Law Intelligence.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 227, 15 January 1876, Page 20

Law Intelligence.

SUPREME COURT. CIRCUIT SITTINGS. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and Juries of twelve.) Wednesday, January 12. The Court sat at 10 a.m. Mr. Bell appeared for the Crown. GRAND JURY. i The following gentlemen were sworn as a Grand Jury : —Messrs. Joe Dransfield (foreman), Charles Tringham, D. S. Stuart, B. Levy W. V. Jackson, Ed Reeves, Joseph Dyer, C. C. Graham, R. S. Ledger. J. Burn, W W Taylor, J. H. Wallace, W. L. Hart* Thos. Mason, E. H. Hunt, W. J. Gandy, F. C. Binns, Thos. Kebble, T. W. Young, J. A. Allan, G. H. "Vennell, W. Hutchison.

HIS honor's charge. The Chief Justice charged the Grand Jury, and said there were four cases in the calendar, none of them calling for any special remark. However, he would address the jury shortly on each of the four cases as to what land of evidence was necessary in order for them to file bills, although he had no doubt they were pretty well acquainted with the law, for such cases frequently came before thera, and they must be conversant with them. The first he had to speak of was a case of rape, and the only remark he would make on this case was that it was always necessary that_ the person upon whom a rape was committed should immediately make a complaint or give a good reason why the complaint was not immediately made. In this case there was some peculiarity in that respect, but thejury might deem the peculiarity fully accounted for by the fact that the woman was a foreigner. The next case of importance was a charge of forgery. The fact that the instrument was forged, and not signed by the person whose name was attached to it, would no doubt be sufficiently proved before them; but another material fact to be proved was that the person charged with forgery had forged the cheque—for the instrument was a cheque—or uttered it The question for their consideration was, did the prisoner forge, or utter the cheque knowing it to be a forgery ; but they must remember they were not to try the case, only to inquire whether a sufficiently good case was madeout to call upon the accused to answer it before a petty jury. Another case was that i of larceny, and the evidence would probably

show that the goods were undoubtedly taken away, and undoubtedly found in the house of the person charged with having stolen them Beyond all doubt if a person- was found in possession of goods which had been recently stolen he was compelled by the law to make out his defence, and showhow he became possessed of them. In this case actual manual possession of the things might not be proved, but it would be proved that they were found in the house of the person charged, and probably the jury would have no doubt whatever that the person charged should be called -upon to account tor them coming there. The last case was that ot malicious damage, a person being charged with having broken windows in Government House The fact of having broken the windows jould probably be admitted, but the jury would have to say whether the damage was committed wilfully ; and if they were convinced of that, they assume it was done maliciously, lor to constitute this offence it was not necessary that the person charged should be proved to have any bad feeling against the Governor, Government, or the person who was injured by the damage committed.

TRUE BILLS. The jury found true bills against James Mackay, John Harris, Michael Foley, Benjamin H. Solomon. MALICIOUS INJURY. James Mackay was charged with having committed malicious injury to property, m having on sth November, 1875, broken five ■windows at Government House, of the value oi upwards of £5. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. j ury . _ Messrs. Wills (foreman), John Bobinson, W. Prince, D. Rivers G -Thompson, H. Wood, C. Duncan, A. S. Buck W. Cameron, Prank Broughton, Geo. Chandler, and Michael Bohan. > Mr. Bell conducted the prosecution, and havino- opened the case, called . Lieut. Maling, who proved the mam facts of the case as previously reported. Two other witnesses gave evidence to the effect that on the morning of the sth November prisoner had acted in a most peculiar manner, and_ induced them to believe that he was suffering from delirium tremens. Prisoner cross-examined none of the witnesses, neither did he address the Court, but merely stated he knew nothing of the occurrence, and then called his employer, Mr. Johnston, tailor, of Lambton-quay, who stated that prisoner on the morning of the sth was suffering from the effects of drmk. Without retiring from the box the jury convicted prisoner, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth. His Honor in passing sentence warned prisoner that if he persisted in drinking habits he might some day unconsciously commit an act which drunkenness would not excuse, and for which he might be tried for his life. Taking into consideration the recommendation of the jury, the sentence would be very moderate, seeing that prisoner was before the Supreme Court. The law declared that where damage was done to the amount of over £5, the charge could not be heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court. Sentence, three months' imprisonment.

