SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4382, 6 April 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Apml 5. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Jolmstone.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o’clock. GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand Jury:—fi. Miller (foreman), D. Mclntyre, Wm. Gandy, F. 0. Kreeft, C. Capper, W. L. Hirst, N. Marchant, T. J. Mountain, 0. Tringham, G. S. Sellars, J, Henderson, J. M. Cleland, J. Holt, W. H. Meek, P. Laing, X). T. Stuart, T. J. Ladd,. W. Bishop, C. C. Graham, W. V. Jackson, J. Dyer, J. Burue, and L. Levy. CHARGE. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, said unforeseen circumstances had made it his duty again to address a Grand Jury of the province much sooner than he had expected. He could not allow himself to proceed to the business of the day without expressing his deep regret at, the great loss which the Supreme Court and the people of the colony had sustained, by the recent retirement of the late Chief Justice, and two of the other Judges. He could not refrain from declaring, thus publicly, the great satisfaction which he derived from the retrospect of the many years during which ho had had the good fortune to be associated, on the bench, with men who had discharged their duties with such singlehearted zeal for the public service, and with so perfectly harmonious and sympathetic cooperation with their permanent colleagues, and who had been so deservedly rewarded by the respect and confidence of the community as the Judges of the Supreme Court had been who had now retired into private life to enjoy, he hoped, for many years, well-earned leisure. The calendar for the quarter was not, as regarded the number or the nature of the offences, a very light one ; still he had no reason to believe that it was indicative of the growth of any special class of crime attributable to the increase of population, or the varying circumstances of the colony. The crimes on the calendar were as various, or more various, than the prisoners for trial, for some of them were committed for more than one offence. There was a case of child-murder, the same prisoner being charged with concealment of birth ; there was a case of horse-stealiug, one of forgery, one of assault with intent to commit a rope, one of obtaining money under false pretences, and one of larceny from a dwellinghouse ; in fact there were some twelve different kinds of charges, but, as he had already stated, that' fact was not indicative of any particular condition in the circumstances of the colony to which he deemed it his duty to call the attention of the Grand Jury. A large proportion of the cases were very simple in their nature, but with regard to a few of them he felt it to be his duty to give them some assistance. First he would take the case of the woman Miller, who was charged upon two indictments, one being for the murder of her child, and the other for concealing its birth. He was bound, with the experience he had of these matters, to warn them against an error which was of two frequent occurrence, namely, that of leaning unduly to the side of mercy. It often happened that a Grand Jury had the choice of finding a person guilty upon alternative indictments. The greater crime may be of a serious character, and may possibly infer serious punishment, and in such oases it was observable that there was a tendency to ignore the indictment charging the prisoner with the more serious offence, and to find a true hill upon the lesser indictment. It was his duty to tell them that the vindication of the law ought to be their first consideration. His Honor having offered a few remarks upon the law of the case, proceeded to review the circumstances connected with the commission of the crime. It appeared that the woman had been living away from her husband, and was seen to he in a condition which indicated the probability of her being pregnant. She was spoken to about the matter, and suddenly such a change took place in her appearance as to indnee the belief that she had been delivered of a child. She made a certain statement about the matter, but afterwards made the positively untrue one that she had herself put the child into a,slop-pail and thrown it into a wateroloset, which was searched, but no trace of the body could, be found. However, evidence was given at the coroner's inquest which showed that about the time when the great change in the woman’s app jarauco took place

a woman and a man and some third person were seen in the immediate vicinity of the house, that some drunken man observed them, and gave such information as led to the recovery of the body. He would not go so far as to say that there was any trustworthy evidence as to the identity of the person who was seen carrying the bundle with the person charged in the indictment ; but, at all events, there was sufficient evidence to connect the woman with the child that waft found, and that she made a misstatement in saying that she put it down a water-closet. His Honor reviewed the medical evidence included in the depositions, and told the jury that they need only be satisfied of there being a prinia facie case to justify them in returning a true bill. After a few observations upon two other cases, his Honor dismissed the Grand Jury to their room. TRUE BILLS. lii addition to the cases reported, the Grand Jury found true bills in the following cases : Denis Wright, obtaining money under false pretences ; William Watson, felony (ons case, two others thrown out) ; and Charles Cass, breaking into premises. STORE ROBBERY. James Taylor and Robert Harford werecharged with burglariously entering the pre-' mises of D. Anderson, jun., and stealing therefrom -2701b5. of tobacco and two pairs of boots and shoes.

