SUPREME COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 697, 17 July 1867, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL JUEISDICTIOISr. A session of the Supreme Court was held yesterday in tlie Provincial Hall Kelvin-street commencing at 10 a.m. His Honor Justice Chapman presided. In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honor alluded to the absence of crime of serious character as speaking well for the community. . True bills were returned by the Grand Jury in the three cases set down for hearing. Mr Macdonald officated as Crown Prosecutor. Eeguta v. Brown. In this case the prisoner was charged with having fraudulently obtained money by means of a valueless cheque. Prom the evidence of J. H. Perkins, draper, ; it appeared that on the. 3rd April last, the prisoner (who had, on a previous day, purchased from him some articles of wearing apparel for cash) came into ihV shop about dusk to buy a hat. Prisoner wished to get one on credit but. on being refused threw down a " cheque for £25, saying " take it out of _that." The witness. on looking at the. cheque said "it is Mr Cowan's, is it?" .land was answered, "that's the name." Witness declined to cash the cheque but gave <£5 on account exchanging receipts with the prisoner who said he would return the next morning for a quantity of goods he required. He did not return, and on the cheque being presented at the JBank of New Zealand, payment was refuged on the ground of there being no funds there to the credit of any person signing his name like the signature on the cheque — which bore a resemblance only to the name of Brown or Cowan. When arrested, a number of blank cheques and one purporting to be signed — Buchanan were found on the prisoner, who denied all knowledge of how he came by them. Prisoner, wLo was dndefended made a statement to the effect that he had come to town with £16 or ,£l7 in his possession,. and that he had got on the spree— that he made no false representation to induce the prosecutor to take 1 the cheque and that it was not likely he would ifaetuated by fraudulent motives have given the receipt spoken of. His Honor in summing up pointed out that it was not necessary that false representation should be made in words to complete the offence. He cited the example of one who, in Cambridge, put oh the hat and gown of a student and going to a place where gownsmen resorted and (it was to be regretted) were in the habit of obtaining goods on credit, did by this disguise obtain things he could not otherwise have obtained, and was punished therefor. It had moreover been established over and over again that the mere putting down of a cheque in payment implied that it was good — that if not, it was what might be called a false pretence by way of demeanour. The Jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty. His Honor in passing sentence, remarked that prisoner had been found . guilty of a very impudent attempt to obtain money under false pretences — an attempt only equalled in its impudence by its clumsiness. It was fortunate for society that such a degree of folly usually attended the commission of crime, that, twenty-four hours seldom elapsed., until the perpetrators were in the hands of the police. He should sentence the prisoner to imprisonment with hard labor' for twelve calendar months. . ■«• EEGINA V. WILSHEE. J This case was one of alleged, robbery; from the person of one William Harrison at Winton, in January last. Plea not guilty. The sum lost by Harrison was

when : on the road to Invercargill. ; that after drinking with him he "(Harrison) fell asleep by the roadside ; that on awaking he missed his money, which he stated positively was safe in his pocket when he laid down. He described several of the £1 notes he lost as having been endorsed, by himself when received. Messrs Bain, Freeman, Galbraith and Colyer, hotelkeepers, proved that prisoner paid to them notes endorsed as described. [Incidentally, Messrs", Colyer 'and; Bain mentioned that prisoner reminded thism -that they, had assisted him when "hard up " some time previous, and that he out of the notes repaid the amounts.] . | The. defence set up by the prisoner^ — who cross-examined the -<2hief witness with great ttict — was that he found the money,, and "being in necessitous circumstances he converted it to his own use. [We have not- space on the present occasion for hi 3 detailed version of the affair.] .■; '..' His Honor, in summing up, characterised the defence as ingenious, but said that it was an admission of larceny, which was committed when the finder of a thing did not use due diligence to discover the owner. Failing to find the owner, however, the finder's claim was good against all but the true owner. Such a line of defence was common enough; — it was competent for the jury to determine whether they would pronounce the act; of the prisoner one of larceny or robbery. The jury returned their verdict, "Guilty," of robbery. His Honor passed sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with hard labor, . remarking that the prisoner's manner of defence led to the suspicion that he was not unacquainted with courts of justice. Prisoner— " Nbt as a criminal, your Honor. I have held a very different position." ; Eegina y. Brown. ! Laurence Brown, charged with embezzling the sum' of .£4 11s 6d, the pro^ perty of his employer, John Ross, a settler at Eosslyn, plead not guilty. The evidence in this case was long and tedious. The defence set up by the prisoner was that wages were due to him — although not to the amount charged in the indictment. ; ■, His Honor, in summing up, explained that a servant authorised to receive moneys had no- right to pay himself; or even supposing that he believed in error that he had such a right he should have openly asserted it as soon as possible after receiving the money. It would be, however, for the jury to consider the question of intention. . They returned ar verdict f guilty. Sentence, 12 . months' imprisonment — His Honor warning the prisoner that if brought before him for a third offence (he haying been convicted nearly three years ago for horse stealing) the punishment would be more severe.