LARCENY. John Harris was charged with on the 3rd November stolen a quantity of clothing, the property of Frederick Bills, of A second count charged the prisoner with feloniously receiving. ■ ~ Mr. Bell prosecuted ; Mr. Allan defended. jury Messrs. Wakley (foreman), Bracken, Luxford, Michael Bohan, H. Morrison, Lacey, Geo. Brown, Wm. Brown, John Kelly, W. Prince, Robinson, H. Woods. Mr. and Mrs. Bills and Constable Byan were called for the prosecution, and proved that on the night of 3rd November a number of articles were hung on a clothes-line in prosecutor's yard, but next day the articles were found stuffed about in different parts of prisoners house. Por the defence, a Maori girl was called, and swore most positively that the clothes which had been identified by Mrs. Bills as being hers were the property of Mrs. Harris, and some had been made by her. Messrs. Andrew Young, Thomas Bould, McDonald, Mitchell, and others gave evidence strongly in favor of the prisoner. Mr Young stated that prisoner had been in his employ for six years, and notwithstanding that he had been tested in ways unknown to him, he had always been found honest. During that period he had saved a couple of hundred pounds, which he (Mr. Young) had placed in the bank for him. Mr. Bould stated he had known prisoner for nine years, and had always known him to be honest. His Honor, in summing up, said that a case like this, where the evidence for and against was so contradictory in character, should receive great consideration, and then he went on to refer to the question of recent possession, putting it to the jury whether when they found,°as had been proved, that the speech and demeanor of prisoner had been straightforward although it was pretty clear from the evidence that that of his wife was not—that the mere fact of the property being in the house was proof of the prisoner's guilty possession. His Honor then reviewed the leading facts of the evidence, after which The jury retired, and after a short absence acquitted prisoner. The Court then adjourned. Thursday, January 13. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice and Juries of twelve.) The Court sat at 10 a.m. Mr. Izard appeared for the Crown. FORGERY. Benjamin Henry Solomon surrendered to his bail, and pleaded not guilty to an information charging him with having in November forced a certain order for the payment of money. A second count charged him with having uttered the said forged order. Mr. Travers appeared for the defence. Jury—Messrs. J. P. Wills (foreman), H. Bracken, A. Mackay, B. Perrin, A. S. Buck, A. McOlifford, W. Peckham, W. Cameron, W. Brown, W. Prince, D. Elvers, W. N. Lux-

