SUPREME COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 30, 15 January 1864, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. "Wkdn'esday. January 14th, 1834. (Before His Honor Mi- Justice Gresson.) Mr Macdonald prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. SENTENCE. Charles Alfred Herbert, who had been found guilty of forging and uttering a cheque on the previous day, was brought up for sentence". Mr South, who appeared tor the prisoner, and had applied on the previous day for a postponement of senteneej in order to call witnesses t:> testify to his good" character before the commission of the off once, said thtit in consequence of the very short time the prisoner had been in business in Invcrcargill, he would not bo able to call any one who had known him any length of time. As, however, it was the first oft'once the prisoner had been, guilty of, he trusted His Honor would be lenient in passing a sentence which, no matter how light, would, he was sure, bo a sufficient lesson to him for the rest of hi-* life. His Honor, in passing sentence, remarked that the prisoner had been guil'y of a crime, whic i only a few years since he would have paid the penalty of with his life. He could only arrive at the conclusion that prisoner was not fully aware of the magnitude of the crime he had committed. Looking at that, and all the other circumstances of the case, he was induced to pass a much more lenient sentence than otherwise lie would have done, lie would, therefore, sentence him to twelve months' imprisonment. The prisoner was then removed. VOUGING AND UTTEKING. Elizabeth Adams, a 3'oung girl about twenty years of age, pleaded not guilty to an indictment., charging her with forging a cheque for £900, with intent to '-defraud the Bank of New South Wales; a second count charged her with uttering the said cheque, well knowing it to have been a forgery, with intent to defraud. The prisoner was defended by Mr Button. The particulars of the case — which will be in th* recollection of the public since the preliminary examination, reported in the Timks a few weeks sinee — were briefly detailed by the Crown Prosecutor. He stated that as tbe evidence he should call would hardiy sustain (he charge of forgery, it was his intention to abandon that count, and confine himself to the evidence in support of the second count of the indictment — that of uttering, which comprised one or both of the acts of offering to dispose of, or disposing of tbe cheque. By the evidence he should call, he was confident that he would be able to show that the prisoner had disposed of, or off.cied to dispose of the cheque. He called Mary Williams, who gave evidence to the following effect: —She was the wife of William Williams, a dealer in horses. On the 12 th December, they were camped at a place about a mile and a half out on the Dunedin road. On that da) r the prisoner came up to where witness was sitting near their cart, and in the course of a conversation which they entered into, prisoner informed witness that her husband, named JohuPurston, who resided in a house close by the camp, had been drinking for some time ; that while he was in that state he had sold all his property to a MrWentworth. Prisoner showed witness a cheque for £900, which she said was one that her husband had received from Mr Wentworth, for the purchase of the property. After a fewmore words of conversation, prisoner asked witness if she would take the cheque to the Bank and get it cashed, alleging* as a reason for not going herself, that she was in such a deplorable state that she could noc go into town. Ultimately, they both left tlie camp for the purpose of going into town; but, on coming in — at the entrance of the town — prisoner made an excuse to remain, alleging again as her reason, that she was in such a deplorably dmy state she did not like to go in. Prisoner asked witness if her (witness's) husband would get the cheque cashed for her ; witness said she could ask him. Witness accordingly left tke prisoner at a store, and went iv search of her husband. Witness, at that time, had possession of the cheque which had been given to her by the prisoner. Having found her husband, they returned to the place where she had left the prisoner; but she was not there. They met her a few minutes afterwards, when she asked if witness had got the cheque cashed. Witness gave prisoner back the cheque, when she gave it to her husband, and asked him if he would get it cashed for her. Witness's husband asking her how she got it, prisoner repKed that it was for property her husband had, sold in consequence of being drunk. Prisoner,? pointing te a large brick house, opposite their camp, said that was the property. She stated that she had taken the, cheque away from her husband, lest he should. get. up from the bed where he was lying drunk and make away with it, and she wanted .the money herself. Witness's husband then left her and prisoner together, and proceeded towards town. When lie returned, prisoner .asked, him 'if-: he had received the cash for. the cheque, when he said he had not, as the B.mk. had closed. Prisoner then left them, leaving the cheque with witness's husband. The next time she.; saw" prisoner was in the lock-up — witness having, been arrested on the charge ,of uttering the cheque . Qn the Tuesday following the day, (Saturday) 'the prisoner left them, witness took the checque, by, her husband's orders, to the Bank of New South Wales, and asked if they had any ■. knowledge of the person who had drawn it. The cheque was taken inside, and after some time a detective officer came to the Bank, and witness was taken ;. to ..the. lockup, where her husband and tft£ .prisoner ware "afterwards brought;- \ TheT '"detective, officer asked witness if that (referring to the prisoner) was the person who had given her the cheque, "and she told him it was. While

