SUPREME COURT. Auckland, Friday, June 2.

New Zealander, Volume 4, Issue 211, 7 June 1848, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Auckland, Friday, June 2.

Jotin .Tessop was placed at the bar, charged wit" having stolon from the cutter Wave an anchor an" chain, £ihe propeity of .Teny Waitc. The prisonc 1 ' having pleaded not guilty, the Attorney- General called Jerry Waite, who, being sworn, itated, I am owner of the cutter Wane; I lost an anchor and chain from that vessel a few days previous to the 9th of October ; I have since seen the anchor and chain at the Police Office, and have no doubt of its being mine, and the same that I los 1 . Cross examined by Mr. Bartley : the vessel was then and is now my sole property ; I have no other name than Jerry Waite that I know of; the anchor was taken from Smale's Point, where I burn lime. Charles Brown, sworn, stated, I am a corporal in the armed police; in the month of March last I went to the house of the prisoner at Wakatanc, where alter making search, 1 found an anchor and chain buried under ground in the east end of the house ; I bi ought them to Aucklaud; prisoner was in the country at the time, I saw him a few days afterwards, when he said that he had bought the anchor and chain from Robert Krid. By Mr. Bartley : prisoner lived within fifty yards /Oi 'M<.ow r >°;; there was a native woman in the ho 1 • when I dug; vp the anchor ; r>roner was not there at die time , '"hen I took him into oustody he did not attempt to r ; way. Robert Kidd, being sworn, stated, I am a boatman and live on Albert Hill, I know the prisoner ; I have never sold an anchor or chain to him, nor had any transaction with him concerning an anchor and chaLi.

This closed the case for the prosecution The Attorney General addressed the jury for the prosecution, and Mr. Bart ley on behalf of the prisoner. His Honor, in summing up. said—" The stolen property is found in the house of the prisoner about four months after it was stolen. It is found buried in the ground within the house; and this concealment raises at once a presumntion of guilt against the person who concealed it. If Jie evidence had stopped here, you would have had to ask, did the prisonei conceal the property, or know anything about it? Or might not some inmate, or other person having access to the house, have done this? But all questions of this kind are iu>.v precluded by the prisoner having connected himself with these goods'. He admits Knowledge of them — he says he had lawfully bought them. Taking this knowledge together with the fact of concealment, you Imvc strong evidence that the prisoner knew that these things had not come fairly out of the possession of the owner. But can we say the prisoner actually stole them ? ,A" seems to turn on the judgment you may form respecting the alleged purchase fiom Kuld. Here is a direct conflict of evidence. If you believe the prisoner's account, of course this indictment, which is for stealing the anchor, falls to the ground. If, on the contrary, you believe the very positive statements made by Kidd, the case stands thus: The piisoner is found in possession of stolen property j the pioperty is concealed ; there is no evidence pointing to any other person as the thief; the prisoner gives a false account of the way in which he came by the propeity. The question then arises, would the prisoner have given a false account if there had been any true one which would have been an answer to this indictment ?" The juiy returned a verdict of '• Guilty. 1 '

