CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Auckland, July 5.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 160, 10 July 1886, Page 4

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Auckland, July 5.

The quarterly sessions for gaol delivery were opened this morning, Hiß Honor taking his seat upon the Bench at 11 o'clock sharp. The Grand Jury. The following gentlemen were empanelled as a Grand Jury :— Alfred Ash ton, Wm, Thomas Ball, Edmund Bell, George W illiam Binney, Robert Blair, Arthui Bull, James Buttle, John Bycrofc, Hans Bygum, Henry Byron, Richard Cameron, Robert Charles Carr, Thomaa Frederick Cheesoman, Thouaas Ching, James McCosh Clark, Frederick Ernest Compton, William Colsen, Charles Dawson, William Paul Jfeatheretone, Maydwell Goodwin, Edward Hornsby, Howard Hutton, and Edward Lewis. Mr J. M. Clark was chosen foreman of the jury. Judge's Charge. His Honor delivered the following charge Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the grand jury, -The calendar with which you have to deal on the present occasion, although eomewhat lengthy, is not j a very serious one. There are 19 charges against 26 prisoners. lam told j that there may be more, but if bo the depositions have not yet arrived. So far, therefore, the Calendar shows 19 charges against 26 prisoners. I am happy to say j th«t uuly twu of Ciioao charges aie offences [ againet the person, and they are trifling cases of the usual character arising out of drunken rows. None of j the caseß which you will have to consider is of an aggravated or unusually serious character. There are only a few cases in regard to which I feel it to be my duty to direct you. There is one charge of horse-stealing, in which the person charged admits that he took the horse, but alleges that his own horse being locked up, he took the other merely for temporary use, in ending to return it. If such were the case, then of course there could be no horse-stealing in the absence of a felonious intent. It will be for you to inquire whether the circumatancea show any felonious intent. For instance, an assertion of the right of ownership, or the offering of the animal for sale, or any other conduct that would indicate a felonious intent, would warrant you in finding a true bill. One person has been committed on a charge of burglary, which, as you know, consists in breaking intoa dwelling-house for the purpose of stealing. It must be a breaking into a dwelling-house - a, breaking into a fhop or stores would not be sufficient; but if tho shop or store was used al-o a° a dwell ing-houHe, then the act; would amount to the crime of burglary. So far as appears from the depositions in the piesent case, there was a shop and the owner lived above it ; but if there was no internal communication between the chop and the dwelling, the offence of breaking into the shop could not be said to be breaking into and entering a dwellinghouse. If, however, there was internal communication between the shop and the dweiling-houee, then the offence amounted to the crime ot burglary. To mark the distinction, it will suffice for me to say that if there was no internal communication between shop and dwelling it would not be burglary ; if there was internal cnmmunieation.it would be burglary. Perhaps an additional charge may be brought against the prisoner when the case cornea before you. If you should find that there is no internal communication between shop and dwelling you will ignore tho iz: bUrglary, and deal with the other charge according to the evidence. There are doverai w asd9 of larceny of the ueual character. In moat of them, as usual, the maiu evidence is the fact of the