SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

Southland Times, Issue 1158, 14 May 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.— CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

♦ ■ The session com menced on Wednesday, j at 10 a.m., in the Provincial Hall, Kelvinstreet, Hia Honor Judge Ward presiding. \ The following gentlemen were duly sworn in as Grand Jurors : — Messrs W Arthur (foreman), Adamson, Beaven, Brodrick, Buchanan, Calder, Clerke, Granger, Hately, Garven, Marten, M'Donald, MTherson, Mair, Mitchell, Nicholson, Nutter, Toshack, Ross, Watson, and Tuie. Mr J. H. Baker was fined £5 for non-attendance ; Messrs M'Clure and Dalgleish were excused — the latter on the ground that he was a witness in the case, the former that, as a member of the Executive, he had taken part in instituting the proceedings. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, congratulated them on the lightness of the calendar, which, with the exception of the conspiracy case, disclosed only offences of ordinary occurrence. After alluding to the attention the case had excited, aud the manner in which it had been protracted, His Honor proceeded to recapitulate the legal definition of conspiracy as not necessarily a combination to ecect an unlawful purpose, but as an illegal combination to effect a purpose to which no legal penalty attached. He instanced Lord Mansfield's decision in the case of the Indian officers who agreed to resign their commissions, in which it was held that an act not punishable when that of the individual, became ground for a charge of conspiracy when performed by persons acting in concert. With respect to the means by which the object was effected, it was not necessary to prove a specific agreement, but simply to consider whether, from the acts of the accused, an agreement might be reasonably inferred. The evidence showed that on the 30th September last, Aylmer was the custodian of certain documents contained in a box that was taken to the Provincial Council Chamber, opened, closed, and returned — still in his charge, to the Government oflices. The evidence of the messenger, Morton, showed that subsequently Aylmer removed the box to the Club, where he met M'Kenzie, who, according to the statement of the express-driver, afterwards went to Aylmer's house, and spent the night there. It might be contended that Aylmer was in such a state of unconsiousness, induced by drink, that he was not accountable for what took place, but he would warn them that intoxication was no excuse for crime, and if the facts were found to be as stated, they must be uninfluenced by that plea. The further evidence, implicating Say era, was not so clear. There was his statement that he was to have been at Aylmer's house, and subsequently his connection with M'Kenzie, who had made a statement, that was almost a confession, fco Mr Dalgliesh. He (His Honor) did not think that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, they would have much difficulty in finding a true bill. With regard to the minor cases — in that of Patrick Welsh, charged with robbery from the person in a houae of ill-fame, it would be proved that he passed a £20 note, part of the money stolen, to a person named Mayo, and the law held | that where a person was in possession of stolen property, the onus probandi of how it was come by lay with him, the possession being presumptiveevidence of guilt. The same rule applied to the next case, in which a watch stolen from a farmer was found in the possession of the prisoner. ! The next offence, one of obtaining money ! by means of a valueless cheque, was of a kind for the commission of which he regretted to say that extreme facilities were rife in this colony. A man obtained provisions, drink, <fec, from a landlord, and gave a worthless cheque ii payment, it was an everyday case. One reason for the prevalence of the crime was probably to be touud in the fact that more persons had bank accounts here than in England, but it was really surprising that the frequency of the offence did not shake the confidence of persons in the couutry. His Honor having intimated the desirability of proceeding with the minor charges fir^t, the Gr*nd Jury retired, shortly returning true bills in all but the conspiracy case. '-Roland M'Donald (44) was placed at the bar, charged with stealing a silver

