SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4383, 7 April 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, April 6. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o’clock. LARCENY. William Watson, alias Amos Sutton, was charged with stealing 12s. in money, three pairs of socks, and other articles, from the dwelling-house of Louis Brown, Ohariu. Prisoner was defended by Mr. Buckley, and pleaded “Not guilty.” Prosecutor stated that formerly prisoner was employed by him' as a wood-carter. On the 16th September, the whole household, including prisoner, retired to rest at about 11 o’clock, the fastenings of the house being carefully attended to. On the following morning witness discovered that 12s. which had been left down stairs was missing, and upon the prisoner being spoken to about it, he said he would see about it. Nothing definite took place then, but in November, in consequence of something that took place, witness told him he could allow him to stop at his place no longer; that he must clear right away, or witness would send for a constable. He was taxed at the time with having taken the lock off the door e £ the store, and after frequent denials prisoner at last admitted that he had taken the lock off the store door, and that he had stolen the 12s*

Cross-examined by Mr. Buckley : Prisoner said he was in the habit of taking off the lock when he liked. Witness was generally away for several hours iu the day, but he could not say that Watson was ever asked to assist in the store during witness’s absence. Witness did not get drunk during the previous day’s sitting of the Court, nor was he aware that this case was put off on account of his getting drunk; drunk or not, he managed to get home to Ohariu, thirteen miles away. Witness often gave prisoner things out of the store, and deducted their value from his wages on settling-up day. Mouths before he had some socks like those stolen, but he never said anything about the three pairs which he w r as charged with stealing. Had a final settlement with prisoner when he left. He owed as much as £5 at the time, and he paid it; but witness made no charge for the three pairs of socks and the 125., as they were stolen. The theft took place on the 15th. September, and prisoner was arrested on the 12th January. This time was allowed to elapse because witness was not sure of tbe robbery having been committed, although prisoner had confessed to it ; in fact, proceedings would never have been instituted if the prisoner had gone right away and never come back. But he did come back to the valley, and, feeling insecure, he had the prisoner arrested to save his house from being plundered. The 12s. were the proceeds of a raffle which prisoner had conducted on behalf of witness’s wife and daughter; that was to say, the articles raffled belonged to his daughter, and she and her mother were to have the proceeds. When prisoner was dismissed, neither witness nor a man named Stubbs, had a drink with him. Told prisoner before he made the admission that if he would tell the truth he would be forgiven, because he. (witness) suspected somebody else of the robbery. Mr. Buckley, upon this statement, raised the objection that the confession could not now be used against the prisoner. His Honor was of opinion that the objection should have been taken earlier, but as the point was an important one he would hear Mr. Buckley upon it. Sir. Buckley quoted “ Russell on Crimes ” in support of the principle that confessions must be entirely voluntary, and must not be obtained by any sort of inducement, or by direct or implied promises, however slight. Mr. Buckley then quoted a number of cases to show that the present was identical, or nearly so, and that in such cases the Judges had held that the admission must be excluded. •' jHere, he would submit, there was sufficient evidence of inducement to bring the case within the rule relating to the exclusion of admissions. The prisoner was a weak-minded, or, at any rate, an ignorant man, and it might be that, influenced by the inducement of the prosecutor, he had confessed to a crime he had never committed, merely to obtain the forgiveness, and have no more said about the matter.

His .Honor went through the cases in Taylor, and carefully sifted the opinions of English Judges upon the point, which they were all agreed was a very difficult one to decide. From all the consideration he could the point he thought he must rule that this admission came within the doctrine of nonadmissibility. Mr. Izard said the only point he had to raise in opposition to his learned friend’s argument was as to whether the expression used could be taken to be an inducement to the prisoner to make an admission against himself. His Honor said he was not quite sure whether some passages on the subject in his own hook (“ Johnston’s Justice of the Peace ”) ought not to be modified. ■ The doctrine as it was therein stated was the doctrine in vogue when he was at the bar, but in the case of Baldrey (one of the cases cited) the whole question seemed to have been gone into with extreme care, and the learned Judges reaffirmed the old doctrine, that if there was positive inducement to worldly advantage, that that was sufficient, without inquiring whether it induced a man to say what was untrue ; because the real test was not the influence upon the man’s mind, but the dangerous nature of this class of evidence.

