SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2421, 20 December 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, Drc. 20. [Before His Honor Judge Johnston and common juries.] Mr White, Crown Prosecutor. OK and j cit Y. The following gentlemen were sworn in as Grand Jurors: —Messrs H. Bclfield, E. Smith,.S.-D. Barker, J. A. Young, D. McLaren, W, Balfour, D. McKav, J. Hay, J. Hayhurst, D.West, W. Marcroft, A. L. Barker, 11. K. Parkerson, P. B. Greenup, J. Hall, J. A. Gamack, A. W. Ensor, W. M. Sims, G. Gahitcs, J. S. • Smith, E. Elworthy, and J. S. Gibson. Mr Bclfield was chosen foreman. Mr C. S. Fraser, a Grand Juror, not answering to his name, was fined £5, unless cause for his non-appearance should be shown. HIS HONOR’S CIIAROT3. In his charge to the Grand Jury His Honor took occasion t o compliment them on the lightness of the calendar which he said was one of the smallest he had experienced in the course of his circuits. There was nothing in the calendar which culled for special attention or lengthy remarks. He was pleased to observe that the crime of forgery, which had been alarmingly prevalent at one time, was no longer a conspicuous feature. At a previous sitting of the Court he had directed attention to this species of offence, and to the fact that it was due to the recklessness of shopkeepers, publicans, and others in taking papers, cheques, and other documents from persons of whom they knew positive!) nothing. He was pleased to find, however, that this practice had abated, and that the offence had consequently subsided. There were two or three cases of stealing from the person of the ordinary kind —one man becoming more drunk than another and getting robbed in consequence. His Honor referred to the railway embezzlement case and other items on the list. He directed the jury in the horsestealing indictment' if they found that the claim of right set up by the accused was hoim fide to return no bill, but if a fraudulent intention was disclosed they shosld return a true bill. There were several points connected with the Post Office robbery to be considered such as whether flic promises could be considered a dwelling, and if the evidence of identity was sufficient. I,ARCUSY or A WATCH. Charles Williams was indicted for stealing a watch from James William Crompton, on July 28. There was a further count for feloniously receiving. Accused at first pleaded guilty and Mr Tosswill intimated that he had been instructed to appear for accused, who had been five months in gaol. In reply to Mr Tosswill, Inspector Pender stated that he had known the accused in Timaru for eight months and that he had behaved well until lately when he gave way to drink. Mr Tosswill was about to call further -witnesses when tiie accused asked leave to make a statement. His Honor —What have you to say? Accused— That I have been five months in gaol, and never was in gaol before in my life. Besides I did not steal the watch. His Honor —Then why did you plead guilty ? Accused—-Because I was advised to do so. I had no option. His Honor —Who advised you ? Accused—Mr Austin did so. My solicitor. His Honor said under these circumtanccs ho woidd direct a plea of not guilty to be entered, and cause the case to be proceeded with. Mr Tosswill then intimated that he should withdraw from the case, as he was instructed that the accused would plead guilty. The evidence for .the prosecution was briefly to the effect that the prosecutor, a farmer at Arowhcnua, came into town, encountered the accused,was inveigled into a lane, was asked the time, and was deprived of his watch by Williams so adroitly that he only discovered his loss five minutes afterwards. On the following morning Detective Kirby was accosted by Williams, who asked him if he knew of anyone having lost a horse and a watch. The detective replied that a watch was missing, and accused offered to assist him to catch the thief. Shortly afterwards the prosecutor came up and identified the accused as the person who took liis watch. Williams thereupon stated that the watch was stolen by a married man whom he did not wish to incriminate, took them to his residence in York street off Church street, and gave them the watch, promising if he was allowed, to leave Timaru immediately. The prisoner made a statement to the effect that the watch was given to him for safe keeping by a man named “ Jack,” who was in the company of the prosecutor, and that he was looking for this man next morning when he was arrested. He contended that if his intent was felonious he should not have communicated with the detective. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and accused was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. ANOTHER CASE. Frederick Nelson was charged with the larceny of a silver watch and gold chain from the person of William Lewis. A second count in the indictment charged the accused with receiving the watch. The accused was undefended and pleaded “ not guilty.”

The evidence went to show that the accused and prosecutor had been working together at'Tcmuka, and on March I the accused and a man named Carr visited the house of the prosecutor. The latter was in liquor at the time and sat down on the doorstep of the house and went to sleep. The accused was presently seen the prosecutor, who subsequently missed his watch. Nothing was heard of the watch and chain until May 24, when Detective Benjamin heard the accused tell a man on the Christchurch racecourse that he had found a watch on the course. This watch, on enquiry, was found to be tiie one stolen from the prosecutor, and led to the arrest of the accused Several witnesses were examined for the prosecution. His Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor, addressing the Inspector of Police, enquired whether anything was known of the accused.

Inspector Pender said he had been a resident of Temuka for about twelve months and bud been living respectably.

His Honor said that this being a first offence, and as it appeared that the accused had been in gaol since .July last, he would deal with him in the SRnio way as the last prisoner. He would be imprisoned for.seven months with hard labor. EMBEZZLEMENT. John Blair was charged with embezzling on the 3rd of July last the sum of £3 Os Hd, on the oth July £3 3s Id, and on 10th July £1 3s 4d, the monies of the Timaru branch of the Railway Department. The accused was undefended, and pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the prosecution went to show that the accused had been in the employment of the railway for about two years and his duties were to receive way bills from guards on the arrival of the trains, to deliver goods to consignees and account for all monies received during the day to Mr Reid, of the railway department. On June 26 the accusccl received notice of dismissal,and he endeavored, unsuccessfully, as it turned out, to induce the department to retain his services, and failing to do this, he commenced to embezzle. On the expiration of his notice to quit he went away, and it was not until after he left that his books were examined and the deficits discovered. He was thereupon arrested in Wellington on this charge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Detective Bain proved a previous conviction against the accused for larceny in 1874, when he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment at Dunedin. The accused here remarked that it was in consequence of this circumstance coming to the ears of the railway authorities that he received notice to quit his Timaru situation. He had been endeavoring to retrieve the past when this thing was brought up against him again. II s Honor said that he had it in his power to semi the accused to penal servitude, but in order to give him one more chance, he would refrain from doing that, although he could not treat this as a first offence. He would be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for two years. There were live other charges of embezzlement against tbe accused, which, by direction of his Honor were struck out, or they might, he remarked, be always hanging over the accused’s head. MORE EMBEZZLEMENT. Edward Charles Austin Thompson was charged on three counts with embezzling the sum of £l2 10s 10.1, the monies of F. M. Rickman, of Waimate. The accused was found guilty on two counts. Mr Hunt, of Waimate, spoke as to accused’s character, and Inspector Pender said his failing was drink and gambling. He was sentenced to three months’ hard labor.