SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8349, 8 February 1913, Page 13

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS CHARGES AGAINST YOUTHS. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were continued before his JJo Mr Justice Chapman yesterday. Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown. ALLEGED BREAKING AND ENTERING. Walter Krausch and James O’Neill wore charged with, on November 3Utn, breaking and entering the shop or Andrew Beggs by night and stealing one tin of biscuits, 2Ulb of tobacco, and a watch, of the total value of £' Os fw. Mr Samuel appeared for Rrauscn, who pleaded not guilty. O Neill, who was represented by Mr V ilford, admitted tho charge, and was remanded ror 60 Jolm °brr, manager of Mr Beggs’s shop, said n© left the shop at about 10.30 p.m. on November 30th, and just previously he noticed CVNeiU watching him through tho window. Witness was then counting the money. Ho went to the shop next day, round it had boen entered and goods stolen. Elizabeth Sinclair, housekeeper for Thomas Ridout, said that on the day following the burglary accused was at Ridout's house, and they were talking about tobacco, and Ridout told Krausch to take the tobacco away or ho would get into troublo. She also heard Krausch say it came from Beggs’s shop. A man named Spindler took it away. Thomas Ridout said accused left tho tobacco at his house the night the theft was committed, and he told him to take it away on the following day. He was arrested on a charge of receiving stolen property, but the charge was withdrawn. Detective Mason said that on December 10th last, after the accused had been before tho court, he charged him with breaking into Beggs’s shop, and he made no reply. He later said he knew nothing about the Chinaman’s shop, but he might know something about Beggs. Mr Samuel did not call evidence, and the jury retired at 12.5 p.m., and returned at 2.40 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. James O’Neill was charged that, on November 26th, he did break and enter the shop of Qwong Yung and steal £1 3s in money and twenty packets of cigarettes, valued at 8s 6d. He pleaded guilty, and was remanded for sentence. Walter Krausch, William Henry Bades, Seddon Reid, and James O’Neill were then charged with -having broken and entered the shop of Mun Dick and Hung Yung and stolen £65 in money and 25 packets of cigarettes valued at 12s 6d. Mr Samuel appeared for Krausch and Mr V. R. Meredith for Eades and Reid, and they pleaded not guilty. O’Neill pleaded “guilty.” Mun Dick said that on the date in question ho was in his'shop till about 7.16. He was about to go out when a young man came to the back door and asked for cigarettes. Witness replied that he did not have any, and the young man went away. He then locked the door and went up the street. At that time there was 10s in the till and upstairs in a box he left £3B in gold," £22 in silver, and £1 IQs in copper. When he returned he found | his premises had been broken into and the money had been stolen, besides 25 packets of cigarettes. Hun o, Yung, who is in partnership with Mun Dick, gave evidence similar to that of tho previous witness. When ho left tho shop he had £3 of his own, in a box upstairs, and he knew Mun Dick had £62 in a box in the same storey. He recognised the tin produced as the one that had held the money. There were finger prints on the tin, and Detective Cassells told him not to touch it. ~ , • . . Elizabeth Sinclair said she knew the accused Krausch and O Neill. On Sunday, December 10th Krausch told her he had broken into the Chinamen’s shop and had got about £6O and had given O’Neill £lO. Ho offered her money, but she refused to take it. He also told her he was going to Auckland. Thomas Ridout also gave evidence. Detective Hammond said that on December 16th at Auckland ho interviewed Krausch. who was about to leave for Sydney with' a map named Spindler. Krausch denied all knowledge of tho robbery, BE© admitted to witness that Spindler had paid his faro to Auckland and intended paying his fare to Sydney. Witness charged him With the offence on the following morning and he replied; “You don’t know what you are talking about.” What belongings Krausch had were in Spindler’s bag and he got them on the Maheno. Krausch only had 6d on him when arrested and Spindler had £25 odd on him. „ . . Edmund Walter Dmnie, finger print expert, said that he found one clear print on tho tin obtained from Mun Dick and it was identical with Krausch’s finger prints taken at Auckland. Detective Mason gave evidence as to