SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5313, 5 April 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Thursday, April 4. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) SENTENCES. Patrick Shine, who was found guilty the previous day of robbery, was brought up for sentence. When asked if he had anything to say, he begged the Court to deal leniently with him, and promised reformation. His Honor said he must take prisoner’s previous career into consideration. He was given to understand that apart from the convictions at Wanganui and Auckland already proved, he had also been convicted at Auckland for robbery with violence, and that conviction should have been put in by the prosecution. The Crown Prosecutor explained that the reason the conviction in question had not been handed in was because there was a difficulty in proving the identity of prisoner in connection with it. His Honor expressed his opinion that the matter should have been mentioned, even if the formal’proofs were not obtainable. He would take it for granted that the Patrick Shine mentioned in the commitment was the prisoner, and if this was a mistake steps might be taken afterwards to rectify it. Shine acknowledged the commitment. His Honor said he would take it into consideration. He would give prisoner the credit of firing the revolver merely to divert suspicion from himself, but he had afterwards used a threat to the effect that if he had been armed when ar. rested he would have resisted. He was evidently a dangerous man to be at large, as there were previous convictions against him for robbery with violence and felony. He

was evidently one of those unfortunate persons to whom crime had become a secondl nature, and it would be necessary to check him for a time. He would be sentenced to ten, years’ penal servitude, the longest time allowed. In such cases all previous convictions should be brought in by the Crown Prosecutor, as it was necessary they should be taken into consideration. ALLEGED FRAUDULENT BANKRLTXCT. Francis Richard Donegbue and Robert James Parr were jointly charged with having been guilty of fraudulent bankruptcy. Mr. Izard said he prosecuted on behalf of (he Crown, and Mr. Gordon Allan defended. Mr. Allan said he wished it to be understood that the prosecution was not taken at instance of the creditors in the • estate. He took an objection to the terms of the indictment, which charged prisoners with “disposing" of goods otherwise than in the way of trade. The goods were made over under a bill of sale, aud the indictment should have read, he contended, for “pledgingor pawning.” His Honor said if prisoners were tried by the jury on the facts of the case, the point might be reserved for the Court of Appeal.

The evidence adduced was similar to that given in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Mr. E. W. Mills proved that Messrs. Donegbue and Parr had certain buggy and express bodies from him, aud they afterwards gave Mr. Mace, another creditor, a bill of sale over their property.

Henry Mace, of the firm of Mace and Arkell, brewers, said he had had business dealings with Messrs. Donegbue and Parr during the last two years. Parr made application to witness to get him to become security at the bank. Mr. Parr said he wanted £BOO to carry on the business, aud that he had offered security to Mr. Mills, but Mr. Mills would net take it, and Parr asked witness to accommodate the firm. Parr said he wanted £9OO, as he was in debt some £7OO or £BOO. He owed the Colonial Bank £3OO, aud witness signed the guarantee produced, which he gave to Mr. Warburton, the manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Te Aro. Moneys were advanced by the hank to the firm for a time, witness being security for the overdraft, until at length he received notice from the bank that the account must be closed. Donegbue and Parr were getting into further difficulties, and Mr. Parr told witness that Mr. Mills was taking out a summons against them. Witness wished to give them a chance of recovering themselves, and tried to prevent other creditors from going to extreme measures. His efforts in this direction were not successful, and he accordingly gave due notice and executed a bill of sale he held as security over the business premises and stock belonging to the firm. The goods were sold at auction to Mr. Dickson.

Mr. Allan; Was there any collusion between yourself, the prisoners, and Mr, Dickson, by which they benefited ? Witness : No, none whatever. Cross-examined : He had paid them for a buggy three months before receiving it, because they were short of money, and he had advanced them money to pay the men’s wages. He did this because they told him they would have to go through the Court if he did not assist them. He got notice from the bank to pay up the overdraft on the 7th January. He seized the property under a bill of sale on the 10th January, and sold on the 16th of the same month. - Mr. Allan, for the defence, submitted that there was no evidence of fraud. His Honor, in summing up, said Mr. Mills had only done what was right in laying this information, for the benefit of commercial morality. The jury found the accused not guilty, and they were acquitted.