SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2422, 21 December 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, Deo. 20. [Before His Honor Judge Johnston and common juries.] LARCENY I’ROM A mVKLUNT,. Peter Pringle was charged with the larceny of £l3, the monies of Frederick Cameron. The accused was defended by Mr Hamersley, and pleaded not guilty. The evidence went to show that both prosecutor and accused were employed at the time of the robbery by Messrs Peacock and (leaney, butchers, of this town. During the prosecutor’s temporary absence from the hut (both men being employed at Mount Horrible), the accused took the money from a box belonging to Cameron. He was arrested by Detective . Kirby, and admitted the larceny. The accused was sentenced to nine months imprisonment with hard labor. FoRCI RLE entry. Micliael Quinn, charged with the above offence, surrendered to his bail to receive sentence, and was lined £5. The three other men concerned in the affair were discharged, as in his Honor’s opinion they had been acting by Quinn’s instructions. The Court then adjourned to 10 a.m. to-day. THIS DAY. The sitting of the Court was resumed this morning. STEALING EKOM A DWELLING John Cunningham and James Gilchrist were charged with the larceny of £6 10s the monies of one Boss from his dwelling house in the Waitaki district. The accused were defended by Mr and pleaded not guilty, The evidence went to show that the accused visited the house of the prosecutor, a publican, at the Waitaki on Sept, 29, last. They remained in the house until the 3rd of the following month. In consequence of something his wife.told him, the prosecutor went upstairs early one morning, to the accused Gilchrist’s bedroom. He was in bed at the time, and witness accused him of robbing his cash box. He denied having done so, and. said he knew nothing about it. Both men were searched, and no money was found on either of them. Subsequently Cunningham alias's ullivan, returned the.qioney to the prosecutor saying he had found it. He handed him, live £1 notes, a sovereign, and a half-sovereign. Before he did so, Gilchrist had’ pointed to Cunningham, remarking at the same time, “ That’s the man that’s got the money.” His Honor took occasion more than once to remark that there was hardly any case against Gilchrist. Gilchrist questioned several of the witnesses as to his character, their reply being satisfactory on the whole.. [ , Mr Hamersley then addressed the jury on behalf of Cunningham, remarking that they could not possibly .attach any weight to conversations that had been mentioned owing to their unreliable nature. The only tittle of evidence against his client, as it might appearj was the fact of his having restored the missing money to the prosecutor.' but was be likely to have done that if he were the thief ? He would scarcely have been likety to return this money had he stolen it, for by doing so he would have been convicting himself. His Honor having summoned up the jury retired to consider their decision and returned in about five minutes with a verdict of not guilty as against Gilchrist,- and guilty against Cunningham.

His- .Hotter, discharged with a ’caution:.,to him,to mind what company hc kept fdr thte;futur% . ’ His Honor then asked' whether- any-’ thing was known against Cahtiinglianv.Dcteefive -Bain proved a- previous cdrtyictidn him, when ho Was sentenced toffyears penpl servitude arid also other convictions.

His Honor addressing the accused, told him, lie was evidently one of the pests of society. He quite approved of the verdict of- the jury. Gilchrist he* considered was innocent, although the prisoner before him had evidently’ done his best to lead him astray. The country niust be rid of men like those. The sentence of this Court was that he receive 8 years penal servitude.. Accused.' Thank yon your” Honor! This is the second time, you have sentenced me innocent. His Honor The second time is it? Accused: The second time; and I hope your Honor will live to sentence me a third time and that it will be for something then. His Honor : Ho you really think that anyone has a doubt about your gnilt? Accused:! am as innocent as the child unborn. But thank y r our Honor, I hope I’ll live to do my sentence. HOUSE STEALING. Charles Inder was charged with stealing a certain horse, the property of Messrs Hunt Bros, of Waimate. Accused was defended by Mr Hamersley, and pleaded not guilty. The evidence went to show that, twelve or eighteen months ago the marc in question was sold by the prosecutor to the accused for £lO worth of timber, £7 worth of which was delivered by accused, who was then given the delivery of the mare. After this accused gave Mr Rickman,of Waimate, a bill of sale over certain property to secure debts duo to him. Hickman enforced the bill of sale, and on July 10 the mare was sold. Hunt Bros, of Waimate were also creditors of accused and instructed him to buy in certain property sold under the bill of sale for them, and he bought the mare and saddle &c., for £l4. At tliisdime he was 'largely indebted to the banks. The accused bought the ma re at the sale for the prosecutors and they took delivery of it and kept possession from July 13 to Dec. o, when The prosecutors S lid that they would keep the mare and credit him with the timber. During the four months and a half, that they kept the mare the accused objected to the arrangements by which they retained possession of her. The prisoner was acquitted, the jury considering there was no felonious intent.