SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 18 August 1909, Page 53

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS* Monday, August 16. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat at 10.30 a.m. THE GBAND JUBY.

The Grand Jury empannelled consisted Of the following gentlemen: — Frank Oakden (who was chosen foreman), E. J. Neale, E. S. Paterson, C. A. Thompson, J. T. Croker, E. Trythall, F. H. Browne, E. Ackroyd, H. Power, W. E. Allen, D. Allen, H. Salmon, J. S. Duke, A. M. Begg, J. A. "Hopcraft, J. B. Waters, W. G. Douglas, J. Brown, and R. H. Law. HIS HOKOB'S CHARGE. His Honor, addressing the Grand Jury, feaid that bs was very glad to say that the calendar was a light one. There were eight persons charg-ed with different offences. There was one man brought up on two separate charges of breaking and entering and stealing, and there was another case of the same sort against another person. Then there was a case of where a man was charged with assaulting a police constable. There were two oases of forgery. In one of them accused was charged with altering an order for £1 16s 3d to £6 16s 3d. To alter a genuine document so 1 as to make it in effect; a false one was forgery. The other case of forgery was one in which receipts were alleged to have been altered. There was a case where accused was charged . with arson. The main evidence against him was tnat he ■was the last person seen on the premises. He ■was seen there almost immediately before the fire broke out. The depositions also showed that he made contradictory statements as to where he had been. There was a oass where accused was charged under the Police Offences Act. He was charged under that act with being a rogue and a vagabond. The facts were that he was summoned to give an account of his means,, and it appeared that he had no „ visible or lawful means of support. That was not sufficient itself to constitute him being a rogue and vagabond. In addition to that it -was necessary he should Have been previously convicted of another offence under the Police Offences Act. In the present case the depositions showed ""that he had been previously convicted of being an idle ana disorderly person. The only other offence was where a man had been bankrupt, and he was charged with not keeping proper books. Under the Bankruptcy Act it was made an offence if a bankrupt xrithin three yeara before the announcement of the bankruptcy failed to keep such books of accounts as werp usual and proper in the business carried on by him and did not sufficiently sot forth his transactions and disclose his financial position. It had to be established that accused failed to keep such books of account as were usual and proper in business and had not sufficiently set forth his business transactions and" disclosed his financial position. The question of whether there had been fraud did not appear. Bankrupt might have been perfectly honest, but if he failed in the ma*ter of keeping books he was liable to be punished.

TBT7E BILLS.

The Grand Jury found true bills on all the- indictments.

PRISONERS FOB SENTEKCE.

Alfred Genet, alias Jenkins, 44- years, ■was sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment for theft, a month being allowed for the lime lie bad been in custody awaiting sen tenoe; D*vd Rae, 42 years, received a sentence of 15 months for assault wiith intent to do bodily harm; Henry Orofton, with quite a number of aliases, was sentenced to 1? months' imprisonment for breaking and entering, and Herbert Helm to 18 months on three charges of theft.

AN ACQUITTAL.

William M'Tier was charged with making & false document for the payment of £6 16s 3d. There were two other counts. Mr Ongley appeared *or accused, who pleaded "Not guilty." Mr Macassey said the facts of the case were very simple. Accused was working for a man named Keen in connection with a riaxmill near Oamami. He finished his work on June 1 and Mr Keen gave him an order for £1 16s 3d on Mr Bennell manager of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company, Oamaru. Accused went to the Loan Company's office and presented the order, but the figures had been altered from £1 16s 3d to £6 lfis 3d. The clerk at the Loan Company's office gave him a cheque for £6 163 3d. Accused endorsed the authority, and took the cheque to the bank, where he cashed it, in company with a man named Wilson, who had also been working at the flaxmill. ' Accused v v that a mistake had baesn made ; that he had got too much money. Subsequently he was -interviewed by * the clerk of the Loan Comoany, who asked him if he had not received £5 too much. He Bind "No" and the clerk then told him that the cheque had been made out for 4-J) too much. Accused said that if the olerk went to the clerk at the bank the latter would tell him that he only got £1 16s 3d. When arrested accused made a statement in which he regretted being led into temntation, and said he would plead Guilty." Evidence for the Crown was given by James M'Kissop, c!erk to the New Zealand lx>an and Mercantile Agency Company at Oamaru; Sheldon Hugh Craddock, teller in the Union Bank of Australasia, Oamaru ; Thomas Keen owner of the flaxmill near Oamaru, at which accused had been working ; Thomas Wilson, (who said he could <not see what chance accused had of alterintr the cheque); Constable Langmuir. Accused, on being sworn, said he was a labturer. When he was paid off by MiKeen he received an order for £1 16« 3d The smudge was on the order when he got it, and he 6wore he never altered the order. He first knew a mistake was made when he presented the cheque for payment, and was asked if he would have a fivepound note or six single notes. He was surprised, and said he would take the fivepound note. He remarked to others afterwards that he had got £5 out of it, and Wilson had come to him and said how about a cut at the fiver. Witness replied ' No," that it was not his, and \Vilson threatened that he could harm him. M'Kissock afterwards came to him, and said he had made a mistake, and that he (witness) had got £5 too much. Witneee replied that he had not. He expected to ccc Mr Keen, and was going to tell him that he had got £5 too much. He did not see him, because he was arrested about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. When arrested, witness denied having altered the order. It f« wgseeted that he should

make a statement, and he said he intended to plead guilty: that was to receiving £5 too much. He was not aware what he was charged with till next morning. He could have got away if he had liked. He offered to refund the money the day after he was arrested.

