CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 25 August 1909, Page 30

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Tuesday, August 17 (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

FALSIFVIKG RECEIPTS.

The hearing of the charges ajrainst John M'Dougall of altering two leceipl, for the paj ment of money was resumed, Mr Macassey representing the Crown, and Mr ilaniou appearing for accused.

His Honor asked Mr Maca. c sey if the young man Frasor. -iho aec-used had stated the 2^re\ious day had handed him one of the receipts, was in town, and, receiving an answer in the negative, said of course, in that case, Mr Macassey could not call him His Honor then summed up, and iv doing so said that A the receipts were placed upon the carbon copies and everything corresponded, except the suggested alterations, it wouid be difficult, to believe thr.t the receipts were not the receipts given in 1906.

The jury retired at five minutas to 31, and returned at half-p:<.st 12 with a verdict of '" Not guilty," and the accused was discharged.

BBEAKIN'G AND ENTEEIXG

Reginald Baber vas indicted with having, between June 12 and 19, at Higheliff, broken and entered a dwelling with intent to steal. There were two other counts.

Mr Hanion appeared fcr accused, _ who pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Macassey said Mr Anderson, the prosecutor, lived at Mornington, and had a countiy house at Higheliff, where he spent the ■ueek-end. He visited the placs on June 12, and found that the lock of the kitchen door had been broken. He had a new lock put on, and again visited the house on June 19, and found the kitchen door liad been broken open, and certain articles were missing. He placed the matter in the hands of the police, and accused was interviewed at his house, about 200 yds away from Anderson's place. The corstable noticed a lamp hanging up in accused's house, and asked how he came by it. He replied that it was his own lamp, and that i:e had brought it from home, and had had it for ages. He* was arrested, and was brought to the Police Station, where he staled that he was out one night, when his lamp went out, and he went into Anderson's house through the skylight and took his lamp. He said he knew Anderson. , Evidence wus gi\en by Miller Anderson. John Smith (/lark, Constable Rings, and Sub- inspector Norwood. Mr Hanlon said accused did not deny that he had gone into the bousp and taken away the lamp. He took away the one lajap and left the other, the * wc l. 'amps befnEr almost precisely similar. Was the jury going to say that because Baber went in and took the lamp under these circumstances that he should be convicted on any one of the count 3. Anderson had said if he had known it was Baber it would never have got into the hands of the police. To convict thp prisoner on the first count the iurv had to find that accused had broken and entered the premises with the inten•<on -if f->iii)! ; f-iirig- a crime Learned r-ounsal referred to the other counts, and asked, Was the jury satisfied accused had °tolen the lamp with the intention of converting it to his own use and depriving these peopla of it.'

His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 4 o'clock, and returned 10 minutes later wuh a verdict of " Not guilty." Accused v.as then discharged from custody.

A ROGUE AND A VAGABOND.

Wilha it Luly pleaded "Not guilty" to being a rogue and a vagabond.

Mr Maca«sey sdid this was a class of offence that very rarely came before a jury, but accused had elected to come before a iury The offence was one undar ' The Polioe OfiWces Act, 1908." The jury had to 1>? satisfied (hat accused had insufficient law fal means of support in order to find him guilty. Ai] the police bnd to establish was that a person accused v/as not possessed of law ful means of support, and they could do that by sayinpr they had had ojipoi tun-lips of o I -serving the person, and •.uin;' the re-ults of their observations. The bdrdi-'i \rw> then thrown unon thej«*rs'>n to show that he bad lawful means cf siifjporfc.

Evidence was given by Constable Fox, Perpeant O'Grady, ©etective Herbert, Constable Demi sev > Seigeant M'Keefrey, James Miller (clerk to the Police Court, Duttedin). and Detective Hunt.

Accused said hs would call evidence to show that be had put his name down on the Union Company's books. He had been ■men a letter to Captain Strang, but it was impossible for Captain Strang to give him a ihip at present. He had. however, said he would give Mm one on the first opportunity. He (accused) had oflcd Mr Rpssiter, pawnbroker, tD be present to give

»- Sr evidence. Mr Rossiter would say that aQ July J?], being in need of money, hC (accused) had gone to him and pledged his gold watch. W. G. Rossiter, being sworn, said accused had pawned a gold open-faced watch on

July 21. Francis George Cumming said accused had asked him to assist him to get & passage to Australia. Accused had told him,' he was willing to work his way *o Australia if he (witness) could get him a, ship. Accused also called Mr Cant, but in his absence consented to the evidence given by him in the lower court being read to the jury. Addressing the jury accused said the previous offenoe had happened over four years ago» and 'without that it would have been impossible to pin him upon; the present charge. He contended that it was just as legal for a man to back dogs or horses as fog % man to speculate on the Stock Exchange.* His Honor summed up, and in doing so' said the accused put his case very" well. If there was no likelihood of a person' committing a breach of the law, or assisting others to commit a, breach, there did not seem any reason why proceedings shouL4.be taken against , him. The. essence of the offence was that a person was not getting his living' honestly. H a mant assisted & bookmaker, and did not cheat; though it might not be the most estimable way of getting a living, there was nothing wrong in it. - If accused had shown he was not getting v hia living , dishonestly he was entitled to be acquitted. ' TV jury 'retired at 5.30, and returned in five minutes with a verdict of " Not guilty." The accused was therefore discharged, and the court rose.