stolen goods being found in the possession of the accused shortly after the thefr, and the law presumes, when stolen property is found in the possession of any person shortly after the occurrence of the robbery, that that person is the thief unless he cau show that he honestly came oy the goods. You will remember that in dealing with these cases of larceny. There i is one charga of forcible entry— that is to say a number of persons by force ousted the person in possession of some property. Where persous are iv possession — you know the common saying, and it ia a very true one, that "Possession is nine points of the law " the persons in possession of the proI perty cannot by force be ousted from it ■ even by the true owner." The law as regards .forcible entry is thus laid down: — •'Everyone commits the misdemeanour called a forcible entry who, in order to a »- - ~ -• ._ i.l .r - x. „ „_ 1 u*»*vo |Jcef*t>t4SiiPii iiioitiuij onload upuu aitV lands and tenements in a violent manner, whether such violence consists in actual force applied to any other person, or in threats, or in breaking open any house,or in collecting together an unusual number of persons for the purpose of making such entry. It is immaterial | whether the person making such an entry had or had not a right to enter, provided that a person who enters upon landsor tenements t of his own, but which are in the custody of his servant or bailiff, does not commit the offence of forcible entry." The law is that any man who wishes to take possession — even of what is his own, but in the possession of another — must appeal to i the law, and not have recourse to force. In the case that will come before you, it apj pears that a person was apparently squat ting on the house and land, which apparently he had no legal right to. A number of persons, probably authorised by the true owner, came by night, tore the shingles of the roof off, and used force to expel the person squatting. The law does not permit even the true owners to uae force in thia way, but finds them guilty of forcible entry. There is one charge under the Bankruptcy Act against a bankrupt who apparently attempted to go away with property belonging to his creditors. The section of the Act under which the charge is laid is as follows : — "IE any person who is adjudged a bankrupt after the presentation of a bankruptcy petition by, or against him, or within four months before such presentation, quits New Zealand and takes with him, or makes preparation for quitting New Zealand and for taking with him, any part of his property, to the amount of £lQ or upwards, which ought by law to be divided amongst his creditors, he shall, unless the jury is satisfied that he had no interest to defraud, be guilty of felony." I believe the accused will be indicted under that section, viz., attempting to remove from the colony a larger portion of the goods of his creditors. I do not think you 'will have any difficulty in dealing with this case. There are two cases of arson. Of course, in such cases there is always a difficulty in getting direct evidence—it is nearly always of a circumstantial character. It will be for you to say whether the charge is probable, and if you find a pnma facie case disclosed by the evidence to return a true bill. If it is clear that the accused did not commit the offence you will find no bill. If, however, there is any doubtf you muet recollect that your duty then is different from that of the petty jury, who give the accused the henefit of any doubt. As an investigating body, your duty in the event of any doubt is to send the caee to trial, so that it) may be farther investigated before tho petty