Mr. Hutchison appeared for the prisoners,, who pleaded “ not guilty.” The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Izard) havingstated the* facts of the case, which must be fresh in the memory of our readers, The prosecutor, Mr. Anderson, and the arresting constable, Sergeant Price, gave evidence which it is unnecessary to-recapitulate. Mr. Hutchison, for the defence, dwelt mainly upon four arguments : first, that the evidence in the case was wholly presumptive,, which was sometimes the strongest and sometimes the weakest of evidence ; second, that the robber or robbers, whoever they might be, had to scale a lean-to, the eaves of which were Bft. from the ground, a feat impossible of accomplishment by men in the drunken condition the prisoners were in ; third, that the premises had been robbed upon a systematic, professional burglar’s plan, which the prisoners, being artizans, were not likely to follow up in the’ cool and skilful manner in which the robbery had evidently been committed ; and fourth, that a bunch of keys, which were missed by Mr. Anderson, was not found upon either of the prisoners, which - naturally led up to the counter presumption: that the premises had been broken into by some other person or persons, who carried on the nefarious practices of a burglar. His Honor having summed up, The jury, without retiring, found the prisoners guilty. Sergeant Monaghan, in answer to the Court, said that Harford was employed by Mr. John Ruck at the College, and was discharged on account of his being suspected of stealing a hat. Taylor had been sentenced to two months’ imprisonment by the Resident Magistrate for damaging property, and was at the same time charged ■with stealing a bottle of liquor, but the charge fell through. The prisoners, before being sentenced, repeated the statements made by them in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, the substance of which was, that they were not guilty of breaking into the store—that they found the goodssecreted in the hedge in Hawkestone-street. His Honor, in passing sentence, commented strongly upon the impudent nature of the robbery, and the transparent story urged by the prisoners in explanation of their conduct. The jury did not believe in their innocence, nor did he. The evidence in the case, presumptive though it was—and he must deprecate the line of argument adopted by the counsel for the defence, that because cases had arisen where men had been erroneously convicted upon presumptive evidence, that therefore it was a class of evidence not to be relied on—pointed unmistakeably to one conclusion, namely, that the prisoners had committed the robbery. It, therefore, became his duty to pass such a sentence as would convince people at the*other end of the world that they could not .. come to this country and commit robbery with impunity. Prisoners had been only eight months in the colony, and he felt bound to pass such a sentence upon them as would prove a salutary warning to others’. Sentenced to two years’ hard labor, BURGLARY. Henry Straugleman was placed in the dock on a charge of burglariously entering the premises of John Edward Thomson, hotelkeeper, Masterton, on the 10th February, and stealing therefrom several bottles of brandy,- wine, &c., a purse, a newspaper, and au I O TJ. The Crown Prosecutor gave a statement of .» the case, which is reproduced in the following evidence :

J. -E. Thomson stated that on the evening of the 9th February his premises were securely closed at about ten o’clock at night. In the morning witness went into the bar, and. discovered that several bottles of brandy, claret, cloves, and whisky were missing. The till was opened, and a purse containing an I O U. for £6 abstracted. Witness went rouild the town and made search for the missing property, some of which was discovered under Air. Lo wes’s shop, Further search was then made, and the prisoner was discovered at the back of the shop, half drunk, with a bottle of brandy between his legs, or rather a bottle in which only a glass of brandy remained. He was, searched, and the 10 IJ. taken from the till found upon him. Witness had turned him out of the hotel throe times on the previous evening, telling him that he didn’t know what his intention could be in persisting in cominginto the hotel so many times after being put out. He was not drunk, nor had he any drink in witness’s house to his knowledge, although he was “cadging” drinks from everyone in the bar. Prisoner, or whoever committed the robbery, effected an entrance to the bar by breaking two panes of glass in the front window, and bending some iron bars on the inside.

