SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2257, 11 June 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

THIS DAY,

[Before His Honor Judge Johnston and Common Jurors.] HOTEL THEFT. James Kelly was charged with stealing £2, the monies of James Knowlo. The accused pleaded “ Hot Gfuilty.” The short facts of the case were that the accused visited the Kail way hotel at Albury, on April Bth. Ho said he had no 11101103'-, and asked the landlord, Air Palmer, to supply him with dinner, and also his mate. Ho slept in the house on that night, and was put into a double-bedded room (lie other bed being occupied by the prosecutor. Shortly after retiring for the night, the accused came down stairs again and entered (he bar and asked for a drink, for which he tendered the landlord half-acrowu in payment. The latter asked him to return to bed, and lie said he would not do that, but he would go to the camp. This was (he first the landlord had heard of the cam]), and Ids suspicions being aroused lie asked the accused whether he had robbed the man upstairs. He said “Ho,” and shortly afterwards disappeared. The landlord went up and awakened Knowlo, and also sent for a constable. They .searched the bedroom together. They found the purse of the prosecutor under the raattrass of one of the beds, and two £1 notes and some silver were discovered to be missing. Several witnesses were examined, including the landlord of tlio hotel, the prosecutor, and constable Brennan, who arrested the accused at Albury at about 2 a.m. on the morning of the Gib. The accused who pleaded that he was stupidly drunk at (lie time, was found guilty. Two previous convictions for felon}', in 1871, having been proved he was sentenced to four years penal servitude LARCENY AS A SERVANT. John (Infill was charged with the larceny of Ab 3 IDs, the. moneys of Alfred J. Parsons, his employer. The accused was defended by Mr Perry, and pleaded not guilt}'. The accused was formerly employed as a barman by the prosecutor, the proprietor of the Club Hotel, and it was while engaged in this capacity that the offence was said to have been committed. The offence was detected by means of certain marked coins which prosecutor placed in bis till, and which were subsequently found in the possession of the accused.

Alfred John Parsons deposed that the accused had been in Ids service as barman from November, 1878 to January, PklO. He had been paid at the rate of 'ids and afterwards ;50s per week, in consequence of finding that the takings were falling off, witness determined, in October last, to mark certain coins, and this method lie continued to employ at intervals up to January. The prosecutor was cross-examined at some length by air Perry. Sergeant Richard Haldane deposed to the arrest of the accused on the charge of stealing a half-sovereign from Mr Parsons. Found a half-sovereign (marked) a half-crown, a key, a pipe, and a cheque upon him, and asked him if he had any money. Ho said yes, he had ,£G or ill upstairs. Went upstairs with Constable Smart, and discovered the whole of the money abstracted, Tod lbs in ids box. Somebody said “ This is a good old ,£G or T 7.” The accused said “ I meant .£80.” lie appeared to take the matter as a joke, and witness remarked to him that it was “ no joking matter. This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr Perry then addressed the Jury on behalf of ins client. The accused bad been a long time in the service of the prosecutor, and it would be quite reasonable to suppose that the money found in his po. session was his own. There was. of course the fact of the marked money to be accounted for, but this could be

explained by tin theory that the accused might in giving change have frequently placed l,i< own money in the till in exchange.for the marked money lying there. He had been a long time in the prosecutor 1 !* employment, and hal actually earned during that time a. sum of £7H, whereas he was cl;.urged with stealing d'f.'il, or £25 less than this sum. Then again had the ace used had any fraudulent intention, why hud lie exclusively helped himself to gold an 1 never to notes ‘i For it must be assumed that he had not taken notes, as none ha 1 been found in his possession. Why then should he, if wishing to act dishonestly, have, always taken the marked coins ? lie (the learned counsel) thought that the theory that the accused had earned this money, or obtained possession of it in a fair and legitimate maimer, was a perfectly consistent theory, and he would put it to them whether ho had not at least raised a reasonable doubt in (heir minds as to the guilt of the accused. On the whole case he would point out to them that this was a case of merely circumstantial evidence, and chore was no direct evidence of guilt. lie would therefore conlidently leave the ease in their hands.

His Honor addressed the jury at some length, carefully sifting the evidence which had been adduced. He asked them whether after having heard the evidence, they had any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and if they had such doubt, to give the accused the benefit of it. After conferring together for about

ten minutes the jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of the accused's youth, the temptation to which ho was exposed, and also the fact that they considered that considerable blame was attributable to Mr Parsons for not dismissing lhe accused from his sendee immediately he discovered that ho was losing money. If is Honor remarked that he considered that Mr Parsons had merely taken the best means of checking his losses in what he had done. Mr Parsons then came forward and asked that the accused might be leniently dealt with, as he had fallen into crime mainly through his bad associates. In answer to a question Mr Parsons stated that since the ac'CTiscd had left Ins service,the receipts had increased to the extent of £2-1 10s per week. He supposed he might have lost some hundreds of pounds by the dishonesty of employees.

Addressing the accused His Honor said lie considered that die had been exposed to great temptation as a barman, and that there was, in fact, no worse [dace for a young man than behind the lair of a public house. He wished that he could have arranged that ho should be kept apart from other prisoners on account of Ins youth. lie must be punished, however, and to keep him apart wars therefore impossible. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, lie should inflict a light punishment upon him—that he be imprisoned for G months wdtb hard labor. fokci inn: entry. William Quinn, Charles Pontiff, allan C. Hawkins, alias Deaf Charley, Michael Lynch, Joseph Sims, and John Kean w'crc charged with that they did make a forcible entry on land situate at Makikihi, the property of James Coll, on April 2(J last.

The indictment contained turn counts; one laid under the statute, the other under common lawn

Mr liamcrsley appeared on behalf of the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr White in opening his case remarked that the facts were shortly that Jas. Coll purchased the land in question from ins brother in January last. He entered into possession of this land, and on Feb. 28 the defendants in the present case attempted to enter upon it, using violence in order to effect their purpose. James Coll, farmer, slated that on Feb. 28 last lie was in possession of ihc land in question at the Makikihi. Several men were working with him on that day. A mob of men, including the defendants, came up. There was a good deal of excitement, and some words passed between them. Quinn look up an iron bar and broke the top bar of the gate of the paddock. Another of the men kept witness back with a long pule while Quin was breaking the gate. Another of the men afterwards seized witness and knocked him down. The mob then passed through the Held to where the combine engine was standing, and took it away with some horses they had brought with them. The combine bad been hired, but nut from Quin.

isy -dr Hamcrshy—l knew Quin was claiming ibis land.

Cr. C. Fraser stated that he was working with J. Coll on the land, at Makikihi when the defendants arrived. They brought horses with them. Dunn broke the gate, and another man kept Coll back while he was doing so. This was the ease.

Mr Hamersley said he thought it would ho unnecessary lo address the jury. The jury, after conferring together for two minutes, returned a verdict of: guilty on the first count 11 is Honor deferred sentencing the accused, as he wished to hear the civil case of Coll v. Quin. The accused would be liberated on bail on the understanding that the}’ should conic up for judgment if called upon. ALLEGED MOUSE STEALING. Stewart Doig and John Scott were charged with stealing three geldings,on Feh. 7, the property of Messrs Meek and others. Air liamcrsley appeared for the accused, who pleaded “ not guilty,” Air llislop appeared to prosecute.

J. Mock slated that ho entered into partnership with. Scott, one of the accused, on .February IS/U. It was arranged that John Scott was to manage all the working part of the business and draw on the linn. [Left sitting.]