"Wednesdat, August 18. Frederick" Charles Laoey was chained, with wilfully setting fire to. a dwelling house in Dumdae street about the Ist June. H<» ploaded "Not guilty," and was defended hv Mr Hanlon.

.red for the

Mr llacasssy, who appea Crown, said that accused had lived at » small cottage in Dundas street, of whica tibe occupier was Mrs Rober-ieon and the owner Mr James Samson. On. 24th May Mrs Robertson left the hocee.-amd went 'o live at Morningtoin, leaving the bey with her sister, Mrs Evans, who lived in Hanover street. On the following <Jay accused got the key from Mrs Evans and went to tho hous-a, subsequently taking there witn. him a man named Austin, to whom he cold a suite of furniture for £5. although. aocused did not own the furniture, aaui had no authority to sell it. Accused gave the key hack to Mrs Evans about midnight on 31st May. Constable Maeon saw accused going along Dundas street with a portmanteau, accusod averting his head as he passed. At about 7 o'clock the following morning Mrs Wilson, who Hved opposite, caw accused go round Hie back of the cottage, emerge again, and cross tho street. Subsequently two bird cage© with birds in 'tbam were "found in the garden of a place opposite the cottage that waa burnt, ami the presmptioh wa» that accused put then* there. Mrs "Wilson saw accused enter tho cottage again, and afterwards leave ft and walk up Dumdas street towards George street. A few minutes afterwards she noticed that the cottage was on lire. Accused was also 'seen "in Dundas str&as about that time by a boy named Girvan, and by a mam named Murray, the latter dl whom oalisd to a man, supposed to have baen accueed, that the cottage was on Sre, •but without succeeding in attracting bis notice. The Fire Brigade came on th--» scene and put the fire ox»t. Accu»3d apparently came back afteT the brigade arrived, and on being interviewed afterwards by Ma* Osborne (of Samson end Co.) said that when he reached the fire there were already about 20 people there, and that he had got the birds out. He also' said that he had lost everything except the

clothes he stood up in, but the portmanteau he was known to have previously carried away was afterwards found at his father's residence, and it contained some clothes. The motive for the deed was apparently th>3 desire to cover up the removal of th» furniture which accused had illegally sold 1 to Austin.

After hearing- the evidence for the prose-* cution which supported the statement of th« Crown Prosecutor, Mr Hanlon said in order to convict ac-

I cused it was necessary to establish two ! things: First, it must be established that ! accused set fire to the house, and secondly, that he did co wilfully. The Crown had failed to establish these two propositions. There was no direct evidence that accused eet fire to the place — no one saw him com- , mit the act either by accident or wilfully. The motive suggested for the crime was that accused had sold furniture whioh did that accused had sold for £5 furniture that such a motive was not sufficient for the committal of a crime >so serious a# arson. In regard to accused's action in entering the house and removing furniture, clothing, etc., he suggested that the ! accused and the witness Robertson were ! on such terms of intimacy that she had [ given him permission to take from the j bouse anything he wished, and it would ! not therefore be necessary for him to commit a crime to cover up his sale of the furniture. Reviewing the evidence of Mrs Wilson and Mr Murray, he pointed oufr that the latter witness had said the man he saw coming out of the house immedi j ately before the outbreak of fire wore a slouch hat, whereas accused wore a hard hat Mrs Wilson's statement in regard to the lapse of time from accused coming out of the house and the outbreak of fire was evidently a mistake, and she was probably j mistaken as to whether accused came out; ' of the house before or after the alarm of fire was given. Accused's sigaed statement to th© police, although given at a> time when he was recovering from excessive drinking, was consistent with th» s Crown's evidence^ — he admitted selling th» ■ furniture, and that when he arrived oa the morning of the fire and saw the place ; he entered the building and removed the j birds and took them to a cottage on the. ! opposite side of the road, and he aieo ad* mitted that he took the portmanteau con* taining clothing belonging to Mrs Robert* son's late husband. Accused wao not en* titWl to any benefit under the insurance. ana £4 worth of clothing and personal ' effects Had been lost by him in the fire* ■ It could not be supposed that he finrtr took the birds, out of the house and then went back and set fire to it. It was not a crime if a house was accidentally set o« fire, and even if the evidence of Mrs Wilson and Mr Murray was accepted by tb« jury, they must be satisfied that the evidence established beyond doubt the guilt; of accused in wilfully setting fir* to th£ house,

