SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4466, 13 July 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July 12. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and juries of twelve.) Mr. Izard appeared for the Crown. THE GRAND JURY. ■ The following .gentlemen were sworn as a Grand Jury :—Messrs. Dransfield (foreman), Binns, J. Staples, Mountain, Kreeft, Young, Hutchison, W. V. Jackson, J. H. Wallace, Thomas Mason, E. S. Ledger’, Kehbell, Bishop, Gandy, Joseph Dyer, Capper, Hester, O’Shea, J. A. Allen, Rees, Vennell, J. Billing, E. H. Hunt. his honor’s charge. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—There are five prisoners awaiting trial, but none of the cases present any great difficulty, so I shall merely address you with a few observations in each case. There is a charge of assault with intent to rob. In this case it is desirable for you to remember that to sustain a charge of this nature it is not at all necessary that the person assaulted should have been actually struck. The assault in this case is alleged to have been with intent to rob, and from the evidence which will be brought before you, you will have to judge whether there was such an intent. Probably there will be evidence that there was ajt ‘Exhibition of force, though no blow was made. However, it is a matter entirely for you ; it is not a question of law, but you will have to bring your common sense to the consideration of the matter. You will have to take into account the time and place at which the assault is alleged to have been committed, and also the language alleged to have been used, and in considering this, judge whether there was an intent to rob, or whether there was a harmless intent. That is entirely a matter for you. I may say, as I dare say you have been told before, that it is not the province of the Grand Jury to try the case, but merely to inquire whether, there is a case to go to the common jury. Then there is a case of rape. In this case you will find that the person making the charge is a girl of tender age, about fourteen years, I believe, and you will probably find that evidence will be given of marks upon her body which will go to corroborate the evidence of the perpetration of the offence. Probably you will look for some corroboration in evidence of complaint of the offence having been made shortly after, or within a limited time after, the occurrence, and probably there will be evidence of both. I may mention that where a person of so young an age as fourteen or fifteen is attacked, there may be reasons satisfactory to you why a complaint should not have been made at so early a period as in the case of a person of more mature age. A young person is not so ready to divulge such a matter, either from fear or in ignorance of the harm done to her. Of course, it is quite right for you, in your position, to see that there is sufficient evidence to enable you to find a true bill, though, as I remarked in the previous case, it is not your province to try the issue, but to inquire whether there is a prima facie case. The next case is a charge, of cattle stealing. With regard to the evidence in this case, I may remark that one presumption of the law is that where stolen property is found there the felony lies, and that if a man is found in possession of property that has been recently stolen, and can give no good account of it, the presumption is that he is the thief. In this case, though the evidence will probably be satisfactory to the extent that the property alleged to have been stolen will be proved to have been the property of the person said to have been deprived of it, the question will arise, did the prisoner steal it. There may be no direct evidence to be brought forward to prove that he was seen taking it ; but there may be evidence that the property was found in his possession within a comparatively short time after the loss had been discovered, and if that be so, that is evidence against the prisoner. If there is evidence that the property was stolen, and that prisoner was found in recent possession of it, that is sufficient for you to require a satisfactory explanation of how he came by it, and whether that explanation is satisfactory will be for the common jury to determine. Then, there is a charge of perjury. In a charge of this nature there are five matters which must be proved satisfactorily—that there was a false oath, that the oath was taken in judicial proceedings, that it was administered by a competent court, that the evidence given was material to the issue, that the false swearing was done deliberately. The evidence in the case to be brought before you will probably disclose that the oath was taken in the Besident Magistrate’s Court here in Wellington, so that that will prove that the oath was taken in the course of judicial proceedings, and that the oath was administered by a competent court. It will also probably be proved that the person against whom the charge is made had sworn one way upon one occasion, and directly opposite upon a subsequent inquiry. There can be no doubt about falseness when a person swears one way at one time and another way at another time. Evidence will probably be given you that the truth was spoken upon the first occasion, and that it was upon the second information that the false oath was taken. If that is so, and the materiality to the issue of the statement made is also shown, the proof of perjury will be pretty clear. The next case is a charge of false pretences. I do not know that I need say much upon this subject. To establish a charge of false pretences, it is necessary that the false pretence shall be shown to have relation to an existing fact—not merely to something past or something in the future, but an allegation or a promise in respect to an existing fact. In this ease it is alleged that the person charged gave another person a document authorising him to receive a sum of money, and induced him to advance a certain sum in consequence. But it was alleged that the person making the statement had gained the money advanced by means of a false pretence, because he had previously to giving the document rendered it valueless by having previously given to some other person the same authority. In fact, that he knew, when giving the authority, that it was not a valid authority, because he had deprived himself of the right to the money by giving another person power to draw it. That will probably be the evidence. You will have to be satisfied that when the authority was given the person charged knew he was making a false pretence because his right to the money was abandoned. I may tell you at once that a false pretence-need not be actually made in words. Yery hften . false pretences are made and no words used. i Eor instance, people give valueless cheques. Frequently,' as yon know, persons give cheques or orders upon their bankers, knowing at the same time they have no funds, or insufficient funds, to their credit at tho bank to meet the cheque, and have no idea that funds will - be placed there for the purpose. That is. a false pretence. In this case it may be that you will have no evidence of any words used which can be said to be false. But you will consider the fact whether they are sufficient to satisfy you that there was a false pretence. I now dismiss you to consider your verdicts. TRUE BILLS. True bills were found in the cases Regina v. Murray, Regina v. Wood, Regina v. Wright, and Regina v. Cameron. No bill was found against John Enwright, charged with perjury. . PRESENTMENT. The foreman of the Grand Jury addressed his Honor in the following terms ; “We, the Grand Jury of the province of Wellington, desire to avail ourselves of the occasion of pur meeting your Honor for the first time as Judge presiding at the circuit sittings of this, Court, to congratulate your. Honor upon your promotion to the highest legal position in the colony, and to express our hope that your Honor may he long spared to occupy it. “ At the same time we beg to make the following presentment: Your Btonor’s predecessor as Judge for this district frequently called attention to the inadequate accommodation afforded in this city for the administration of justice by the highest tribunal of the colony, and pointed out the very great discomforts to which all who were engaged in this important duty were consequently ex-