Win. Boatfield stated that on the morning of the 10th he and a man named Cass saw the prisoner coming through Thomson’s window, legs first, at about five o’clock in the morning. When they got about 200 yards away they saw prisoner, when in the neighborhood of Lowes’s shop, take four bottles from inside his blue shirt. Witness went away for a short tune, and on his return Cass gave him a glass of spirits. Was positive he did not take a bottle of the spirits, and declined to -say whether or not he was aware that the spirit given to him by Cass was stolen. His Honor .directed the Registrar not to allow this witness’s expenses. Charles Cass- corroborated the statement of Boatfield, as to prisoner’s coming out of Thomson’s window, and relieving himself of four bottles, one of which contained “ fine old Irish whisky.” Witness looked at one of the spirit bottles, but didn’t take it; Had a glass of wine ; he wouldn’t deny that. E. 6. Williams and Constable Byrne were examined, but gave no evidence of importance beyond finding the bottles under Lewes's shop, and the recovering from him the purse and the lOU.

Prisoner, in defence, denied all knowledge of the robbery, and explained his possession of the bottles by having picked up with three men on the previous evening, who gave him them, made him drunk, and then'" left him, ho preferring to remain in the neighborhood of the hotel, where he was arrested. How the 1.0. U. came upon him he couldn’t say.

The jury, at the conclusion of His Honor’s summing up, without retiring, found the prisoner guilty.

Prisoner said he had been ten years m the Royal Naval Reserve in England, and came out to the colony in the ship Golden Sea. He had been working for Mr. Waterhouse, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Bunny. His Honor passed some severe comments upon the conduct of Boatfield and Cass, whose conduct was reprehensible in the‘extreme. It seemed to him a monstrous thing that two men, who saw a burglar getting out of a window, should afterwards share the plunder with him. Although the prisoner was apparently _a weak-minded man, and evidently not belonging to the worst class of criminals, his offence could not be lightly regarded. He would be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor.

LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Charles Ellis was charged with stealing i horse, saddle, and bridle, the property of Robt Neill. Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the prisoner Prosecutor, a farmer at Waiuuiomata, statei that on the 30th December prisoner callec upon him and asked for the loan of a horse t( go to Wellington. He was to pay 10s. for tin loan of the horse, and was to return it next evening, but he failed to do so, and witnesi went to town* in search of him and the horse Without much trouble he discovered it tied uj to a post at Mclntosh’s hotel. At once claimed the horse and took possession of it when he found that prisoner had sold it to s man named Cooper. Had been on the best ol terms with the prisoner, and was quite prepared to trust him, but it seemed the trust was misplaced. Owen Cooper, the person to whom prisoner sold the horse, was examined, and stated that he bought the horse at the prisoner’s request, and gave him AS for it, a receipt being given by prisoner in his own handwriting. Mr. J. G. Allan subjected both witnesses to a searching cross-examination, but failed to shake them on material points. In his address to the jury Mr. Allan contended that the conversion of the horse indicated no felonious intent. The plain fact of the matter was, the prisoner was in such a condition of incapability when he sold the horse that the receipt, written by him at the time, was an unreadable mass of hieroglyphics, and the witness Cooper, a shrewd horse-dealer, ought to have known better than to conclude a sale with a man in such a state. The jury could see that the prisoner was an inexperienced young man, and he would leave the case in their hands. His Honor having summed up, The jury, without retiring, found the prisoner guilty. Inspector Atchison, in answer to the Court, said nothing was known of the prisoner. His Honor, in passing sentence, said he felt very much inclined to hope that this was the prisoner’s first offence. He did not doubt that the prisoner started originally with no intention of making away with the horse, but that excess of pleasure had led him into the indiscretion. He would not, therefore, be treated as an ordinary horse-stoaler, but at the same time he must mark his sense of the seriousness of the offence by sentencing the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment.