ford. Messrs. M. Bohen, H. Bird, and J. Kelly were challenged by the Crown Prosecutor. Mr. John Bobinson failing to answer when called, was fined 40s. Mr. Izard having opened the case proceeded to call his witnesses. George Maurice McKeown deposed : 1 am a clerk°in the Bank of New South Wales at Wanganui; my special duties in October were those°of teller. I know a Mr. Andrew Todd, merchant, of Wanganui. He has an account at our bank.. I know prisoner. On 30th October last I saw the prisoner at our bank. He presented a cheque for £9O 10s. 3d., bearing the signature of Mr. Todd. This cheque produced is the same cheque of which I have been speaking. I cashed it; giving him nine £lO notes, and the other part in silver. Looking at the signature I say it is a very fair imitation of Mr. Todd's signature. I hear it is not Mr. Todd's signature. It is so_ good that I paid the cheque on the faith of it._ 1 had seen prisoner in the bank the previous clay He on that day presented a cheque for £lO 17s. 3d., drawn by Mr. Todd. This cheque produced is the cheque. It was paid. To Mr. Travers : My attention was first called to the cheque by the ledger-keeper ten days afterwards. This was before I knew it was a forgery. Afterwards the manager spoke to me about it. He did not tell me that unless I found out who forged the cheque I should be debited with the amount. Ihere is nothing in our arrangements to make me responsible. In this case the ledger-keeper looked at the cheque, passed it on for payment, and thereby absolved me from responsibility. I handed it to the ledger-keeper. The teller usually hands the cheque to the ledger-keeper in the Bank of New South Wales. In the larger offices the cheques are handed by the customer. I did not know that £9O was a large amount for Mr. Todd. I had never seen his account. I might have said it was a large amount. I was sufficiently satisfied of the signature to justify me in cashing the cheque. I was not then well acquainted with Mr Todd's signature. I acted on the responsibility of the ledger-keeper. He said it was correct. It is not merely the duty of the ledger-keeper to look at the state of the account. I had only been ten days at the counter. I had only been ten days in this branch. Previously I had been in Otago, and prior to that in Sydney. I think the £lO cheque was presented about 11 o'clock. 1 judge that from the position of the entry. It is usual but not compulsory to get endorsements of large cheques. It is not the practice in our bank. I have never done it. The £lO notes were on the Wanganui branch. I have made no attempt to trace them. I have no particulars by which I could trace them; but enquiries, I hear, have been made. I have been in the bank three years. I came originally from Sydney. I think about twenty cheques were cashed on that Saturday. I could identify most of the persons who cashed the cheques. I only saw prisoner the previous day. The cheques were to different persons, but I took no nofcice of that, because commercial travellers often travel for two persons. I judged prisoner to be a commercial traveller. The £9O cheque was dated two days previously to the ,£lO cheque, but I took no notice of that. "When the manager spoke to me I described prisoner to him. I came to Wellington three or four days after the forgery, in consequence of information received from Wellington. Before I came to Wellington I had heard that a person named Solomon had received a cheque for £lO from Mr. Todd, and then I knew he was the person who had presented the £9O cheque. I knew the one person had cashed both. I could not say at what intervals Mr. Todd usually got his pass-books made up. These two cheques may nave been taken from similar books, but I can't say, because of the absence of numbers. I did not notice that one cheque came out of a double book, and the other out of a single. I see it now it is pointed out to me. Before I had heard of the first cheque having been given to Solomon, I told the manager that I had cashed two cheques for the same person. I pointed out the prisoner at the Empire Hotel ; there were eight to a dozen persons at breakfast there. I identified him immediately. There is no mistake in my identification. I have been connected with another foro-ery. I saw it was a forgery in that case, and refused the cheque. I gave the cheque back to the person who presented it. It was presented by another bank. The other bank delivered it to the person to whom it had been paid, and he took steps. That is the only case of forged cheques I have had any knowledge of. We issue cheque-books to any person who has an account, and we have no check upon the books afterwards. It is not our practice to take account of the books issued. I was present when the prisoner was searched. Papers were taken from him. There was nothing to identify the cash on him with the cash paid to him. I did not see amongst his papers a letter of credit on the National Bank for £IOO. To Mr. Izard : When the cheques were presented I had only been in the bank ten days. Being there so short a time I took some notice of the persons coming in, because I wished to become acquainted with the persons doing business with our bank. Andrew Todd, merchant, of Wanganui, deposed : I keep an account at the Bank of New South Wales. I know prisoner. He represents Matheson Bros., of Dunedin, and also other business firms. In the month of October I had business transactions with prisoner, which resulted in my paying him a cheque' for £lO 17s. 3d. This cheque (produced) is the cheque I paid to him. It was o-iven about eleven o'clock in the morning. It fs for Matheson Bros., not for himself. This was the only cheque I gave him. This cheque for £9O I never gave him, or anybody else. Neither the writing nor the signature are mine ; and I did not authorise anyone to sign my name. My book is not numbered. I only used one cheque-book at that time. I There were two cheques on the one page. I •' examined my bank book about ten days after ' I cave the first cheque, and in consequence of

