SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2096, 10 December 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL* SITTINGS. TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Johnstone.) The Court sat at 11 a.m. ! Mr Alfred Cox was excused from service on the Grand Jury. THE GBAX D JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a Grand Jury, viz:.—Messrs W. C. Beswick, (foreman), G. E. Clulcc, H. J. Sealcy, T. Roberts, D. M. Ross, B. J. Grccmip, T. H. Hall, A. Cox, M. Jonas, W. Evans, T. Squire, G. Smith, W. Williamson, T. Machin, F. W. Stubbs, J. Mcndelson, G. L. Meason, J. G. Gibson, T. T. Brownell, J. Mcc, F. Tavendar, J. Hay, 11. BcKield, and R. Stansell. axis honor's charge. His Honor, in his address to the Grand Jury, said, glancing over the calendar, lie did not think there existed any cause for alarm on the score of the increase of crime in the district As usual there was a large proportion of the charges under the head of forgery and valueless cheques. His warnings in relation to cases of this character had apparently been taken little or no notice of here, although, he was glad to say, that in some districts the tradesmen had taken a little more caution regarding the cashing of cheques for persons whom they knew little or nothing about. These charges would of course be unworthy of more than passing mention as they displayed no special features. However, he could not refrain from expressing his opinion that the prosecutors in such instances in their careless behaviour positively countenanced and encouraged what was fast becoming a popular crime. There was a charge against a man named W. C. Graham of attempted murder. The evidence disclosed that the prosecutor and prisoner were mates at the Horsley Downs, and that on a Sunday morning accused was doing some work in the tent in which they both slept, prosecutor being in bed. Accused demurred at prosecutor’s laziness in very strong terms, and finally took up an axe and advanced to where he was lying. This he, however, put down, but afew seconds later the altercation having again grown warm,he dashed at prosecutor and inflicted a wound with the instrument already referred to. There might be a theory advanced by the prisoner that the prosecutor, although lying in bed, had a frying-pan in his hand with which he was threatening to injure accused, and that the blows were struck in self-defence. This, however, he did not think they would consider, as contradictory evidence could be adduced, and added to this there was a statement made by pri soncr after the commission of the crime which showed that he, at the time he made the attempt, was in no wise sorry for the deed but rather gloried in it In regard to the malicious obstruction of the railway line, fortunately, this was the first charge of the kind which had come before his notice in this colony. They would fully understand of what importance it was that such charges should have the fullest investigation. There was not one of them he believed who did not travel by railway, and it was easily seen that the protection of the lives of travellers depended on the vigilance displayed by the proper authorities and the carrying out of the law. The tacts surrounding the case were strange to say the least regarding thereto and perfectly unaccountable* It was not as though they were in Europe where such attempts were of somewhat common occurance and in such instances were actuated by the strongest party and politicalmotivcs. The evidence against Jcffrics was purely circumstantial and showed that between 5 and 6 o’clock on a day in October last a train left Timaru for Oamaru and passed in safety over the spot were the offence was commitcd; within an hour another train coming from the opposite direction arrived at St. Andrew’s station when it was found that an intending passenger had fortunately discovered and removed the log of wood found placed on the rails of the engine track in such a position as to have rendered the capsize of the train and probable consequent loss of life an almost certainty. The report of the matter at the police office resulted in enquiries being made the day following in the vicinity of the spot, and the police officer in so doing learnt that Jeffries had been seen near the railway on the day previous, at the hour at which the crime must have been committed. On interrogation Jeffries admitted having driven some cattle past the spot, and added, “I hope I’ve done no harm.” He (Ids Honor) did not, however, think the gentlemen of the Grand Jury could take this as an admission of guilt, for had Jeffries committed the crime he would doubtless, in the first instance, attempt to throw the officer off the scent, and such a remark would therefore be the last thing he would be likely to say. Several witnesses would state that Jeffries was seen driving cattle there at the hour named, but the police officer, not content with Jeffries’ remarks and the evidence referred to, had made comparisons with the footmarks made by accused while having on a pair of boots Avhicli had been found in his possession, and this elicited the fact that the prints were exactly a facsimile of footprints found leading to the place whence the wood had been removed. There were pccularitics in the bootmarks which the witness would describe. These required particular attention, as police officers were oftentimes so carried away by their theories as to be blind to other facts, which was illustrated by the story of the policeman who made a man stand in the foot prints, and thus obliterated the original footprint. The question of malice, aforethought, was one which they could not entertain, as it was clear if they found a true bill on the score _ of placing the log on the line, the motive which actuated it could not be classified otherwise. It did not require to establish a grudge against any individual to settle this question. The evidence, as he had previously remarked was purely circumstantial. There would be brought before them a case in which a person named Thomas Hunt was charged with the larceny of certain cows. The cows in question included two cows and a heifer, which had been seized by a man named Adams trustee in the bankrupt estate of one John Hunt. After seizure these cattle were placed in a paddock, owned by a person named Rickman, with his consent, and during the night following it appeared Thomas Hun gave instructions to some men to remove them. This was done and the cattl c disposed of by auction at Oamaru the trustee on learning the particulars prosecuting

