SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4848, 5 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor the Chief .Justice.) Wednesday, October 4. The Court resumed at 10 o'clock. CONTEMPT OP COURT. , Before proceeding with the business, his Honor said that he considered it his duty to make public a document which had been delivered to him, as Judge of the Court, during its sitting the day before. He considered it his duty, both to thejpublic and to the legal profession, that they should be informed of the nature of this communication. He then read a letter, which runs as follows : Brandon-street, 3rd October, : : Sib,—l have written to the proper authorities, the Government, complaining of your treatment to me this morning, and ever since 1 1 first appeared before you in Wellington. X am not aware of any misconduct on my part to justify such hostility as yours. I think it right to inform you that I have asked the Government for an enquiry. The statement that he was hostile to any practitioner of the Court in the administration of the law, was positively without foundation, and to say that he acted habitually so, made the matter worse. At present he had no legal knowledge as to who was the writer of the letter, but the Registrar of the Court would obtain evidence, and then the proper steps would be taken to bring the person before the Court to answer for his contempt. . THE ASSAULT AT THE HUTT. Te Puni, who was convicted yesterday, was brought up for sentence. His Honor said that the evidence as to the assault, was conclusive. It was for the prisoner to prove that he was insane, and the jury had come to the conclusion that he had not proved this fact. It was his duty as Judge to pass the sentence of the law, but it during his imprisonment it should be found that he was insane, the proper steps would be taken. The sentence of the Court was that he should be imprisoned for eighteen months, with hard labor. re laurent’s case. His Honor referred to the application which had been made to him that the prisoner might be released on baiL He understood that there was no objection on the part of the Crown ; but notwithstanding this, on looking over the authorities, he thought he could not deal with the matter. The application could, however, be renewed in a more formal manner; but he was of opinion that in offences of great gravity, to which a heavy punishment was attached, and where the evidence was conclusive, such applications should be refused if there was the slightest probability of the person escaping. On these grounds he must refuse baiL o. e. haughton's case. Further evidence was adduced, and on the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Buckley, on behalf of the prisoner, submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury. His Honor refused to' take the case out of the hands of the jury, and Mr. Gordon Allan addressed them for the prosecution, and Mr. Buckley for the defence. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict at J 15. They subsequently returned with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner left the court, FELONY. Alfred Minifie was charged with the above offence, the indictment containing several counts for detaining and opening post-office letters. The prisoner, a small boy, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Bell for the prosecution, Messrs. Buckley and Barton for the defence. Mr. Bell made some observations regarding the probability of a difficulty arising out of the wording of certain counts in the indictment, which spoke of prisoner as a post-office servant. At the suggestion of his Honor the matter was left to the jury. Mr. Bell, in opening the case, mentioned that the indictment contained six counts, the first three of which charged him with opening, detaining, and delaying letters, as a servant of the post-office, while the last three charged liim as an ordinary person. The boy was not absolutely a post-officer—was a messenger in the Telegraph department; but the prosecution contended that he came within the definition of a post-officer within the 65th section of the Act, because he was appointed by an officer under the Postmaster-General, and was employed during spare hours in the post-office, although he did not receive any extra pay for such work. Mr. Bell then gave an idea of the direction which the evidence would take, and called Louis Fred. Clayton, who deposed that he was postmaster at Masterton. The officials were Mr. Field and a messenger, the prisoner. By the Court: Prisoner’s appointment as telegraph messenger was in writing. He had no appointment as having anything to do at the post-office. By Mr. Bell: Prisoner acted as telegraph messenger. He had access at all times to the post-office, when it was open. He performed duties in connection with the office which Mr. Field and witness had to perform. Witness was in charge of both departments, Mr. Field being-a cadet in the telegraph-office. Prisoner oocasionallystamped' and sorted the letters. He was under witness’s orders. He swept out the room. The postmark on the envelope produced is that of Masterton, sth of August. There was only' onestamp in the office bearing the word Masterton. 1 The rule is for the mail to close in the evening at'. 7 o’clock, but the regular practice since witness had been there was to leave the mail open till six in the morning. All letters