Cross-examined : Accused said when he got the order from Keen he went to his hut. He did not know when he got the cheque for £6 16s 3d that he had got more than he was entitled to. He never told Wilson when he got outside the Loan Company's office that he had got too much money. He passed that remark when he came out of the bank. It was possible that he should have told the teller at the bank that he had given him too much money. He did not know how the mistake had occurred. He had no reason for not going to the Loan Company and tolling them of the mistake. He never suggested to M : Kissop when he saw he (accused) had got too much that they should go to the teller of the bank. He paid the £5 over to his boardinghouse-keeper. The constable never mentioned any charge to him when he arrested him.

Mr Ongley then addressed the jury. He submitted that there was no proof that the document had been altered. Even Wilson admitted that he could not see what chance accused, had of altering it. Learned counsel put it to the jury that Keen made a six first, and then draw a one over the top of it. His Honor, in the course of his summing up, said the suggestions of the defence was that ten orders were written out, and two of these were for £5, and that in the hurry Mr Keen put in £6 first, and then struck a one through it. It was also suggested that accused had no opportunity .of altering the figure, and if he had had the opportunity he would most certainly make use of the one already there. Accused might bo quite innocent on the first and second count, and yet guilty on the third if he got the cheque and cashed it and got £5 which did not belong to him. The question was whether he stole this £5, and whether he converted it to his own use with intent- to keep it- as his own. If he did he was guilty of theft. The jury retired at 5 minutes to 3 and returned a quarter of an hour later with a verdict of "Not guilty." Accused was therefore discharged.

ALTERING BECEIPTS. ! John M'Dougall was charged on two indictments with having, at Gore, made false documents — namely, receipts from Smith Brothers to himself for £1 17s 6d and £1 4s Bd. In each instance there were second counts of acting upon the receipts as if they were genuine. j Mr Hanlon appeared for accused, -who pleaded " Nob guilty." Mr Maoassey said in 1900 accused had resided at Owaka, and had dealings with Smith Brothers, storekeepers, at Owaica. About Sontembsr last year he went and resided at* Gore He owed some money to Smith Brothers, and in April they issued a summons to recover payment of £9 6s. Accused paid into court £5 15s 4d, which he said \va6 all he owed Smith Brothers, and applied to have his evidence taken at Gore with regard to the balance of the claim. He there put in two receipts purporting to come from Smith Brol hers— one for £1 17s 6d and another for £1 4s Bd. His defence was that he had receipts for these amounts, and he handed the receipts to the court. The one receipt purported to be dated 29th May, 1908, and was for £1 17s 6d. but the Smiths would tell the court that the receipt was given for £1 7s on the 19th December. 1906. The other was for £1 4s Bd, dated 19th May. 1908, which Smith Brothers would say was an old receipt for 6s. i,'iven by them on August 9, 1906, and which had been altered. Carbon dunlicates kept showed the original receipts. Evidence was given by George Hutchison Lain« (clerk of the Magistrate s Court, Gore), Wilford Smith, and William Harry Smith. , , Mr- Hanlon said a auestion to be submitted to the court was whether there was any evidence to go to the jury, at anyrate with regard to the second and fourth counts of the indictment: that was with actinig upon the documents as if they were genuine when he knew them to be false. Although accused's evidence had been taken on commission at Gore it was not used at the hearing of the case at Owaka, at which accused did not appear and was not represented. Unless he appeared the evidence was not considered by the magistrate His Honor said he thought Mr Hamlon's objection was rather subtle. He thought accused ■ acted on the dicuments when he put them forward as genuine before the magistrate, who was authorised to take evidence on oath, and he put them forward in the cour.se of that examination on oath. That, his Honor thought, was quite sufficient, although accused might never have taken any further proceedings concerning them. „ Mr Hanlon then intimated that he would call evidence. Accused, being sworn, said he had had transactions with Smith Bros., and owed them money when he left Owaka. He did not know exactly how mucr> he owed them when he left. Ho used to render an account "to ?oods," and did not .«how the . details. After he left Owaka Smith Bros. | applipd for payment of £9 odd, ami he did not believe he owed them «o much. lie was sued for the money, and he gave his eAidence before tho magistrate at Gore. ( One receipt— that for £14% Bd— was given ( by George Fras"r, a voun.ir follow running out goods in tho cart, and 'the other re- ' ceipt as far as he could remember, wae •men by Wilford Smith. Ho had not altered the receipt*, and he believed they , were genuine when hs ga\e his evidence at Gore. . , , To Mr M.aoa=E"v : He did r.ot go on with ; the cas-s at Owaka on account of business j troubles. Ha intended to appear. He did , net know why his evidence was not put in. | Tho initials "on the roc^ipt for £1 4s 8d i "W. S." were Wilford Smith's, though he ' got the receipt from young Fra«?r. The receipt was merely handed to him by young Kraser He was a!=o summoned by Craig, of Owaka, and he had his evidence taken at Gore. He did not appear at the Owaka wten the court bat. On that occasion he pioduced receipt?, but judgment wa? given against him. After that h" was charged witih forgery over these receipts, but the information " was dismissed. Mr Hanlon said the jury could not coitip ' to the- conclusion that the receipts and the carbon copies were identical. He emphasised the fact that accused had frankly admitted that the receipts looked as if something • had been undej- tho present figures. It might be there had been some-

thing there before, but even if there had people- in shops would often put down one thing and alter it to another. How often a person giving a receipt ma-dc some alteration in it. Mr Maoassey also briefly addressed the jury.