William Langley was next arraigned on the charge of hay n< stolea a silver watch from George Mai sh, on the 2nd Maich luit. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and the trial proceeded, the Attorney General calling George Manh, who,on being sworn, stated:—l am a pensioner at Ho wick; I lost a watch on the 2d vi arch 1 st; I was in Auckland on that day, and went int> the Victoiia Hotel about half past twelve o'clock, where I fell asleep on the settle ; I awoke, after sleep i ig two or thiee hours, and found that my watch had bet n taken out of my right hand waUtcoat pccket; I have not teen the wi teh since. ii y Mr. Bartley —l had iwo or t ree g'asses of liquor, th t day, from six o'clock to the time I vent to the Victoria —l cannot tell how many public houses I was in that morning —I never restrict myself to a glass, but nev r take more than one at once—the fancy ot di inkin ( seizes me two or three times a day. I was very -Jeepy when I got to the Victoria, and when I lay down slept very soundly—l cannot tell how much liquor I had after I got up. Thomas Mandall sworn —l am a seaman—l recollect being at the Victoria, some time early in March —l think I saw George Marsh there, lying asleep —l went in to play at cards with another in ßn—while the man was gone for the cards, prisoner came in and took the watch from the pocket of the man that was lying asleep, the man coming in with the cards startled the piisoner, who put the watch back again into the man's pocket— whi st we were playing the prisoner took the watch out of the sleeping man's pocket again ; I thought the pritontr was a friend of the man who was asleep; when the man awoke he missed hit watch —after going outside the door with prisoner, I informed the man and the landlord of the hotel, about prisoner taking the watch —l told the prisoner he had the watch and he denied it. Mr. Bartley cross-examined this witness at some length, as to the quantity of liquor he had drank, but he was confident of being sober, and certain that the prisoner was the person who took the watch. William Smith, corporal in the Auckland police, took the prisoner into custody, but found no watch upon him. The Attorney Genera], and Mr. Bartley addressed the jury, and His Honor, after leviewing various objections made by the prisoner's counsel to the evidence, said — " Supposing that you are satisfied that the watch was actually taken by the prisoner in the manner described by the witness Mandall, it will remain to determine whether the taking was with a felonious intent. The remarkable point of the case, as it stands upon the evidence, is the openness of the taking. Indeed, the witness has told you, that it did not at the moment occur to him that there was any stealing in the case; he thought the prisoner was a friend of the man whom he saw lying asleep. No doubt, on the one hand, it is generally to be expected that a man will not commit a crime where immediate detection seems inevitable. On the other hand, a crime is not to escape punishment by reason of its being committed with more than ordinary boldness. You will consider all the circumstances. It appears, from the evidence, that thouuh other eyes were open, the owner's eyes were closed in sleep; and that the owner has never heard of the watch since." The jury returned a verdict of " Guilty,"

Jamhs Smilh was arraigned on an indictment, charging him with stealing a silver watch from Jerry Waite. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guiltj," and the tri 1 pioceeded. Jei iy Waite, being sworn, stated : —I recollect losing a watch some time ago; I hung the watch up above the fire place about eleven o'clock in the evening, and

in the morning she was gone; (the wutch was here produced} this is mr watch. By the Fruoner — I did not see tin* prisoner in my hoiisoon that evening; he came to the door, but he was drunk, and I would not let him in ; I do not s&y that he took the watch . I did not see him take it. Tnomas Smith sworn — I am a boot and ihoe maker; I remember seeing the prisoner some time in last March, down at the corner of Mr. BrLham's public house, at about nine o'clock in the evening:; it was dark; lie asked me whether I would buy a watch, which he said was his own; I looked at the watch, and 1 would know it a£<un ; (identified the watch) ; I took it to the wat< hmaker's to know the value of it ; he said he would nut give more than one pound for it ; I returned it to the prisoner, and told him that I would give him one pound for it, as that whs its value ; he agreed to let me have it, but as he wai drunk 1 would not ci yev c him payment that evening; I gave him a few shillings, and told him if he thought better of it, he could have the watch back the next morning ; shortly afterwards I heard of Mr. Waite losing the watch, and asked the prisoner li the watch he sold me was Waites — lie said that it was not; I then gave the watch to Sergeant Schulu. Robert Schultz sworn— l wa? sergeant in the armed police when the hut witness brought the watch to me ; I apprehended the prisoner. The case for the prosecution being closed, the Attorney-General addressed the jury : after which the prisoner said he did not steal the watch, but that it was given to him by another person to cell for him, and he was to get five shillings for selling it ; but he did not know the person who gave it to him. His Honor then summed up the evidence and said — II The prosecutor's watch was taken in the course of the n'ght, and on the next day, or the day following that, he saw it again at the Police office. Taking this, together with the evidence of Thomas Smith, it appears that on the night next after that on which the watch was taken, it w«s in the hands of the prisoner, and offered by him to the witness Thomas Smith for sale. The rule of law has been correctly laid down by the learned Attorney-General, that when stolen property is found in the possession of a man, shortly after the theft, that man ii bound to give a satisfactory account of the way in which he came by the property, at the peril of being taken to be the thief. But it is always a question for the jury to decide, what is, or is not, a short time: for no positive rule can be laid down as to this point. II a five^shillingj piece were stolen, and happened to be identified twenty-four hours alter, in the handg of any man, it could not be presumed that such man was the lire — it bring in the very nature of money to pass rapidly and repeatedly from hand to hand. But a watcli is not so readily transferable — it can be easily identified — and, supposing a man to have stolen a watch, he would naturally keep it by him a little time, and wait for a good, and apparently safeopportuni'y of disposing of it. You will also consider the conduct of the prisoner, in offering the watch for sale, at nine o'clock at night, to the witness Thomas Smith." The jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." The Court was adjourned until Saturday.

