HIS HONOR’S CHARGE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 304, 8 December 1884, Page 2

HIS HONOR’S CHARGE.

His Honor’s charge to the Grand Jury was as follows:—The ca-ender appears to be a lung one on the present occasion. It may seem so tor this district, but I don’t think in reality you will find it a very heavy one. There appear to be thirteen charges ag'nst ten prisoners viz., nine charges against six natives and four against four Europeans. The crimes in themselves are not very serious, and the great number of them, probably those of the most heinious character are six charges of horse stealing, ail against natives. As you are aware me crime of theft, whether of horses or anything else, is proved by the losing of the article and shortly after the loss, discovering it to be in the p-issession of some other person. That alone carries the presumption in law that the person found in possession is the person who committed the theft, and also if he converts the article stolen to his own use the presumption is that he committed the theft unless he can show that he came by it honestly. In these cases the facts appear very ciear and simple, so that I need not go into them seriatim, they are of the ordinary character, and will give you very little trouble. There are two charges of forgery against a native. In this case the charges against the native aie that he, knowing that he was not the person named in the deed, signed the name of the person designated in that deed. If you find such to be the fact, that he did sign, not his own name, but the name of another person, that will then be sufficient to entitle you to bring in a true bill. There may be minor questions in the matter which you need not tiouble yourselves with. Tuere ~uue case of at son. in tui e , as i < all cases •f arr.oii, the evidence will be of circnin-

siantiul character. That is to say, it is very seldom that a person is actu illy seen committing the act. If you ate satisfied that the arciunsianceA are such as I have stated, that will be sutlicient f>r you to go on. There is one charge of bigamy against a man. On tais case 1 think you will have no difficulty in ne matter, as the evidence is so clear and conclusive. There is one ease of suicide against an oid woman, which I am sorry to .ee brought forward. I think it would be showing more discretion on the part of the ponce if they were to overlook thnse cases of attempted suicide. The fact is that it is a relic of old times—these charges of suicide against persons, and the punishment they t.iemselves undergo is generally sufficient for .hem without addi-g further to it. In the present instance it would be for you to see .f there is any evidence to prove a genuine a tempt at suicide. The woman is f .und in the wa er, and it does not appear now or by what means she got there and in aanger of being drowned, and on being pulled out she cried “ Don’t take me home. Don’t .ake me back.” If there is nothing more than that 1 think you will be we’l justified in bunging in no bill. If there is evidence to prove otherwise of course you have no alternative but to bring in a true bill. Lliere are two cases of larceny, one of larceny as a bailee. The simp e charge of horse stealing is different, as theie the horse is taken meiely taken from the true owner without I.is knowledge. If the facts are proved in these charges then you will have no difficulty. There is another cnarge of larceny against a native to which I direct special attention, for the evidence is by no means clear, ns in the other cases. In this case two men are working together in the bush, and getting paid off, each gets his money and they come down to an hotel together. After a few da) s there (1 may say that neither of them received the amount of £lO, which is alleged to be stolen) it appears that one of them had received a £lO note sometime before, and had it at tire hotel in his possession. Whilst ashep in the hotel he finds a hand somewhere about ins pocket, and on awaking he sees the back of a man going out of the door of the bedroom, and finds the side of his pocket ripped up, and the £lO-note taken away. Curiously enough he did not then get up, but waited until morning, and he is unable to identify the note in any way. Then comes the fact that a Maori, who did not sleep there, but had been about during the day, that he in the couise of a short time afterwards, not being Known to have any considerable sum of money before, pas.-es a ten pound note at another hotel. That is the whole of the evideuce. Now you will observe what I told you before, that the presumption does not attach, inasmuch as if the ten pound note had been identified by the person from whom it was taken, and that was the note the Maori passed, then the presumption would be that the Maori was the thief, but seeing that the note cannot be identified there is no presumption in the matter. The mere fact that the man passes a ten pound note, and that another man loses one, forms no necessary connection between the two. So that something more will be required in order to find the man guilty. I ask you to look carefully into the evidence and find out if sufficieut to place lhe accused on his trial.

Larceny. The Grand Jury being unable to find a true bill against Mohi Kongo for the larceny of a £lO note, his Honor discharged the prisoner. Bigamy. Walter Tricker, alias George Henry Marshall, was charged with the above offence by marrying one Emily Harris, being at the same time married to Elizabeth Marshall. Accused pleaded guilty. Mr. Turton appeared for the accused, and stated that he had been asked to make a statement on his b-half, but did not consider it advisable to do so; he would therefore leave the ca-e in his Honor’s hands. On being asked accused said he had nothing to say other than that he was very sorry for what he had done. His Honor, addressing accused, said he had been found guilty on his own confession of the crime with whicli he stood charged, the charge of bigamy, which was very serious, and he had made himself liable to seven years penal servitude. He would not inflict the full sentence, although in that case a very daring attempt at bigamy had been committed, prisoner having re-married within two years from the time of his first marriage. His Honor would, therefore, sentence the prisoner to two years imprisonment, with hard labor. Attempted suicide. Bridget Gately, charged with attempted suicide, was discharged, no bill being found against her by the Grand Jury. Forgery. Watene Taitapanui alias Watene o Tutu, was charged with the forgery of two signatures to two deeds purporting to be a lease of the Rotokautoko Block from Watene Tieri and another to the Southern Cross Petroleum Co. The prisoner pleaded guilty to both of the charges. [Left si ting.]