SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5003, 6 April 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Judge Richmond.) The Court sat yesterday at 10 o’clock. FALSE PRETENCES. George Augustus Chandler was charged ■with obtaining goods under false pretences from Messrs. Joseph Nathan and Co. Prisoner, who was not defended by counsel, pleaded not guilty. George Budge was the first witness. He deposed that prisoner was in his employ up to the 10th January, when he discharged him for bad conduct. Never gave him authority to buy tobacco on his behalf. George Alder Stradford deposed that he was storeman to the firm of Joseph Nathan and Co. Knew the prisoner; had seen him working at Mr. Budge’s shop door. Had seen him ‘at Nathan and Co.’s store. He used to go there for goods for Mr. Budge. He sometimes came with a written order, and sometimes without. He always signed a receiptbook. Witness remembered prisoner coming to the store on the 11th January. He stood at the door of the sample room. He asked witness’ fellow storeman for a large tin of tobacco for Mr, Budge. Witness saw the manager, and understood from him that the tobacco should be delivered, and it was given to prisoner. , The receipt was produced. Prisoner having signed the receipt, then took the tin away. Prisoner declined to question the last wit•ness. Charles East, a warehouseman in the employ of Joseph Nathan and Co., said prisoner came ’to the store at five minutes to 9 o'clock on the morning of the 11th of January. He came -for a large tin of negrohead tobacco for Mr, Budge. Consulted with Stradford, who Went to see Mr. Roxburgh, and on coming back said it was right; therefore witness gave prisoner a 151 b. tin. Alfred de Bathe Brandon, solicitor for Joseph Nathan and Co., was called to prove that Mr. J oseph Nathan was the only member of the firm, Mr. Brandon was sworn at the barristers’ 'table. His Honor, addressing Mr. Brandon, said that gentleman should not take it as a matter 'of .course that he'should not adopt the ordinary course by going into the' witness-box to give evidence. It was not,ids,,(the Judge’s) dignify he so’much regarded as the dignity of the Court.

Mr. Brandon : I was merely acting in accordance with the practice of the Court, your Honor. His Honor : I do not know that it is the practice of the Court. The highest officials in the colony take their position in the witnessbox when required to give evidence in a court of law. Moreover, I cannot make any distinction between man and man. Mr. Brandon said he had no personal feeling in the matter. It was immaterial to him where he was sworn. The evidence required was then taken, and the case proceeded with. John Lawrence, fisherman, deposed that prisoner was selling the tobacco to men in the Pier Hotel, and asked him if he wished to buy the rest. Witness gave him 10s., and took the tin of tobacco. In answer to a question put by witness as to where he obtained the tobacco, prisoner said he had got it from his brother in America. James Farrell, detective officer, deposed to arresting the prisoner. This concluded the evidence. Prisoner said he recollected nothing of the case. He had been drinking heavily about the time, and knew not what he was doing. The jury, without retiring, brought in a verdict of guilty. Prisoner, in reply to the usual question as to whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, remarked that it was the first time he had been before a court of justice, and he threw himself on the mercy of the Court. There being another charge against the prisoner, the Court deferred passing sentence. FORGERY. John Alexander Gordon was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with forging and uttering a certain cheque and order for payment of money. Mr. Allan appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Bell, the Crown Prosecutor, explained that a cheque, warrant, and authority was mentioned in the indictment, whereas, in fact, it was a promissory note, it being mentioned in the depositions.. Mr. Allan took objection to the proceedings on the ground that there was no proper description in either of the counts, and he knew of no authority for amending the indictment. The only way he could see was to add another count. His Honor said he knew of-no authority against it. Mr. Allan referred to the law on the subject, contending that to amend the indictment would be to alter the offence. Mr. Bell said he should prefer to send up another bill to the Grand Jury on Saturday. Mr., Allan said ke should ask that the prisoner be acquitted. The man was charged with forging and uttering a document described in the indictment as a cheque, warrant, order, and authority for the payment of money, but the document was really a promissory note, which was not mentioned at all. Therefore, the indictment was bad. His Honor said no doubt if the objection to amendment was substantial, and if Mr. Bell offered no evidence, it would be his duty to direct the jury to acquit. Further argument ensued as to the effect of amendment in the present instance, that was to say, whether it would not have the effect of altering the offence. Ultimately it was resolved to send another bill to the Grand Jury on Saturday, His Honor then directed the jury as to their duty under these circumstances. Prisoner was declared to be not guilty, and he was then removed from the dock, being remanded back to custody. ROBBERY. John Thorp was charged with having stolen a sum of money (£l6) from Thomas Watson, of the Pukuratahi. The evidence produced has already been published in these columns. Prisoner was found guilty by the jury, and his Honor sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. HOUSEBREAKING. George Augustus Chandler was then charged with housebreaking and stealing from the Bethel in Herbert-street certain books. Several witnesses were examined, their evidence being precisely similar to that given when the case was brought before the lower Court. Prisoner said in his defence that he was drunk at the time, and did not know what he was doing. His Honor, in addressing the jury, remarked that it was possible a man might be led to improper conduct by drink, but it appeared that prisoner must nave been capable of knowing what he was doing, there being ample evidence of premeditation. The jury without retiring returned a verdict of guilty. The sentences of the Court were that on the first charge, that of stealing the tobacco, prisoner be committed for one year; and on the second charge (that is the one just heard) one year; the sentences to run concurrently. The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock next day.