SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4777, 14 July 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CHIMIN’A!/ SITTINGS. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) Mr, H. D. Bell prosecuted on hehalf of the Crown. The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday and concluded. : SENTENCES. 1 James Shennan, convicted the previous day of an attempt to commit a rape, was brought up for sentence. Prisoner called Mr. Bead, governor of the gaol, who stated that the prisoner had not been in his custody before, but he knew nothing as to his moral character. He also called Inspector Atchesoh, and afterwards made a statement which was irrelevant. ■ The Chief Justice, addressing prisoner, said that no remarks he could make were likely to have any effect. The sentence would be the highest he could inflict, viz., ten years penal servitude. The points referred to by Mr. Allan the previous day were again mentioned. They were overruled by the Chief Justice. The sentence of Elizabeth Jane Williams was further deferred. BURGLARY. Joseph Handley was charged with the robbery of money, a ring, and a coat from the European Hotel, on the night of the 24th June. He pleaded not guilty, and was undefended. - Mrs. Hausman, wife of the landlord of the European Hotel, deposed to having gone to bed tho night of the robbery at a quarter past one. Thought the doors and windows were securely fastened when she went to bed. Was sure the kitchen door was locked. • Identified the coat and a marked sixpence (produced) as her husband’s property. In cross-examination Mrs, Hausman said she was aware that Buchanan, convicted during tho present sittings of the Court, slept in her house on tho night of the robbery. She had heard, in tho bar, the bad character of Buchanan. G. Hausman identified tho coat produced. It was his, a coat which ho had been in the habit of wearing when he went out on business. Had bought it from Mr. Lewis Moss about a year ago. M. Harrison, cook at tho European Hotel, remembered the night of tho robbery. Tho kitchen window was fastened when ho wont to bed. Did not know if tho passage door was. It was shut. Got up next morning about twenty minutes past five. Was tho first up. Saw some paper on tho bench in tho kitchen where he had been accustomed to work. On talcing the paper up a sovereign fell out of it. Brought a light so as to look for tho sovereign, when he found it, as also a £5-noto. The paper proved to bo unused note-paper and envelopes. Cross-examined,: Buchanan had been employed about the hotel for some days prior to the robbery. Ho (Buchanan) had access to tho upstairs part of tho premises. Detective Darrell deposed to finding prisoner at Newell's boardinghouse, in company with Buchanan. Tho coat mentioned in the case was in Handley’s swag. He said ho bought it at Waipawa for 355. This was at 11 a.m. Went

away, and returned about 3 o’clock. Found prisoner making ready to leave the house. Arrested him and took from his pocket 13s. In silver, amongst which was the marked sixpence identified by Mrs. Hausman. Prisoner made a statement to the effect that he had lately come from Foxton, and was accidentally , a cquainted with Buchanan and Coyne. He stated that he had received the marked sixpence in change for a half-crown tendered in payment for some beer at the Thistle Inn. He called Mrs. Brady, and asked her if she recollected giving him the sixpence. Mrs. Brady, remembered his having been at her hotel, hut not as to the marked sixpence. Mr. Moss was called by the prisoner. He thought the coat mentioned was one which had been bought from his shop, but he had not sold the coat himself. Mr. Hausman had bought the suit to which it belonged from one of his assistants. _ The jury retired to consider their verdict, and while they were consulting Mr. Moss returned to court, and stated that from enquiries he had made since he had been called for the defence, he, was of opinion that the coat was not one which he had had in stock. The coats, of similar material, belonging to him were, he believed, double breasted and had two rows of buttons. This one was single breasted, and with hut one row. His Honor allowed the statement of Mr. Moss to go to the jury, who were recalled for the purpose. The jury again retired, and shortly afterwards returned into court with a verdict of not guilty. His Honor cautioned Handley to be more careful of his company in future, to which Handley desired to be allowed to reply by stating that he had only arrived. from Foxton the Wednesday previous to the Friday mentioned in the indictment, and that his. being in suspicious company wa,s accidental.

BOBBEEY WITH VIOLENCE FBOM THE PEBSON. Albert Horner, charged as above, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Gordon Allan defended the prisoner.

Frankland Valentine, landlord of the Prince of Wales Hotel, recollected the prisoner being at bis hotel. Robinson, the man from whom the money was alleged to be stolen, “ shouted” a bottle of champagne besides other drinks while there, paying him with a £5 note. Prisoner was in Robinson’s company while in the hotel, and shared in the drink. Robinson showed several notes besides the £5 note, stating it was his birthday, and that he had a lot of money. He at first said he would remain for the night, but afterwards changed his mind. Mr. Valentine urged prosecutor to leave his money with him. He thanked the landlord, and declined, saying ho would take care of his money, himself. Prisoner volunteered to see Robinson home, and they left arm-in-arm at a quarter past 10 o’clock. It was, Mr. Valentine thought, a clear night. In cross-examination Mr. Valentine said he could not say how many drinks Horner had had. Prisoner had worked for him (Valentiue), and as far as he knew was a decent man, living with respectable people. Prisoner was an express-driver, but out of employment at the time of the affair. T. Robinson stated [that he was a cook at the station of Mr. J. C. Crawford. He came into town on the day mentioned in the indictment with £22 in his possession. Prosecutor did not seem to be certain as to the exact amount of money he had at Valentine’s. His impression appeared to he that he left the hotel with about £l9. It was not shown that he had spent more than a £l, if so much, at Valentine’s. Altogether he seemed confused as to the number of notes he had. Robinson gave an account of his proceedings at the Prince of Wales very similar to what had been stated by Mr. Valentine. He then described what occurred after leaving the hotel. He had a bottle of brandy in his possession. On going a little way along the street Horner asked him for a drink. Puthis handiuhis pocket to produce the brandy, when Horner struck him a violent blow. The blow stunned him for the moment, and his next recollection was of prisoner standing over him trying to put his hand in his pocket which was protected by his belt. Tried to prevent him, when he threatened to put something in his hand into him. (Robinson could not say what Horner had in bis hand.) He kicked him (Robinson), blit without hurting him much. Prisoner then made off. Followed him and met two men to whom he related what had occurred. Furrie and Muir the two men referred to, gave evidence as to stopping Horner, and his replies to them, which his Honor thought unimportant, except his saying, in answer to a question, that nothing ■was the matter, when he could only have just left Robinson. One of the witnesses considered both himself and prisoner drunk—- “ sensibly ” drunk. Muir found Robinson’s purse about 100 yards from where he first met prisoner. The notes were not in it then. Detective Farrell deposed to having arrested prisoner. He was, when arrested, driving an express. Mr. Allan, addressed the jury for the defence, pointing out the probability of there being,merely a drunken squabble between the two men, and his Honor charged the jury, who after a short retirement acquitted the prisoner. The Court then adjourned. )