prisoner was sitting on the form \?ith witness, prisoner said she had pnly-herself to bfame for what had occurred, j >"Wih6n> they were confined; in adjoiixirij^ te^llsi^S^writiiess aslcad. prisoner if she would teUi heipwhb gave her .the cheque,* wheh^she jßaid^n^would r not— she would; ratheri takeiitltia^herseJf. The cheque produced, she identified as the samo;- - given her by the prisoner." By Mr Button.- — Witness, herjhusband, a»d the prisoner were brougtft-^up-' befora- the Resident Magistrate. She «Jid not fefifemlJer the exact charge. They were 1 , alt three* dis-_ charged, and the prisoner was afterward* arrested. They were discharged on, Xthe.iap* plication of Mr , Commissioner, =:?Weldon. Previous to being discharged she Haanot told : the police, the same story regarding the cheque she had given in evidence that day. She was not aware if her husband had douoj so. Witness could neither read nor writer She identified the cheque by the pin mark and the folds. Neither she nor her husbandhad agreed what evidence th«2y were to give about the transaction. , „ .'.-.,; William Williams, the husband of the' lastf witness, gave evidence mainly corroborative./ of that given by his wife. After prisoner had told him about setting the cheque fruih her husband, she, in the course of his qiiesiiohing her, told him that she had received it from; a young man ; she had/been keepings company withi , She . ssid- that he resided* in a tent hear the -j, place where they were then standing, close. to., their camp;- At witness' request she accompanied him towards the scrub, but there washq sign of any tent, nor .that any. had been there for some time. After further' unsatisfactory answers to his, inquiries, she told witness she lived out on' the Bluff Road 'with- her father arid mother, ■ who were keeping a shanty there. Frederick W. Paul, clerk in the Bank of New South Wales, gave evidence of the .witness, Mrs. Williams, coming to the Bank-'■-uf ter banking hours, on the day referred to. He brought her inside, and gave the cheque to Mr Miller, the ledgerkeeper. '- .. Edward George Miller, ledgerkeeper at the , Bank of Now South Wales, proved that . the signature to the cheque, "T. Weritworth," was a forgery. Air F. % Wentworth had an, account at the Bank. Alexander Jamieson, the Manager of the Bank of New South Wales, in Invercargill, stated that Mr Fitzwillia'in Wentworth had an account at the Bank 5 but not T. Wentworth. . '--■■■ Fiizwilliam Wenturorth, a squatter at-Five River Plains, gave evidence that the cheque produced was not drawn by him, nor«was the signature his. He had never authorised any ono to sign cheques for him. He knew a person named Presnell, who had formerly been employed by him as a carter. He had i'requeiitiy paid him by cheques. Frederick Presnell, a carter residing on the Bluff Road, gnve evidence of having been employed by the last witness. . He 'had been, n paid by cheques from Mr Wehtworth. He was in the habit of leaving .those cheques in his house. Prisoner had formerly staid at'his house. Witness was her step-father. John Bell Thomson, detPiitive officer in the Southland Police, gave evidence of having seen the prisoner sit the store of .the last witness, on the Bluff Road, on the 15th September. Witness was accompanied by the witness William Williams, who pointed out the prisoner as the person from whom he'had receive.! the cheque. He showed the cheque A to the prisoner, and asked her if she Md J seen it before. She said she had not. He then told her that from the. circumstances that had come to his knowledge he -would have to arrest her. He had made diligent inquiries, but lnd not ascertained that there was anyone, of the name of ,F. Wentworth in f Invercargill or in the district. ■..,-.. Emily Jane Waugh, the wife of a storekeeper at Sylvan Bank, near Inyercargill, stated that she recollected seeing the prisoner at her store on a Saturday ( the 12th December)- After the prisoner left the store, she saw her in company with Williams and; Ms " wife. This was the cass for the prosecution. Mr Button in the course of a lengthy ad* dress to the jury, very ably defended the pri- ' soner. He contended, principally, that the identification of the cheque had not been clearly established by either Mrs Williams or her husband, neither of whom could read or write ; also, that allowing' it to be the same cheque, the evidence failed in establishing that ■>■ there had been any uttering of the cheque-by the prisoner, by offering to dispose of, or put oft", in the signification of the legal terra. He quoted precedents from the English' law, whsre it had been held that the disposal of a cheque under similar circumstances to those in the case before the Court, did not come within the meaning of the Act, as a fraudulent putting off. offering to dispose of, or disposal of a cheque He refened to the fact — as given in the evidence of Mrs Williams— that when her husband wished to take the cheque to the bank, the prisoner said if he had any doubt \ about it, she (prisoner) would take it back. That, he contended, destroyed the supposition that she had "disposed" of it in any waj' to the witness Williams. _ There was also, he aigued, no confirmation of the evidence of Williams and his wife, and as the jury would be perfectly justified in regarding them under the circumstance as accomplices in the first' instance, they must hesitate in giving full credence to their testimony -without, further confirmation, and the only confirmation that they been seen- together was that given by the witness Mrs Waugh, to whouv the whole three were strangers, and who "admitted she had only seen them for a few minutes. Taking that view of the case,-^-that the witnesses Williams were accomplices,— r they had acted with such a degree of caution in the mode they adopted of taking the cheque to the Bank, that had they consulted a lawyer before doing so, they could not have acted more wisely in order to save themselvea from any ulterior unpleasant consequences, or to enable them to safely participate in the sharing of the money,- if successful in getting the cheque cashed. He concluded an able defence by. an appeal to the merciful consideration of .the jury on behalf of the prisoner, on account of her sex, age, and position in life, which would be ruined by a sentence of guilty. After the Crown Prosecutor had been heard .in reference to certain law points raised by the prisoner's .counsel, : .; .... His Honor briefly, butimpartially, summed up the evidence to the Jury. The Jury, after being out of Court for an hour, returned with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged. The Court then adjourned until Monday, at ten o'clock.