Saturday, June 3. The Court sat this morning, and the Chief Justice pronounced sentence on the convicted piisoners as follows :— You, James Smith, have been found guilty of stealing a silver watch, the property of Jerry Waite, fiom under his own loof. The sentence of this Court is, that _>ou be imprisoned in the Auckland gaol for the lenn of two years, and kept al haid labour. You, William Langley, have been found guilty of stealing a silver watch fiom the person of Geoige Marsh. The sentence of this Court is, that you be imprisoned in the Auckland gaol for the term of two years, and kept at hard labour. You, John Jessop, have been found guilty of stealing an anchor and a chain, of the goods of Jerry Waite. The anchor and chain were taken from the cutter Wave, whilot Ijing in the harbour of Auckland. Property of this kind is, from its nature, much exposed. It behoves thelaw to give toil that security which even the utmost care that can reasonably be lequired of the owner, annot always ensure. The sentence of the Court is, that jou, John Jessop, be transported beyond the seas, to such place as his Excellency ihe Governor shall appoint, for the term of seven years. Joseph Burns was then placed at the bar, and upon the question being asked by the Regis tiar, " What say you, Joseph Burns, that the sentence of the Coin t should not be passed upon you," the prisoner replied, "The best of all things, that I am innocent. lam as innocent as the child unborn." His Honor then proceeded : " You, Joseph Burns, have been found guilty of the wilful murder of Robert Snow. The crime of which you aie convicted was attended with ciicnmstances so aggiavated, that men could not for a season bring themselves to believe that this land contained a man of our race capable of committing it. And looking at the whole case, that feeling was a most natural one. Nay, even when that crime wai regarded as the deed of some of the least reclaimed amongst a people just emerging from barbarism, even then it appeared to be marked by a stiange and sin prising degree of hardihood and feiocity. Yet there remained to be discovered an aggravation of this ciime more horrible than any mangling or mutilation of the body of the murdered man— you came forward to accuse two of )our neighbours of the murder. That was not done to ward off any charge laid by them or others against yourself. At that time no man had accused you. Voluntaiily, and in solemn form, you made that accusation ; and you have yourself avowed openly in this Court and elsewhere, that it was made falsely— that you sought to lay the guilt of this bloodshedding upon innocent men. By this peculiarity of aggravation is your crime distinguished from all that have been committed in these islands since the law of England began to be administered here. I have no disposition to dwell on this. I would only, before I pioceed to pronounce the sentence of tbe law of your country, uige you to consider the position in which you stand. To any man in the full possession of his natural faculties, it must, 1 should think, suggest thoughts the most solemn, to know that, at a fixed time, and when a few sboit da>s shall be ended, he must pass, as in a moment, out of this world into the unseen and eternal woild — that at once he must go foith alone from all that he sees and feels in this life, into that unknown and inconceivable existence which lies beyond it and around it. Suiely, the contemplation of this must biing with it something of

natural awe— something oi an niwatd sin inking of the spuit — to uny man, even in 1m s best estate; even when, in Ins riepaituie, he is sustained by ill? bympathy of the best of his race, and bj> the consciousness of efforts, humbly made, to walk with a clear consoi ence before God and man. How much moie should a man he moved, when he has to go foitli from the condemnation of his fellow men — when he is by them deliberately put out Horn amongst tiiem as one who may no longer be allowed t ( > live. I urge )ou to consider this. Dining the few days that lemain to you, reflect upon u hat it is to stand in the midspace between man's judgment and the judgment of the Almighty. Remember that fiom the earth theie goes up conlinually the cry of innocent blood to the Maker of us all. May He, of his mercy, so soften )oui heart, that from )oti also a cry may aiise— the earnest and exceeding bitter cry of contrition and penitence. The judgment of the law is, and this Court doth awaid, that you, Joseph Bums, be taken to the place from whence jou came, and from thence to the place of execution, and there be hanged by the neck till you be dead " While his honor was solemnly addtessing the prisoner, he made several piotestations of his innocence, such as, " The n'ghteous Judge before whom I must shoi tly appear, knows that lam innocent," &c. ; and after sentence was passed, he said, " Innocent blood is going to be shed. I am as innocent as the child in its mother's womb;" and turning to the crowd in the body of the couit, "You, civilians, 1 tell you 1 am as innocent of as any of you." The prisoner was removed, and the Couit was dissolved.