, C Canning, and A. Gundry. ' His Honor charged the Grand Jury as follows:— Mr Foreman and Gentlemen The calendar' with which you have to deal is as has always been the case daring the time I have exercised judicial functions in the district, very light. There are only two cases, neither of which us important, in one of which the prisoner is charged with housebreakine It appears that a miner left his hut in the morning locked, and on returning at midday found it broken into, and hi* watch aud other valuables stolen. The accused had been seen near the spot in the morning, and the property was afterwards found oh him. The presumption of the law, therefore, is that he is the thief unless he can satisfactorily account for being in possession of the articles. The other case is one of breaking into a shop with intent to steal. Three boy« were found in the shop, and they are charged with being there with tha intent to steal. With that, however; you need not trouble yourselves The presumption is that they were there for illegal purposes, but that is a question to be decided by a common jury. These are the only two cases. On the Acts passed in the recent session affecting jurisprudence lam unable to address you, as I have not had an opportunity of perusing them. I believe, however, that there are very few of any real practical value, and none that wiil affect your duties to-day. The Grand Jury then retired, and iu a few minutes returned with true bills in both cases. BREAKING INTO A SHOP. William Barltrop, Archibald Ogilvie, and Robert Henry were charged with breaking into the shop of Henry Douglas Jackson. Barltrop appeared to be Buffering a good deal from his recent accident when bathing, and was allowed a chair in consequenca. Mr Henry Adams appeared for the prosecution, Mr Pitt for Barltrop and Ogilvie aud Mr Acton Adams for Henry. The following jury was sworn :— Messrs Thomas Harley (foreman), Henry Flower, Thomas Snowdon, John Schwass, C Smith George M'Donald, John Kobb, W. Songer' Patrick Leahy, David Whiting, Robert Boddington, and W. Lines. The following were called but challenged:— Joseph Stewart, W Wratt, John Glover, J. It. Sigley, C. Beat, G. Fleming, Henry Young, Henry Webley, John Braddock, Robert Henry, F. Main Alfred Amos, Thomas Brooks, and Joseph Bolton. The evidence in this case has already baea published, and nothing naw was elicited this morning. There were no witnesses called for the defence, but, at the close of ttia evidence of the Crown, Mr Pitt argued that thore was no case to go to the jury, as there was no evidence of a door having been broken. His Honor ruled that the door was found unlocked after having been carefully locked by Mr Jackson, and that was «quivalent to breaking. Mr H. Adams, in addressing the jury, said it was a most painful case, the accused being sons of most respectable people, who would be the very, last to allow their children to be abroad at night for such purposes, but, un- i fortunately, the facts were too clear to admit of a doubt of their guilt. Boys here soon got independent of their parents and everyone else, and often acquired bad habits which I required money to allow of their being ini dulged in, and so they were tempted to obtain ) money without being very particular how

they did so. Here the boys were found in the shop, and the cash box was found to have beam moved and opened, but, as it happened, there was nothing in it. This, however, made no difference. Mr Pitt argued that the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the charge of being in the shop with attempt to commit a felony, which must be proved beyond doubt before a verdict could be given against them. Had they had such an intent it was not likely that they would have selected a night when a Volunteer Ball was taking place, to which the public were admitted, a large number of whom would bo sure to be about the streets, nor was it probable that they would have been so foolish as to light matches, which it was proved they they did. The boya were there beyond all doubt, but, although they must have been in. the shop for a considerable time, nothing was disturbed, and though there was money in the till, that had not been taken. It waa far more probable that they had gone there for a lark, perhaps with the intention of sleeping there the night, for really there was nothing whatever to show that they had entered with any felonious intent. Mr Acton Adams said that the only circumstance which told against the boya waa their presence on the premises. There was no doubt that it was wrong for them to be there, but there was nothing whatever to show" that they had any felonious intent. The story told to him with regard^, to his client Henry, and it appeared an exceedingly probable one, was that he met the other two in Trafalgar-afreet, and they proposed to him to go to Jackson's shop. This he at first refused to do so, but was at last halfbullied, half-cajoled into going. And could they wonder at it? Mr Jackson's was a. very attractive. shop, there were toys of all kinds, beautiful photographs and pictures, fairy tales such as the Arabian Nights, books of modern travel beautifully illustrated, and descriptive of th« wild hills of Bulgaria and other places of interest at the present time, and could it be wondered at that a boy was tempted to go and see these? Mr Adams then went on to argue that the attempt to prove felonious intent had utterly broken down. He even doubted that they had ever touched the cash-box, as Mr Jackson's evidence on this point was far from being accurate or connected. His .own belief was that this visit to Mr Jackson's shop was owing entirely to a boyish spirit of mischief. His Honor, in summing up, said that it must be remembered that the prisoners were not charged with actually taking anything from Mr Jackson's shop, . but with the uncompleted and unfulfilled intention of stealing. The jury must be satisfied that the intention was proved; he did not mean made as oiear as noonday, that was impossible, as they co*)ld not dive into the minds of the prisoners, but they must use their reasoning' faculties and satisfy themselves from the evidence what the intent could have been. Between eleven and twelve at night theie boys were in the shop, and they would naturally ask what they were doing there then. There was the hypothesis that they were there merely to look at the pictures and amuse themselves, but then they would ask, why did they go without the means of seeing? Every indication of intention must be careful.ly considered. The principal circumstance bearing upon the intent was the removal of the cash box on the one hand and the fact that the money was not taken from the till on the other, and they would have to consider whether the removal of the cash' box was sufficient indication of an intention to steal, but they must not overlook the fact that the box was not noticed for some time after a number of people had entered the shop any of whom might have moved it. If the j ury were satisfied that the boys moved it that would be ;very strong evidence as to their intent. If they were not satisfied on thi» point the question was narrowed down to a very small point, namely, what could be their motive for being there at that time of night. The facts were so few and simple that the whole question resolved it3elf into one of belief, whether any other reason than that, of intent to steal could present itself to their minds. . Evory reasonable doubt must operate in favor of the prisoners. Their intention must be judged by tha evidence as what it really was could only be known to themselves. The jury then retired and after a few minutes absence returned with a verdict of Not Guiity. His Honor, in discharging the prisoners, said—l am very glad for your sakes that you have been acquitted, but, at the same time, I would give you a word of warning. The jury have taken a very merciful view of the case, and I beg that you will not go away and look upon this as an excellent wind up . to a capital lark. Take warning by the position in which you have found yourselves, and remember that a certain stain has been placed on your characters by the. fact of your having been put in the dock to plead to such an accusation, which it will take many years of good conduct to wipe away. People will not trust you until you have proved, by the lives you lead, that you are once more worthy of thair confidence. I earnestly pray you to endeavor to retrieve your position, aud to remember that a good character is of so. great value to a boy that he cannot strive too hard to attain it. You are now discharged. HOtJSE-BBEAKING. John Sutherland, charged with breaking into a hut, near Charleston, and stealing a watch and other valuables, pleaded guilty. Prisoner said that he had been drinking about the time, and also hoped that the time he had already been in gaol might be taken into, account in sentencing him. Mr Sballcrass stated that his conduct in gaol had been remarkably good during the three months he had been there. His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said that persons living in up-country places had no means of protecting their property, and looked to the law for protection. Prisoner had rendered himself liable to fourteen years penal servitude, but as this was a first offence, and he said that he was at the time under the influence of drink, although that was no axcuse, he thought that the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to twenty-one months from the present time (in all two years) imprisonment ' with hard labor. ! This concluded the criminal business, and the Court Jthen adjourned until to-morrow morning, whan the civil sittings will commence.