Sir. Buckley, in support of the presumption that the prisoner might have made an admission which was false in fact, quoted Warickshall’s case (Eyre and Hares, 1 Leach, 203), in which three men -were tried and convicted for the murder of Mr. Harrison, of Campdeu, Gloucestershire. One of them, under a promise of pardon, confessed himself guilty of the murder. The confession, therefore, was not given in evidence against him, and a few years afterwards it appeared that Mr. Harrison was alive. Mr. Izard contended that there was in what the prosecutor said to induce the prisoner to make a false statement. . His Honor said that, as at present advised, he was of opinion that the evidence was inadmissible. He was in great doubt whether he should stop the case, or allow it to go to the jury and reserve the point. Mr. Izard desired to be allowed to ask the witness a few further questions, to show in what way and under what circumstances the confession was made..

His Honor allowed the questions to be put, Mr. Buckley offering no objection. Witness then stated that on the evening when he told prisoner to go away from his place, he made no confession about stealing the 12s. until witness promised to forgive him. His Honor stopped the examination at this point, holding it to be sufficiently established by the statement of the prosecutor himself that inducement was offered.

Mr. Buckley elicited from the witness the further fact that when the prisoner went away he told him that he would forgive him the £5

he owed him, and the socks as well, and say no more about it. Mrs. Brown, Caroline Brown, and Albert Brown, the wife, son, and daughter of the prosecutor, gave evidence of an unimportant character.

Mr. Buckley submitted that there was no case without the confession, and that the confession was inadmissible. There was another daughter who, he wai« informed, knew that the money was there .for a specific purpose. It was a curious fact that the father, the mother, the son, and one daughter, were called, but this other daughter was not called. Was it not possible, therefore, that this girl, a claim upon this money, might have taken it? There was a perfect understanding that she was to have a share of it, and what proof had been brought forward to show that she had not taken it ? None whatever. His Honor reminded Mr. Buckley that he was advancing argument why the jury should not convict. It would be better to confine argument to the question of the confession. Mr. Bucldey wished to say nothing more upon the matter, only he thought it right to call attention to this feature of the case at once. Mr. Izard said he would at once admit that the evidence of the confession must be struck out of his Honor’s notes, but still he maintained that there was sufficient evidence remaining to go to the jury. His Honor said he was hardly prepared to say that there was not a scintilla of evidence to go to the jury. Of course the case, deprived of what was called “the confession/’ was 9. very limited case, but at the same time he would not feel justified in withdrawing it from the jury, as there yet remained evidence which formed no part of the confession. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summoned up, and the jury, without retiring, found the prisoner not guilty. His Honor reminded the prisoner that he had had a very narrow escape. This was not the only charge that had been brought against him, one of the two others having fallen through simply through the non-appearance of a witness. The eyes of the police would be kept upon him in future, and he would have to be extremely careful. FALSE PRETENCES. . Denis Wright was charged with having, in Aumist last, obtained from E. H. Hunt a sum of £2B 145., with intent to cheat and defraud. Prisoner was undefended. The statement of the case, given by the Crown Prosecutor, differed in no respect from that given in the Resident Magistrate’s Court by Mr. Travers, which was fully reported at the time. The facts, therefore, need not be recapitulated. Mr. Hunt testified to the prisoner coming to his place of business on the 29th June and representing to him that he wanted money. He stated that his quarter’s pay would be due on the Ist July, and that if witness would advance the amount, less about £3 for interest, at the rate of 10 per cent., he would give prosecutor an order which would enrtble him, and no one else, to draw the quarter’s half pay. Upon these representations he gave prisoner a cheque for £2B 14s. Witness did not give him any cash, nor did he cash the cheque. His Honor called attention to the form of the indictment, which charged the prisoner ■with obtaining from Ebenezer Henry Hunt the srum of £2B 145., whereas he obtained nothing’ of the sort. It was a cheque he obtained from Mr. Hunt, not a sum of money. Mr. Izard admitted irregularity in form, but contended that the money was paid to the prisoner by the bank, which acted as Mr. Hunt’s agent. TTia Honor took a note of the fact of his having called attention to the form of the indictment. The examination of the witness was continued without eliciting anything new. Mr, W. Best, cashier at the General Government Treasury, stated that, there was an arrangement between the Imperial and Colonial Governments, under which the prisoner received his money as a half-pay officer at the Treasury here. The money is paid upon presentation of a properly filled-up form, which is T 3l applied in blank by the General Government. * In the case of half-pay the money would only be paid upon the production of certain Impe- ■ rial vouchers in addition to the order. The money due to Denis Wright on the Ist July was paid to the prisoner himself, and the pay for the succeeding quarter was, he believed, also paid to the prisoner at Wanganui. In reply to prisoner, Mr. Best said he was positive the money for the July quarter was paid to him personally. Henry Davis, accountant at the Bank of Australasia, said that a cheque for £2B 145., drawn upon Mr Hunt, was paid over the counter, but he did not know to whom. His Honor said he had great doubts as to whether there was anything to go to the jury. It had not been proved that the prisoner had received the money in favor of, or derived any benefit from the cheque, which might have been cashed at the bank by somebody who had picked it np in the street. Mr. Izard said it was not possible for him to prove more than he had proved. He had proved that the prisoner had received a cheque from Mr. Hunt, and that that cheque had been cashed at the bank ; but it was, he confessed, impossible to prove to whom the money was paid. Prisoner, upon being asked what he had to say, stated that he received the money from !Mr. Hunt upon an agreement that he was to pay 10 per cent, forthe accommodation; and that when he found that Mr. Hunt had charged him a year’s interest he declined to pay the principal until the period for which interest had been charged had expired. He had nothing further to say. His Honor said he regretted to see a person who had occupied an honorable position in her Majesty’s array brought face to face with such a charge. He had great doubt as to whether, upon the evidence, the indictment, which alleged that the prisoner obtained money and not a cheque, could be sustained. Whether the evidence was or was not sufficient to sustain the indictment he proposed to reserve the point for the consideration of a higher tribunal, but as he intended to allow the case to go to •» the jury, he must tell them that they would have to determine in the first place whether he did ultimately receive the money; and, if . he did so, whether lie obtained it by falsely representing a matter of fact which he knew to be false. If they thought the fact of the money having been charged against Hunt was sufficient proof that it had been received by the prisoner from the bank, or from some other person who received it from the bank, then they might find him guilty of such false pretences as would bring him within the terms of the indictment. _ His Honor commented at length upon the evidence, and placed it before the jury in the many phases in which it was capable of being discussed. The jury, after about ten minutes consultation, asked his Honor whether it would be competent for them to find the prisoner guilty of obtaining the cheque by false pretences. His Honor said he thought he could not accept such a finding. The jury, therefore, returned a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged, but was immediately arrested on a similar charge, preferred by Mr. W. S. Moorhouse.