jury. The ohly other case which I find it necessary to call your attention to is one which probably will give you considerable difficulty as it has given me. It is a charge of inducing the probecutor to endorse a bill by means of false pretences. The section of the Act under which this charge is brought is as follows : — " Whosoever with intent to defraud or injure any other person shall, by any falee pietence, fraudulently cause or induce any other pei son to execute, make accept, endorse, or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security, or to write, impress, or affix his name or the name of any other person, or of any company, fitm, or co-partnership, or the seal of any body, corporate company, or society upon any paper or parchment in order that the same may be afterwards made, or converted into, or used, or dealt with ac a valuable security, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." Before calling your attenI tion to the facts of the case as it appears lon the depositions, I wish to impress on your minds the eeeence of the crime of I obtaining money by false pretences, or inducing any person by fal*e pretences to endorso a negotiable instrument. The four elements of such an offence are:— Firstly, that there should be a pretence— that 18 a rep mentation of an existing fact - not of something that is to ocour, but of lan existing fact. Thue, if a person represents, "I have money coming to me; I shall be in funds next- week," that is no representation of an existing fact. That is a representation of something to occur, and that would not be false protenceß even if false within the meaning of the Act. It mußt be a representation of some existing fact - not an opinion existing at the time the pretence is made. The second element is that it must be upon the faith of this pretence that the pereon was induced to endorse the bill It must not be ! on account of some other false statement. If there are other inducements which do not come within the ecope of falee pretences, then the accused has not obtained the money by false pretences because the two are not conuected, and the charge tails, The third element is that the pretence must be clearly proved to be false. Thus, for instance, if a person pretends falsely, " You are perfectly safe, this is my horte," and so induces another to endorso a bill for him, it must be clearly proved that it was not the accused s horse in order to constitute the false pretence And the fourth element is that the false statement must be made with intent to defraud at the time it wag made -to defraud the person who was induced to sign the security. Tnese are the four elements which combine to constitute the charge of obtaining money, or the endorsing of the security o! bills, by false pietences. In the case that will come before you, the fact 3 .are very peculiar. [Hid Honor then proceeded to recount them.] how, no doubt; all this looks like a fraud, but it does not constitute an endorsement ob tamed by means of false pretences. In the first place the pretence tet forth is a" pretence that the money belongs to the accused. Well, it must be shewn that that pretence was made at the time to induce the endorsing of the bill— not when it was given into the prosecutor's hands in August or at any other time, but at the time it was endorsed. In the second place it must have been the moving or inducing cause of the prosecutor endorsing the bill. If he endorsed this bill as he admitted he did others — upon the strength of a belief tbat the expected money would come Out to accused through him, and that he would thus be able to secure himself, then the charge of false prefaces kw l^ f a n to the ground. But if you are satisfied that it ia reaiiy the case that the accused pretended falsely that the money was his in order to get the endorsement, it will be sustained, but you will also be careful to inquire as to the moving cause of the endorsing of the bill Then the pretence must be 3hown to be false No%v, so fa" as I have read the depositions. I confess that I do not see that the falsity of the statement is clear, viz., that the money belonged to the accused. No doubb his wife claimed it, but that is no evidence thaE her claim is a good and valid one. You will have to inquire and see whe^hor in reality there was collusion between wife and husband in order to protect the husband and obtain money for both of them. You will have to be satisfied that the pretence is absolutely false. Lastly, you must be satisfied that the statement that the money was accused's— if it was made at the time the endorsement took place —was made with the intent at that time to defraud.—The Grand Jury then letired. JtfRKAKING AND Er-IrmlNw. ClIH!?. Taylor pleaded guilty to two charges of breaking and entering the dwelling houso of Thomas Ikey at Waikomiti, and stealing therefrom. — Sentenced to nine months for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. Horse Stealing. — Christopher William Ruthven was charged with stealing a chesnut gelding, on the 22nd of February, the property of Richard Farrer - Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and expressed surprise that his solicitor was not present. — MrGover appeared for Mr Williamson, the Crown 3olicitor, and stated the facts as follow -.—. — Richard Farrer, a settler at the Bay of Islands, deposed that in February last he possessed, with other horses, a chestnut gelding. He missed the animal from the run and eight weeks afterwards the gelding was brought to him from Whangaroa by Constable Coghlan with prosecutors brand upon it. — Thomas Scott deposed to knowing the prisoner. Saw him riding a horse on the 2nd April, at Kaihu, about thirty-five miles from Mr Farrer's place at Kawa Kawa. Knew the animal. It had Mr Farrer's brand on the near shoulder. He pulled up at Gibb's store. Told him he had a good sort there. Prisoner said, touching the gelding on the neck, "You shall have this one for £6 10s." Ho eaid, " Why, this is the gelding that Mr Farrer owned." Prisoner smiled. Had no doubt as to the identity of prisoner. — By prisoner : I don't owe you half-a-crown for doing my watch. You spoiled it. — James McCrae, in the employ ef Mr Farrer, gave evidence as to the identity ot the animal which was missing from his employers premises, and to hie knowledge of Ruthven. — Constable William Coghlan deposed that the' case was given into his hands by Constable O'Reilly. He took charge of the prisoner, who said "I will give you no trouble," Had seen the horse in prisoner's possession two months previously. — Thia being the case for the prosecution, the prieoner adI dressed the jury in rather an ingenious manner. — His Honor, in summing up, said the prisoner had admitted taking the horse and riding it to Kaihu, but that he intended to return it. Scott, however, if the jury can accept his statement, said the prisoner offored the gelding for sale. If he did this he was guilty of stealing, but if be had ridden it away for temporary purposes and returned it to its owner, he was not guilty. — The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he was discharged from custody. „

(Continued on page 7.)

During last year the converts to Christianity made in Japan were more than equal to the total number made during the first 20 years of miisionary work in that Empire.