posed. We regret to observe, however, that these representations have produced no results, and that the inconveniences occasioned by the insufficiency of the accommodation, so often alluded to by him, may be said to have increased rather than diminished. We would respectfully request your Honor to represent to the Government the expediency of taking steps without delay for removing the causes of complaint which exist' on this head amongst all classes of persons whose duties require their attendance in this court.

“We would also beg to present to your Honor the continued absence of any proper means of classifying the prisoners confined in the public gaol. We observe that additions are now being made to this establishment, but we fear- that they will not be sufficient to fully carry out this object, and we venture to suggest that your Honor should bring it before the proper authorities.”

His Honor, in reply, said : Gentlemen, I shall with very great pleasure forward this to the proper quarter, and I have as- doubt whatever that the presentment will receive that attention which it deserves, as emanating from a body of gentlemen so well able to speak on the subject. With regard to the courthouse, I may say that not very long since—about a year ago—a number of the members of the legal profession and the Judges represented to the Colonial Secretary that it was absolutely necessary that some alterations should be made so as to afford increased accommodation, and I have no doubt that the representations then made and so well received, are being attended to, and that something is intended to be done in the matter. But at that time the site on which this building is erected could not long be retained for the purposes of a supreme court, but whether that idea is still held or not I cannot say. About a fortnight or three weeks ago I again represented to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bowen) how very inadequate the present accommodation is, and he then said if I would draw up a sort of a scheme or plan of temporary alterations that, he would endeavor to get it carried out shortly. Of course, in respect to a new building he could not say anything. There were the other members of the Government to be consulted, and the question will rest mainly with the representatives of the people. It is highly probable that something Will be done before long, and it is clear that something should be done in order to give increased accommodation. The presentment that you have made I shall forward to the proper quarter, and it will doubtless have the effect of giving weight to any representations that I may make. Allow me to say that for that p rtion of this document which refers to myself I sincerely thank you for your congratulations. It gives me very much pleasure and gratification to he located amongst persons who, for the last eight or ten years, I have esteemed so highly. His Honor then discharged the jury, thanking the gentlemen for their services on behalf of the colony. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB. Frank Murray was charged with having on 26th June assaulted with intent to rob Henry Ashton. The prisoner was undefended. The circumstances of the case are fresh in the minds of our readers, basing been fully reported in our issue of 19th June. The jury, after a short consultation, convicted the prisoner, and he was remanded for sentence. CATTLE STEALING. John Wood was charged with having on 23rd September stolen a heifer and calf, the property of Neville Walker and others ; on a second count he was charged with stealing a cow and calf, the property of Neville Walker and others. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. B. A. Buckley, instructed by Mr. McLean, of Bull’s. Jury.—Sam Howard (foreman), George Wallace, C. H. Lowe, Thomas Bowler, D. Robertson, C. E. Knegg, G. Anderson, C. S. Wright, G. Sykes, Joseph Putney, H. Hills, Charles Hearsley. Mr. Izard having opened and stated the particulars of the case, explaining that the two counts were really hut the one, the information having been so framed to meet technical requirements, called Neville Walker, who proved that he, in company with others, owned a squatting station. In July, IS 74, he was in the neighborhood of Raugitikei buying cattle. He bought fifty head from a Mr. Watkins, and a week or two subsequently branded the cattle MW. The brands were put on in various places. The cattle were then placed in a secure paddock. He never missed any of them from this paddock, nor from another paddock iu which they were placed ; but subsequently he gave them in the charge of a man named McKenzie to drive to Taupo, in company with 350 others. When the mob reached Taupo many were short. Being aware that forty were in a certain place, he authorised a Mr. Euderby to get these forty, and to bring up to the station any others that might be found bearing the brand of the firm, or that of Mr. Moorhouse—a bell. • . ■ ,