the arrest of Reid and Eades. The hearing of the case was then adjourned till this morning. “AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE.” Albert John Udy, found guilty on Tuesday of wilfully destroying a house at Carterton, appeared for sentence. ‘ His Honor said he had given very careful consideration to the matters mentioned by counsel and to the whole of the circumstances of this very exceptional case. He had come to the conclusion that in the circumstances it was not necessary at present to pass sentence on Udy. This, however, did not mean that sentence would not bo passed. The crime he had been found guilty of was one fraught with the very greatest danger, and it was a wicked and spiteful crime. _ Hq did not know what prisoner’s motive was, but he accepted the statement that Udy’s moral sense was clouded at tho time by drink and his mind was not correctly balanced. Tho reason why he (his Honor) did not consider imprisonment necessary was that tho crime was so rare and so unheard of that an example to others was not necessary and it was not likely to occur in that district again, at all events. The prisoner took care that no injury should be clone to human life and also took care to remove the horse and trap. That showed there was some glimmering of proper feeling when he took those precautions. It had been ■suggested that tho prisoner might become a proper citizen, and he was going to give him an opportunity. The conditions would be somewhat severe, and would leave him with the liability of being brought before court at any moment. If it -was reported that he was in any way misconducting himself ho would receive very short shrift, and would be brought up’ and sentenced for this crime. He would he convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. He would have to present himself on August 4th to bo sentenced if the court thought fit, and

if ho was not sentenced then, the ha* bility ■would not cease, but would hang over him. His Honor said he did not intend that the Crown should bear the cost of this iniquitous case, and prisoner would have to pay £32 13s 7d to the police at Carterton by August 4th. Udy would also have to obtain a report from the police at Carterton as to his conduct and obtain a report from a doctor as to his continued sobriety. In reply to his Honor prisoner said ho understood the conditions. CIVH- LIST. His Honor Mr Justice Chapman fixed tho following dates yesterday for civil Ca, jfuesday, February 11.—-William Nicholson v. David Taylor, claim tor £4lB 10s 2d, alleged to be due tor goods sold. Margaret Wedderspoon y. Richard Wedderspoon, petition tor <uV February 13—Undefended divorce cases, as follow: Matthew Dixon v. Flora S. Dixon: Victoria May Werthoim v. Frank Philip Wertheim; Frances Fynes v. Charles Fynes; Hose Florence Porham v. Thoophilus William Perham; Annio Ashton r. Charles Ashton: and Mary Willcox r. Thomas Edward Willcox. Friday, February 21.—John Bateand Isabella Rose v. the Equity Boot Company, Ltd., and William Hannatin, application for injunction, etc. Monday, February 17.—George Luke and others v. Henneth Douglas, declaration, etc. _ ... . Tuesday, February 18.—Wellington City Council v. Hamilton Gilmer ana others, claim for £3O 13s lOd, alleged to be due for rates, _ Wednesday, February 10. Lilias Anne Watson v. Jessie Watson and Robert Tannahill Watson, declaration, etc. „ , . , Thursday, February 20. —Frederick John Northcott v. Henry Hughes, Ltd., claim for £I4OO damages, alleged to bo duo for breach of contract, to be heard before a special jury of twelve. Friday.—February 21.—John Bateman Harcourt and Charles James Stanton Haroourt v. Elizabeth Green, claim for £242. 2s, alleged to bo due on mortgage. Other Cases.—No fixture has been made for the following cases: Pukuvveka Sawmills, Ltd., v. the Taringamutu Totara Sawmills, Ltd., claim for £13,000 damages alleged to be due for trespass, to be heard before a common jury of twelve; J. and A. M. Wilson v. C. J. S. Haroourt, claim for £404 3s Id, alleged to be duo for work done; Luigi Cerchi v. Wellington City Council, claim for £3OO damages, alleged to bo duo in respect of nuisance; William Turnbull v. Robert Hannah, claim for £395, alleged to bo duo for work done; John Prouse and Philip Harry Putnam v. Garnet Stafford Matthews, claim for £465 18s lOd, alleged to be due on mortgage; James Ernest Gear v. Reginald Alfred Harris, application to ffesemd agreement, ete.; John' Fuller v. Alice Gertrude Mary Fuller and Henry Percy Harris, petition for divorce, to bo heard before a common jury. of twelve.