to 6 o’clock in the morning would bear the stamp of tie previous day, but after 5 o!clbck on -Saturday and up to 6 o’clock on ; Monday morning tie letters might be stamped ,with„Satjirday or Sunday’s mark. The one stamp-witness had nentioned was always kept in the post-office, anl never left it save when witness occasionally took it over to the printing office. Witness could only tell by the stamp on the envelope produced that the letter was posted at the Makerton Post-office.-Cross-examined by Mr. Barton : There were six rooms in Ihe house besides’the office. Witness lived there with his aunt and brother and siker. The office was kept open from 9 rm. to 5 p.m. for postal and telegraph pirposes, and on to 7 o’clock in the evening oi Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Eridayi. The Sunday hours were different. Mr. Eidd had access to the office during office hours, ■ After hours witness locked the door, and kept the key himself, except when he hung it up on a nail in the passage from 6 o’clock in the morning and a. few minutes before 9 o’clock, when the key was in possession of prisoner, who let himself into sweep the office out.., Could not swear thatprisoner was in the office alone on the sth or 6th of’ August. Witness’s attention was not called tothe letter produced until three weeks after the 6th August. Witness did not know that prisoner ever gave letters to persons coming tothe office for them. Had given him letters todeliver. Ee-examined by Mr. Bell; Did not think it likely that he could give to prisoner a letter for Wellington among those for delivery in Masterton. , By the Court: The only reason he had for swearing to the stamp was that it was similar to the office stamp. William Lowes deposed that he was a sheeps farmer in, Masterton. The envelope and cheque he held in his hand .were in his handwriting. Theotherpieceofpaperwas an account. Kememberedposting these papers, fastened in an envelope, in the Masterton Post-office on the evening of the 4th or sth. George McPortland was the next witness examined. He was a farmer at Carterton. He; and his daughter were walking on the Carter--ton road towards Greytown, his daughter, a* child, being in front. She brought a- letter and showed it to him, saying, “ See, father, T have picked up a letter,” He did noiJ-aee her pick it up. He could not identify the- letter,, not being able to read. He gave the letter to a man, who opened,' read it, and subsequently sent it to the police station. 1 By the Court : The letter was open when it was picked up. Charles Minifie deposed that he was brother of the prisoner, who was within a month of 12 years of age. Saw prisoner between Carterton and Grey town on the same Sunday that he saw Cowper. Saw prisoner two miles on the Greytown side of Carterton. Met him at the tollgate, and they both proceeded to Kurapuni, where their mother’s house was situated.

Frederick Thomas Cowper stated that he was a cadet in the Greytown office. He had seen prisoner on the 6th of August, and he told him he had started out to Greytown to meet his brother, and that having seen him he returned. '

Mr. Buckley cross-examined the witness with the view of ascertaining how he came to recollect so well the particular date on which he had seen prisoner. The examination occupied considerable time, counsel eliciting that witness had told the elder Minifie that he had a bet on as to the date of the sixth, and that he and the operator or cadet at Masterton had been communicating with regard to prisoner and the abstraction of a letter.

Constable O’Connor deposed that he had received the letter produced. Saw prisoner on the 29th August in a room at the rear of the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Was alone with the prisoner for a minute or two. Asked him to tell the truth as to how he came by that, letter. He might have said to prisoner, “It will be better for you.’’ Did not say,. “ You’re there, are you, and there you'll stay until you tell the truthbut did say, “Come here till I speak to,you.” , Said to him, “Tell me how you came by the letter which was taken from the Masterton Post-office. He did not hear Constable McKenzie say to prisoner,. “You had better tell the truth; I am not going to lock you up now. Sit down.”

Mr. Barton submitted that the confession of the boy could not be admitted in evidence, because in the first place there was nothing to show that Constable O’Connor had the first conversation with the boy, and secondly that • he could not give evidence as to what McKenzie said; and it was to be assumed that the boy had not made a voluntary confession. His Honor took this view: of the case, and after authorities had been looked up, directed the jury accordingly. A verdict of not guilty was brought in, and v Minifie was discharged. The Court adjourned at half-past five till 10o’clock next morning.