watch and chain, the property of Sylvester Edward, of Rivert-m. There was a second count charging the prisoner with feloniously receiving stolen goods. Plea — Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Macdonald) having briefly stated the case, called Sylvester Edward, a farmer residing; near Riverton, who, after identifying a watcb and chain, stated that on the 17th March last, he went out, leaving those articles under a pillow in his own house. When he returned, late the same day, they were gone. Gave information to the police nest day. Examined by prisoner — There was no one in charge of my place. The watch must have been taken on the 17th, aa I saw it the night before. ! To His Honor— l do not know the i prisoner. i W. E. Shury, sergeant of police, , stationed at Riverton, proved arresting the prisoner on the 19 bh March, at Mr Holt's station, about 40 miles from Riverton. Told him that a man answering his description was suspected of stealing a watch from Mr Edward, and that witness should search him ior it. Prisoner put his hand in his vest pocket, and gave witness the watch produced, saying "he supposed it would be a winter's work for him, and that he would rather be in chokee than looking about for work." . . The prisoner, in cross-examination, endeavored to show that the sergeant had misconstrued hia expression, that he (the prisoner) in a general way had said, that but for the name of the thing, a man might as well be in gaol as looking about for work. . I. Broad, watchmaker, residing in Invercargill, proved the value of the watch and chain to be between £7 and £8. The prisoner's statement when before the Magistrate, to the effect that he purchated the watch for 13 8 6d from a man unknown to him, having been read, he repeated it to the jury with some unimportant additions. His Honor having concisely summed up, the jury, after a brief consultation, returned with a verdict of " Guilty.' The prisoner, in reply to the usual question, said " he did not think the jury had done justice," and was proceeding m the same strain, until checked by His Honor, who, in passing sentence, said the jury had, on the clearest evidence, found the prisoner guilty, and although it was quite true that for honest men it was a great hardship to have to wander about the country in search of work, the term honest man did not apply in his case. He would, however, be kept honest for some time, as the sentence of the Court was— three years' imprisonment, with hard labor. James Macdonald (41) was charged with obtaining goods and money under false pretences by means of a valueless - cheque. This prisoner pleaded guilty, but urged in extenuation that he had been drinking, and that the cheque was given with the intention of providing funds before presentation. He went on to tell a long story about two other cheques be subsequently gave in Christchureh, for which he had already suffered sentence. Hia Honor intimated that the history was irrelevant, but remarked, in passing sentence, that the prisoner seemed to have indulged once in trie dangerous luxury of dishonesty, and had gone on. It was a great pity that publicans should so readily lay themselves open to fraudulent attempts. Under the circumstances, he considered the ends of justice would be met by the infliction of twelve months' imprisonment. Patrick Welsh (45) Wcis placed at the bar, charged with stealing £23, the property of Archibald Fotheringham. There was a second count charging the prisoner with feloniously receiving. He pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor, having stated the case, called James T. G-oodsir, accountant in the service of the Bank of Otago, who proved payment, on the 11th February last, of two £20 note3, a3Bl and a3BB, in exchange for a cheque drawn by W. Stevens, runholder, but could not remember the person to whom the money was paid. Archibald Fotheringham, ploughman, deposed that in February he cashed at the Bank of Otago a cheque of Howell and Stevens' for £39 13s, receiving two £20 notes and paying the difference. Witness did not know the number of the notes, but the banker took down the numbers in case witness should lose them. One of the notes witness changed about a week or fortnight afterwards, with Mr H. M'Lean of Waliacetown, but did not know the number of it. It was one of the two he received from the previous witness. On the evening of the 13th March, witness was at Mrs O'Brien's, where he saw the prisoner. The remaining note was then in witness' pocketbook, in his pocket along with three single notes, a promissory note for £15, a receipt for a horse, and three letters. While there witness missed the book, the prisoner being present at the time. With those in the house he denied having seen it. Witness was under the influence of liquor, but not drunk, and went outside to look if the pocket-book had fallen out of his pocket when he stumbled. He then returned to the house and " gammoned " to go to sleep, to see if they 1 would hand it about or say anything about it. They did not, and witness gave information to the police. [ F. W. AVade proved receipt on the 13th March last of a £20 note (number uncertain), which was paid in to the Bank of Otago with other moneys on the following Monday. It was the only £20 note among the moneys passed through his hands. H. Mayo, publican, Dee-street, proved receipt from the prisoner on the 14th j March of a £20 note, a £5 note, and some single notes, said to be balance of a cheque received by him from Riverton. Sent the money to the bank on Tuesday by Roouey, bia man, including the £20

note, the only one of the amount in Jthe sum. John Rooney, servant of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. W. Souness, teller in the Bank of Otago, proved receipt from Mr Wade on the 15th March last of one £20 note, numbered a3BB. On the following day the witness Eooney paid in anothor £20 note, number a.381 (note identified). J. W. Chapman, sergeant of police, proved arrest of prisoner on the 16th March, He then said he was innocent — that the money he had given to Mr Mayo he had received in Riverton for a cheque. The following morning he stated he had received only £10 in Siverton from a dealer named Seehoff, and that the £20 note given to Mayo he found near Mr Tapper's fence, within some 40 or 50 feet of Mrs O'Brien's house. The prisoner, in his defence, directed j the attention of the jury to the discrepancy between the prosecutor's statement that the note was in his possession when he went into Mrs O'Brien's house, and his admission that he went outside afterwards to look for it, and went on to repeat his statement to the sergeant, adding, " was ic likely that if he intended anything wrong he would have placed the money in Mr Mayo's hands." Hia Honor, in summing up, lucidly traced the chain of evidence, and explained the law with respect to goods or money found, to be that if there was a reasonable probability of finding the owner, and no attempt to do so were made, it was larceny. It was for the jury to say whether, under the circumstances, the prisoner could have had any doubt of being able to find the owner. After a brief consultation, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Sentence — two years' imprisonment with hard labor. His Honor intimated at this stage that Petit Jurors and witnesses would be relieved from further attendance until the next morning at ten o'clock, as it seemed probable the Grand Jury would not come to an agreement in time to commence the conspiracy case that afternoon. The Court was then adjourned till 2 p.m. At 3.30 p.m. the Grand Jury returned a true bill against the defendants in the i conspiracy case. Fresh recognisances, to the extent in each case of one-half the amount previously taken, were entered into for the appearance of the defendants.