Hunt for stealing tlic cattle. It would be for them to investigate as to whether the trustee was properly appointed and if this wore settled the question of the ownership of the cattle would be also. The point as to whether the larceny was personally committed by accused was one which could riot be entertained as although it was Hunt’s men who removed the cows, and the principal alone was indictable in such cases. The next case was one of a woman also named Hunt. The accused Mary Hunt by name —was charged with malicious injury to property, and die facts of the case shewed that the trustee in John Hunt’s estate attempted to remove a pianoforte from the house of the bankrupt, when accused obstructed him, saying the piano was the property of her daughter. Adams, declining to entertain this proposal, and persising in his endeavours to remove the article, accused went into the house and returned with an axe with which she, after an expressed determination to do so, smashed the piece of furniture. The point might be raised that the piano was the pi'operty of the daughter, but regarding the malicious injury thereto, there could be little doubt. Another case from Wairaate, was that of Heiber. who had obtained money by means of representing that he had been left property by a friend or relation in Sydney and that he had consulted Mr Stout, the Dunedin lawyer, and in order to obtain the property needed money to pay that gentleman. How Mr Stout would inform them that he never saw the accused and had never had an business with him. Alfred Fisher, the proprietor of a local paper, was charged with libel. Ho need only tell them that the case to him seemed very mixed, and it only remained for them to decide if the article was likely to bring the prosecutor into the contempt or derision of his neighboring citizens and if so there was a true bill against the accused. His Honor then pointed out the law of forgery as affecting an accessory or principal and told the Jury if they considered James charged with the forgery of a deed of transfer of land had committed the act of which he was charged with fraudulent intent no matter whether he was in so doing only using his own name. there were grounds for a true bill. He himself had little doubt that Manning was present when James signed the document referred to in the indictment and believed Saunders was not far off. The Grand Jury were then dismissed following his Honor replying to some questions by a juryman. FORGING AND UTTERING. William J Charles Kidney pleaded “ guilty ” to an indictment charging him with having on August 9 forged and uttered an order for the payment of £5 3s with intent to defraud. He also pleaded summilarly to an indictment to to the effect that he did on August 6 feloniously and with intent to defraud forge and utter an order for the payment of £1 15s. Mr Hamersley called evidence as to accused’s character.

Mr Inspector Pender said accused was a perfectly inoffensive person, and the offence had been committed under the influence of drink.

The persons who had cashed the cheques were called, and stated they had known accused was working with Mr Wallis, prosecutor, whose signature he forged. His Honor remarked ic was his intention to enquire how much the prosecutors were to blame in cases like these. He thought no censure could be attributed to those in the present instance, however.

A sentence of one clay’s imprisonment was passed by bis Honor, who on so doing said accused bad escaped a fate at which be should shudder, by the generosity of the prosecutor (Hr B. Wallis) who bad offered to re-employ him. He bad regarded the case as an exceptional one, in order to give the accused a chance, for even the best of men were liable to err. He hoped be would avoid drink as the curse wbicb bad brought him into the present degradation. Accused thanked His Honor on leaving the dock. John Doyle pleaded guilty to having on the sth Nov., at Timaru, forged and uttered a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for £lO.