the examination I spoke to the accountant at the bank. I found a cheque debited to me which I had not issued. I had had no dealings with Nathan and Co., in whose favor the £9O cheque was drawn. To Mr. Travers : I saw prisoner on the 30th about 11 o'clock. I did not go to the bank on that day. I might have had a little beer the night before. He gave me a receipt in my office on Priday for £lO odd. I did not see him write anything else. If he had written anything in my presence I should have seen him. My office is rather open. I did not see him write anything on Saturday. My pass book is made up very irregularly. I sent it to the bank to be made up several days after the 30th. Ten days afterwards I went to the bank about it. I did not communicate with Nathan and Co. I spoke to the accountant on the subject, and he produced the cheque. It was stamped " Paid." I said it was a forgery, and saw the manager. The teller was then called in, and heard me say it was a forgery. The cheque was before us. I was not asked to whom I had given the cheque. I turned up all the cheques that I had given about this period. The £lO cheque Avas produced, and I told them to whom I had given the cheque. I have traded with Matheson Bros, about eight years. They are a respectable firm. I know nothing of prisoner beyond business communications. The bank suggested that I should undertake the prosecution, but I refused to take any responsibility. Prom my intercourse with prisoner I had no reason to suspect him. Be-examined : I must have known him about twelve months. I gave him the £lO cheque about eleven —it was early in the day. Sergeant Price proved the arrest of prisoner on the 14th November at the Empire Hotel. Told him the charge, and he said it was some mistake. To Mr. Travers : I found on him in money £llß lis. 3d., and a pocket-book containing letters and papers. Did not find a letter of credit for £IOO. I did not examine all the papers. , , . -, Sergeant Monaghan proved having made a, list of the papers in the pocket-book, and found a letter of circular credit on the National Bank. Three sums of £lO had been received on account of the letter of credit. At the request of Mr. Solomon, witness took a copy from his pocket-book of amounts of cash received. Prisoner had no opportunity of tampering with the book since his arrest. In that account he saw an entry for £lO received from Mr. Todd, of Wanganui. This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Travers then called, John Mocre Perrier, journalist, who deposed: I have known prisoner slightly for many years, and tolerably intimately for two years. He represents Matheson Bros., a respectable firm in Dunedin. Before he became a commercial traveller, he was business manager for Mr. Mackay, the proprietor of the Bruce Herald, of which I was then editor. Mr. Mackay had a lar"-e business, and the prisoner conducted the "whole of his business, paying away and receiving cash. I always heard him well spoken of, and he was treated with the greatest confidence by his employer. He left the Bruce ITer.ald to go to Matheson Bros., and from what I have seen and heard since, I have had no reason to change the opinion I have always heard as to his character. Thomas Proudfoot, in the employ of Messrs. A. P. Stuart and Co., proved that he had been in the same employ as prisoner from 1865 to 1867. During that time he bore an excellent character, and held a responsible position. Had not seen much of him since then, but had always heard he still held a good character. Thomas Buchanan, manager of the JNationai Bank, proved that prisoner was traveller for Matheson Bros., and during the past f«w months had had credits on the bank. This produced is a letter of introduction, which would only be given to a respectable trustworthy person. This was all the evidence for the defence, and Mr. Travers then addressed the jury. He said undoubtedly the evidence of Mr. McKeown, who was so positive in his identification of a person whom he had only seen once, placed prisoner in a rather embarrassed condition. Yet there were circumstances connected with the evidence of Mr. McKeown which deserved very great attention at the hands of the jury. But before he came to that he would draw attention to the great similarity between the cheques. It was even written in the same ink, same kind of cheque, and the writing and signature were so much alike that even the ledger-keeper passed it. Now, all this betokened very great cleverness. Prisoner was only in Wanganui for a few days, yet without any knowledge of the position of Mr. Todd, according to the statement of the prosecution, he draws a cheque for an amount which he could not have known Mr. Todd s account would stand, knowing that he might be called upon to endorse the cheque, and all must have been done in an hour, for he got the cheque for £lO the same morning as he got it cashed. He could not have had it in his possession more than an hour. The circumstances, to say the least of them, were very extraordinary. The learned counsel went at length into the facts of the case, and dwelt particularly upon the improbability of a man in the position of prisoner—a man not m want of money, holding a good position, and who had for years borne an irreproachable character having committed an offence like forgery, with alf the forethought and foresight of an experienced criminal. If there was any doubt the prisoner should have the benefit of it. Mr. Izard quite agreed th at if there was substantial doubt prisoner should get the benefit of it, but he submitted there could not be a doubt. They were not to inquire as to motive; but if a man wanted money was not that motive enough. They could not say anything about motives at all, they must throw aside intangible suggestions, and consider the case on the"bare facts as absolutely proved in evidence. After a short discussion on a law point, which the Court considered insufficiently strong to induce it to withdraw the case from