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. I" 8 — Alice McCartney, alias Miller, was placed in the dock, charged with concealing the birth of a female child. Mr. Travers appeared for the prisoner. There being an irregularity in the framing of the indictment, a discussion took place between his Honor, Mr. Travers, and Mr. Izard. During the discussion Mr. Izard informed the Court that the circumstances of the ease were such that he would not feel justified in framing the indictment in a manner likely to bring severe punishment upon the prisoner, as he had no reason to .think it was a bad case. His Honor asked Mr. Head, the governor of the gaol, what had been the conduct of the prisoner since she had been in gaol. Mr. Head said she was the best conducted woman he had ever had in his charge. His Honor inquired if there were any arrangements for classifying -women in the gaol. Mr. Head said there were no arrangements at present, but that there would be in about three months. His Honor said he was sorry there were no such arrangements, and ho could only regard such a want as a disgrace to the community ; in fact, he could only speak of the want of proper accommodation for persons who made a first relapse from virtue as a public crime. His Honor further inquired whether anything had been heard of the prisoner’s husband, as he understood she was a married woman. Mr. Head said he had seen two letter's from the husband, which were couched in most affectionate terms. From their tenor he believed her husband would take her back to him. His Honor remarked that such a man was deserving of all praise for endeavoring to save a woman from falling lower in the scale. The prisoner then pleaded guilty. His Honor said he was glad to find from the statements of an officer of the gaol that the very serious offence which the prisoner had committed against the laws of God and man was not rife in this country. If it once should get abroad that women could escape the consequences of their own guilt and shame by disposing of the bodies of their own unfortunate offspring, society would foil to a very low ebb indeed. Allowances ought to be made by all humane men for the temptations to which women were unquestionably exposed, hut the materials before him did not allow him to judge to what extent the prisoner had been culpable;—that was to say whether this was an aggravated offence or one which could be met by a lenient sentence. That Court was not a moral tribunal, to judge of mere probabilities, or to decide matters of conscience. He sat there to try persons who had been r proved to have broken the laws of the land. I He trusted if the prisoner had received a good education and proper religious instruction that the punishment she would receive would have a good effect, and that she would return to a proper course of life, more moral, more humane, and more just. He did not wish to add to her pain or anxiety by dwelling upon the subject; he merely desired to point out that there were reasons, well-founded reasons he hoped, which prevented him awarding so severe a sentence as he was empowered to do. The sentence, however, would not be a merely nominal one, but taking into account the fact that the prisoner had already undergone two months’ imprisonment, he should sentence her to a further period of six months. The prisoner wept throughout the delivery of the sentence. MURDER. The same prisoner was then indicted for the murder of the child, but no evidence being offered, the jury, by direction of his Honor, returned a verdict of not guilty. FORGERY. John spiller was charged with forging a cheque signed “ E. "VV. Mills and Co.” Mr. Hutchison appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “ Not guilty.” The case is of such recent occurrence that recapitulation of the facts is unnecessary. All the facts deposed to in the Resident Magistrate’s Court as to Spiller having given Withair a cheque for £24 in Osgood’s Hotel, the valueless nature gf -the cheque, and the attempt of the prisoner to elude justice by hiding himself on board the barque Zelia, were reproduced, and the jury, without retiring, found the prisoner guilty. Prisoner, when called on, stated that he had never been in a court before in his life, and that he had been induced to commit the offence through having got into bad company. His Honor, after a few brief remarks upon the frequency of this class of offence, sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. The Court then adjourned till ten o’clock next day.