Cross-examined by Mr. Buckley : I know nothing whatever about this particular cow, although I believe I branded her with others. After purchasing the cows I placed them in the charge of McKenzie and Hammond. Those men are not here to-day, and I do not know what became of them. I believe Hammond is working at Wanganui, and that McKenzie bolted. The latter did not deliver all the cattle I gave him charge of. Cattle sometimes stray when being driven in new country. It is not a frequent occurrence if they are properly looked after. Charles linderby proved that he lived at Wanganui, and was in the habit of driving cattle. Towards the end of last year was employed by Mr. Walker to drive some cattle. Seville Walker re-called, said he had sold half a dozen by auction. He understood these were found by Mr. Watkins. He could not tell what cattle were sold, or when they were sold.

Charles Enderby continued : Was instructed to pick up all cattle with the MW or bell brand. That was about the end of last year or beginning of the present year. Was to collect cattle anywhere between Wanganui and Taupe. In January, at Bull’s, found a white heifer with a few red spots about the neck, branded MW, also S with a bar above. From the latter brand he believed the heifer had previously belonged to Mr. Watkins. Saw prisoner and claimed the cow. Prisoner said, “ If you have a better right to it than I have you can take it.” He said further he had purohasedit from aman named Jack J ones, but could not produce a receipt. Offered to allow witness to take the heifer, and said he supposed he would have to pay for a calf from the cow which he had sold to Stevens, a butcher. Cross-examined : First saw Woods at the end of January. Bald the information same day.

Was it not three months after that the information was laid ?—No.

How long before it was tried ?—Two or three months.

The information was sworn same day, and the magistrate. Major Willis, granted you a warrant, and yet the investigation did not take place for two or tliree months afterwards ! —No.

You have had some experience in cattle driving ?—Yes. Also in cattle stealing ?—No. Were you not tried in Christchurch for cattle stealing ?—Yes ; and honorably acquitted. Were you not tried also in Nelson ?—No. Were you not tried in Nelson on 16th May, 1860, and found guilty, and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment?—Yes. That was for stealing a watch ?—Yes, Were you also tried for some other offence—poisoning, or something of the sort I —No. There was no suspicion of you ?—No. Hid not see the cattle given into the hands of McKenzie, and never saw the cattle. Could not say whether a person named Jack Jones had been employed. Occasionally, in a wild country like Bull's, cattle would knock up and stray, and then drovers have authority to sell. Prisoner was open and frank when I saw him. Claimed cattle with this M W brand from, several other people. Some have not given up the cattle. Did not lay information against them because they produced receipts from

Cummings and McKenzie. A man named O’Hara had some cattle, but had a receipt from Cummings. Did not ask prisoner to pay for the calf, nor ask him to return the cow. Mr. Buckley called witness's attention to the fact that he had stated the opposite at the . Wanganui police court. Witness believed he had hot said the words attributed to him. Re-examined: There is not much prospect of cattle straying at Bull’s. Robert Stephens, butcher at Bull s, proved that Enderby had shown him a cow and calf, the former about three years old. Had seen the cow six or eigdit months before at kins’s, and afterwards running about the township at Bull’s. It was supposed to be the property of prisoner. Prisoner offered to sell a calf which had come from the cow. Witness bought it for £2, , Cross-examined i It is easy to lose cattle in the hush at Bull’s ; a driver the other day lost some. The sale of the calf was open, and no concealment was attempted. Constable McAnulty proved tlm arrest of prisoner for cattle stealing. Told him he was charged with stealing a white cow. He said he had bought it from a man named Hammond for .£2. Cross-examined by Mr. Buckley * The conversation took place on the way to the lock-up. Arrested prisoner before he got the warrant. Knew the warrant was in existence, and arrested him on the strength of instructions from Wanganui by telegraph. To his Honor : He did not say who Hammond was. A man named Poad, who was present at the time of the arrest, said, ii Why, that’s Hammond that has just got off at the Wanganui assizes,” "Witness believed prisoner referred to that man.