His Honor reviewed the evidence, and •aid" parsons guilty of the crime with which accused was charged did not commit their acts in a way so public as to be seen by other persons. The case for the Crown rested on the points — (1) That accused was the last person seen in the house immediately before the fire ; (2) that he had some motive for setting fire to the house, because he liad sold furnituire from it the day before the fire occurred, and had received the money for it; and (5) that previous to the fire he had taken oertain things from the house— birds and clothing. Mr Murxay was the first person to see tihe fire, and he saw a man with a slouch hat coming out of the place almost simultaneously with the outbreak. It was possible tihafc at that early hour of the morning" a mistake had been made in regard to the hat, but Mr Murray had • said it was a slouch one, »nd his description of the man who came out practically tallied with that of Mrs Wilson in other respects. Mr Murray entered the house after the fire started, and found that it originated in-a corner of one of the rooms. The Crown evidence showed that the last seen of the man who •came- ■ out of the house was in Duudas street, on the hill, where -he was observed looking at the fire. In order to convict accused, the jury must be satisfied beyond a mere suspicion that lie was guilty, and if they were so satisfied it was their duly to- find accordingly. The jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty, and sentence was deferred.

BBEAXING AXD ENTERING.

Frederick Matthews was charged on four counts with breaking and entering the crwelling, on May 1, of Alexander Livin§stone, Union street, and stealing therefrom a travelling rug, a pair of boots, and a pair of blankets, the property of CSharles Stone, a lodger in the house. The first, count charged accused with breaking and entering by night, the second with breaking aaid entering- by day, the third with theft^ and tihe fourth with receiving property, knowing it to have been stolen. Mar J. Ts. Callan, jun., appeared for accused, who pleaded "Not guilty." Bfr Macassey, for the Crown, stated that Mr and Mrs* Livingstone left their rc«i--dence at 123 Union street on May 1 shortly before 8 p.m., and on returning about 10 o'clock found that the house had been entered from the kitchen window, and ransacked, and tihe articles in the information taken away. The boots were found at acoused'B lodgings, but the rug and bl&nlets had not been recovered. Mr Stone and Mr Sivertssn would recognise tha boots «a Mr Stone's property.

Evidence wee given in support of the Crown" Prosecutor's opening statement.

Mr Oadlan, addressing the jury, said there was no doubt a robbery had taken place at the bouse, but there was nothing to connect accused wifch it, except the. discovery of the boote. He aak^d the jury to put on one 6ide the knowledge that accused was to be charged with another alleged offence. The jury niust be satisfied that the boots were the property of Mr Stone. Tho witnesses Sivertsen and Stone were positive' as to the identity of the loots, but boote of the same kind, size, make, etc., were not uncommon. Thero was a possibility of these witnesses being mistaken. It was rather a curious thing, that although the plaos was turned rjpeide down, so little was taken. The thief. wa 3 evidently alter valuables, and not finding 1 «ny, took the articles named. Areuming that Matthews took the blankets and rug-, it was not reasonable to suppose that h'3 would keep the boots which would be recognised.

His Honor summed up, and said the main question to decide was that the boots produced were those that were taken from the house of Mr Livingstone on the night of fcbe robbery If the jury were- satisfied that the boots were those stolen and were found in possession of accused, they would be justified in inferring t!bat the housa was broken into by <lay by accused and tho boots taken therefrom, or they could con"vict on the count of theft or being in possession of stolen property. They could hardly convict on the first count of breaking and entering- by nig-ht. The jury, after a short absence, returned * verdict of guilty on tihe second count — treating >and entering by day — and also en the third count of theft.

Accused was further charged with breaking into the house of Arthur Smith, Anderson's Bay road, on February 27, and stealing therefrom one gold bangle, one boar's tusk brooch, one ne«k chain and looket. one engagement ring, and one dress xmg, of fcha total value of £10.

* Mr Macassey stated that Mr and Mrs Smith left their home at 7 p.m., and returned ait wbout 9 p.m. On their return they found the house had been entered through the bathroom window, the fastener of which had been broken, and the articles in the information taken away. The evidence would disclose that some time about iibe begittninig of March accused had given the chain to a^ girl named Alice Lee, and that be afterwawis made a present of the ring? to the fiaxKe- girl. The talcing of evidence was not concluded •when the court rose.

Thubsday, August 19.