Inspector Pender and Mr Richardson gave the accused a good character, the latter attributing his conduct to drink. His Honor intimated that there were no special circumstances calling for leniency as in the previous ease, and indicted a sentence of twelve mouths’ imprisonment. Edward James pleaded guilty to having on the 28th March forged and uttered a document purporting to be a conveyance of real estate in tlie town of Timaru.

The accused was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Patrick Finn was indicted for having on the 2nd August, at Timaru, forged and uttered a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for £4 12s.

The prisoner, in reply to the usual challenge, asserted that when he wrote the cheque and attached another person’s signature he believed he was only borrowing the money, and his plea was entered as one of not guilty. The evidence] for the prosecution showed that the prisoner went to the store of Ocsar Lewis, at Temuka, and asked for a blank cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, Timaru. This was furnished and prisoner left. Later in the day ho returned and purchased a pair of blankets and a comforter, giving in payment a cheque for £4 12s signed Michael Mullins. The accused, who had been in the employment of Mr Mullins, hotelkeeper, received besides the goods, a balance of £2 8s in cash.

In reply to His Honor Mr Lewis stated that in receiving the cheque he acted with considerable caution, and that he only cashed it after referring it to the teller of the Bank at Temuka. The Jury found the prisoner guilty and he was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. LAECENY. James Griffin pleaded guilty of larceny from the person, and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. ASSAULTING A PIANO. Mary Hunt was indicted for having on the 15th October, at Waimate, maliciously damaged a piano, the property of the trustee in the bankrupt estate of her husband, John Hunt. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. There was a second count charging the accused with damaging the property of Arthur Alexander' Adams, creditors’ trustee. Mr Hamerslcy appeared for the defence.

George Henry Graham, clerk of the District Court at Waimate, proved the

declaration of insolvency by the prisoner’s husband on the Bth August. Mr Hamersley was about to crossexamine the witness, when his Honor challenged his right to do so, insisting upon first being apprised of the object of counsel. Mr Hamersley replied that he intended to show that the piano was not in the original schedule. His Honor: That is just what I thought. It -has nothing to. do with the case. The omission of the piano from the schedule cannot affect the prosecution. Mr White said he did not object to the evidence. His Honor: Why should you not object? Pardon me for saying that it is the counsel’s duty to object to all evidence that the Court does not think relevant. Mr White said he acknowledged that the piano was not included in the bankrupt’s schedule. Objection was taken to the trustee’s appointment not being duly gazetted, but His Honor overruled the objection, stating that the property was vested in the trustee when the latter was elected. Arthur A. Adams was then examined, and stated that he was elected trustee iu Hunt’s estate on August 16, and that on October 15 ho proceeded with assistants to Hunt’s house to remove the property. Mrs Hunt wished him to await the arrival of her husband, and as he did not comply, and was proceeding to remove Mrs Hunt’s piano she interfered with a tomahawk. The front of the piano was smashed and the trustee’s head was nearly placed in chancery. On the instrument being removed outside, it was pelted with bricks and broken bottles. The repairs cost £lO 10s, and it was afterwards sold for £2l.

The witness in cross-examination, acknowledged that some of the creditors signed an agreement, allowing Mrs Hunt her favorite instrument.

This last statement was corroborated by the chairman at the meeting of Hunt’s creditors, who stated that he believed a resolution was passed exempting the piano. For the defence, Louis Solomon was called. He stated that he was a piano importer ; that in 1876 he sold Mrs Hunt a piano, which she paid by instalments.

The witness was about to proceed but he was told to go down with the remark that his evidence was “ uonsence ” and the counsel for the defence inti* mated that he would call no further witnesses. The jury returned a verdict of “ guilty without malice.” His Honor declined to accept this verdict. The jury after conferring together returned a verdict of “ guilty ” with a recommendation to mercy. His Honor said he would not permit the accused to go to goal. The offence evidently was attributable to bad temper. He would sentence her nominally viz., to one days imprisonment. FALSE PEETEXCES. Frederick Neiber pleaded not guilty to an indictment chiirgiug him with obtaining £3 from John Manchester by false pretences. Mr Hamerslcy defended the accused. [The case was proceeding when wc went to press.l