Cross-examined : X think I said to prisoner he would see Hammond the next day as he went to Wanganui. lam sure he did not say that he was arrested at his own house about five o’clock. I declined to allow him to go into his house* During the investigation Hammond was brought to the door. I don’t know that prisoner said, u That s not the man I bought the cow of.” Inspector Atchison proved that he bad instructed the constable to arrest the prisoner. At the Wanganui court Hammond was acquitted of cattle stealing. - Hammond being brought in to "Woods, he said that was not the man he bought the cattle of. To Mr. Buckley : I have frequently warned prisoner, and upon one occasion told him I would prosecute him under the Vagrant Act. That was because I knew his house to be the resort of thieves.

This was the evidence for the Crown. Mr. Buckley submitted there was no case to go to the jury. There was no proof that prisoner was in possession of any animal such as that mentioned in the indictment. There was no evidence to connect him with the stealing of the cow, the property of Walker and Co. His Honor said there was evidence that Walker bought cattle from a certain person about six months previously. These were branded with Watkins’s brand—S with bar—and it was also proved that they had Walker’s brand on them. They were then entrusted to the care of McKenzie and Hammond to drive up to the station, though very few of them ever reached the station. : About three months after, a cow with Watkins’s brand, and also the brand of M W, said to be that of Walker and Co., was found running about Bull’s. In the meantime the cow had a calf, and this was sold to a butcher by prisoner, and the cow was afterwards also found in prisoner’s possession. Mr. Buckley said that might be so, but there had been no evidence adduced to show that the person in whose charge the cattle had last been had not disposed of it to prisoner; and even assuming it had been-lost, the possession of it by prisoner did not amount to a felony. TTia Honor said if a person took possession of property which he knew was not his own that was felony, and a person seeing other people’s brand on a cow must know that it was not his property. After some further discussion. His Honor said he should not withdraw the case from, the jury. Mr.Tzard having summed np the evidence for the Crown, ,

Mr. Buckley addressed the jury for the defence, and begged them to banish all prejudice that might have been engendered owing to knowledge of prisoner’s previous character. He commented on the unusual occurrence of the Inspector of Police getting into the box and giving evidence to a certain degree worthless. Apparently there was animus on the part of the police. That was evidenced by the anxiety displayed to get a conviction. TTir Honor checked Mr. Buckley, remarking he could not allow unfounded imputations to be made upon witnesses. He considered the evidence of the Inspector quite relevant. ‘MV Buckley did not desire to impute any unfounded imputations, but with all respect to His Honor, he must say he had observed an undue anxiety on the part of the police. The learned gentleman commented on the fact that the case had been brought down from the Wanganui court, and asserted that the police were afraid to have the case tried there. He complained that Hammond and McKenzie had not been "brought down, and'contended that prisoner’s denial that he had purchased it from Hammond at the police court was quite straightforward. As for the remark that he had bought the cow fr6m Jaqk Jones, it was consistent with his conduct. It was more than probable that the cow had been sold to him by one of the cattle drivers,‘who often take other names- Take, for instance, the case of Enderby, who, according to own statement, was not a valuable witness. He would have had no hesitation in changing his name. There was nothing in the evidence to show that prisoner had at all concealed the Jenifer, and it was probable that he had purchased the cow from the man J ones, who . had sold it in an assumed name, under the power usually given to drovers, viz., to sell animals that knocked up or became incapable of travelling. He submitted, with confidence, there was no evidence beyond the barest suspicion, and he felt sure that the jury would not convict a prisoner upon the weak evidence brought forward by the Crown. His Honor then summed up, and explained that according to law where recently stolen property was found there the felony lay. "When a prisoner was found in possession of the stolen property, it was his place to give a satisfactory account of it—the burden of proof was thrown from the prosecution on to the prisoner. His Honor read . several apropos passages from various text books, to show the state of the law, and then brought under notice the leading facts of the case;

The jury, after a short deliberation, acquitted prisoner, and he was discharged. OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Dennis Wright was charged with having on the 4th July, 1874, obtained from William Sefton Moorhouse, by means of a false pretence, a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for £lO 9». Cd. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. Allan. Jury.—Messrs. Sykes (foreman), Eades, G. Wallace, Agate, Bowler, Isaac, Tolley, Clapham, Joseph Hall, Hearsley, Hobbs, John Knight. The evidence in this case has already appeared at length in our columns, on the occasion of prisoner’s being committed for trial at the Resident Magistrate’s Court. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.