the jury, his Honor charged the jury, and said on the whole he thought there was not sufficient evidence to induce him to withdraw the case from the jury. Assuming for a moment that the cheque was forged by some person or another, the question for them to consider was, did they feel they could rely upon the evidence given by Mr. McKeown? If they believed that, "there could be no doubt that they must find prisoner uttered the cheque. But that alone did not constitute the offence. It was necessary that it should have been uttered with a guilty knowledge—a knowledge that it was forged. He was not going to express an opinion as to whether there was sufficient evidence to show that he uttered it, knowing it to be forgery, but the facts were before them, and they must decide. On being changed with the offence, prisoner said it was a mistake, but he had not attempted to show what was the mistake—whether it was a mistake in identity or what. Pirst, the jury had to decide whether prisoner was the person who changed the . cheque ; if so, did he utter it knowing it to be a forgery ? Mr. Todd said distinctly he had never signed the cheque himself nor yet authorised any person to sign it ; and this statement was not denied. As to identity, could they accept the statement of Mr. McKeown without a reasonable doubt as'to its correctness. They had seen the highly satisfactory manner: in which that witness had given his evidence; and if they believed that, there could be nodoubt as to the identity of the prisoner. Then did they believe he had uttered it knowing it to be forged; and in considering this, they must judge whether the explanation of defendant was satisfactory. His Honor then reviewed the evidence in detail, pointing out that the circumstances of the teller having received silver from prisoner would probably impress the features of prisoner upon witness's memory. As to character, if the jury thought the evidence strong they should dismiss the question of character, for frequently people appeared to be living very honest lives, yefc really they might drink and gamble unknownto those who spoke well of them. However, if the evidence was weak, then character should be considered. The jury retired for a short time and then acquitted prisoner, who was thereupon discharged. RAPE. Michael Poley was charged with having committed a rape on a Danish woman named Basmussen. The offence was proved to have been committed on the Bimutaka Hill. The jury convicted prisoner, and he was remanded for sentence. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday, January 10. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) VIOLENT LANGUAGE. William Phillips was charged with using threatening language towards Thomas Bould. Thomas Bould, the proprietor of an hotel at Pahautanui, gave evidence to the effect that defendant had conducted himself in an improper manner while an inmate of witness' house, and upon being remonstrated with had threatened to "mark"' witness.

The case was adjourned for one week on the application of Inspector Atchison, who expressed his intention of procuring the attendance of prosecutor's wife.

SUSPECTED OP BEING A MURDERER. William Phillips was also charged with the murder of Hugh Hannah, at Lake Ohau, in the province of Otago, on the 25th of November, 1875.

Dennis Ryan, constable, stationed at Porirua, deposed on oath : Having received certain information on Saturday last, I proceeded to Pahautanui, and thence to Wainui, where I found prisoner in the employ of a farmer named Alex. Mackay. I told him that I was a police constable, that a man answering his description was wanted, and that I wished him to answer a few questions which I should put to him. I asked him where he came from last. He said he had come from the South Island —from Otago. I asked him what part of Otago, and he replied that he had been on the Hogburn and Dunstan. I then asked him if he had ever been at Gabriel's Gully or Waipori. He replied in the affirmative. I then asked him if he had ever been on Lake Ohau. Immediately I put this question, he said, "What's up? Is any one murdered?" Prisoner further said, in answer to questions which I put to him, that he arrived in Otago eleven or twelve years ago ; that he arrived at Port Chalmers in the King of Italy ; that he was a sailor, but had been working on the diggings, at sheep stations, and cutting wood. He would give me no account of »how he was engaged in November last. _ I read the charge over to him, also the description, and examined his arms, whereon I found marks corresponding exactly to those mentioned as being on the arms of the missing man Cunningham. Prisoner first said he was an American, then that he was an Englishman, and lastly that he was an Irishman. The prisoner was remanded for a week.

SMAT RE-APPEARS. Pranz Smat was again brought before the Court. , . , The information and depositions having been read over to prisoner, Wm. Arthur Bradford, being sworn, deposed • I am a duly qualified medical practitioner, residing at Wellington. I remember a man named Harry Young being brought to the hospital on the 27th of last month. He is still in the hospital. At the time of his admission he was bleeding freely from an incised wound on the right side of the neck. The wound was about three inches in length, and was situated about two inches above the collarbone. On examination I found that the external jugular vein was divided. The vein was ligatured, and the wound dressed in the usual way. The man is still an in-patient of the hospital, and is likely to be for some time to come. He is not entirely out of danger. It must have been a sharp cutting instrument

that made the wound. The blow need not necessarily have been very powerful provided the instrument was sharp. Prisoner declined to cross-examine the witness. On the application of Inspector Atchison the case was remanded for eight days. BREACH 01* THE LICENSING ACT. James Martin was charged with having committed a breach of the above Act by selling liquor to one Harry Young at the Criterion Hotel, Upper Hutt, on the 26th December. Mr. Moorhouse appeared for defendant, who pleaded guilty. Counsel pleaded that Young was a bona fide traveller, by serving whom no breach of the law was made. Inspector Atchison intimated that he could, and would if necessary, bring several distinct charges against defendant. Mr. Moorhouse then contended that the position of a man in the business of defendant and situated as lie was in the country, where there was no police force, had many difficulties to contend against. One of them being the danger of resisting the demands of a mob of unreasoning and excited navvies; and he contended in this case that defendant had served the men with liquor to avoid something worse. The Bench, taking into consideration that the serving these men with liquor had led to the assault recently committed by Smat, fined defendant £lO and costs.