INDECENT ASSAULT. Thomas .Fisher wan charged with committing an indecent assault upon Catherine Docls■worth, a married woman, on the 20th January last, Mr. Moorhouse defended the prisoner. From the statement of the prosecutrix it appeared that on the day when the alleged offence was committed, prisoner called and asked to see her cousin. She told him her cousin was out, and that if ho was anxious to see her she would take him to the house where her cousin was. He then caught hold of her, Mid made indecent overtures, which she rejected. Mr. Moorhouse's cross-examination brought out the fact that the house in which the prosetrix lived was only separated from the adjoining house by a thin partition, so that cries for assistance, had any been made, must have been heard by the neighbors. The street door, and the window of the room in which the alleged offence took place, were open all the time, so that persons passing along the street could easily have heard what was passing had there been any violent conduct.

Elizabeth Steunett, cousin of the prosecutrix, was also examined, and testified to her agitated condition when she (Mrs. Steunett) returned to the house. Cross-examined by Mr. Moorhouse, this witness said that up to the time of this occurrence she had always regarded the prisoner as a very respectable man, and she had such a regard for his friendship that he was invited to a christening in the family. Counsel on both sides having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, and The jury, without retiring, found the prisoner guilty of a common assault. His Honor, in consideration of the fact that the prisoner had already undergone two months’ imprisonment, sentenced him to only two months’ imprisonment. BREAKING INTO A BREWERY! Charles Cass was charged with breaking into the brewery of Thomas Staples. The evidence for the prosecution was simply a repetition of that given in the Resident Magistrate’s Court as to the prisoner getting into the brewery through a window, and being arrested before he had stolen anything. The indictment charged the prisoner with burglariously entering the premises, but a brewery not being a dwelling-house his Honor questioned whether an indictment for burglary could be sustained. The case, however, was allowed to go to the jury, who found the prisoner guilty of feloniously entering the premises. Mr. Read, the gaoler, in answer to the Court, said that the prisoner was to three months’imprisonment in 1800 for being illegally on the premises of Mr. Halse, Tina-kori-road. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment, and reserved the case for the consideration of the Court of Appeal, the sentence to be respited until the opinion of the higher Court should be*obtained. This concluded the business on the calendar, and the Court adjourned.