SUPREME COURT.-Criminal Sessions.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 173, 9 October 1886, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.-Criminal Sessions.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward.) . Auckland, October 4. The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court for gaol delivery were opened this morning, His Honor Judge Ward (whose first appearance it was upon the Auckland Bench) taking hia seat at 11 o'clock. The Grand Jury.— The following gentlemen were empanelled as the Grand Jury: — Graves Aickin, Joteph Taylor Armitage, Alfred Barnes, Jas. Black, Wm. Berry, John Buchanan, 'Fr'ancia Nelson Burt, JaB. Henry Moore Carpenter, John Chambers, j Jas. Hugh Buchanan Coates, Wm. Stephen Cochrane, John Aitken Connell, I Richard Garlick, Robert William Hammond, Chaa. Heaketh.John Kirkwood, Geo. Schwartz Kiesling, Frederick Larkins, Jas. Marshall Lennox, Gabriel Lewis, Samuel Luke, Daniel Honderaou Luck, Tho3. Francis Boylan was t-xcused from attendi ance. Mr Aickin was chosen foreman. The Judge's Charge. — His Honor deli- ■ vered the following charge to the Grand Jury : j — Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury: Ihaveto express my regret thatonthis firat oocoasion of our meeting the calendar should be the heaviest known in Auckland for many years. Seasons of commercial i depression invariably ptoduce a harvest of crime ; but I siucerely trust that the long list of criminal case§ before ub is aot to be taken aa a fair indication of the slate of the mercantile barometer in the ftorth. There are 46 bills to be presented to you ; and it to the moat important of these that I must now draw your attention. The first ca=e is that of Michael Lunny, who is charged with attempted murder. The facts are simple, and appear to be j clearly proven, more especially as the accused subsequently ackuosvledged them. j Th 6 wife of the accused swears to the husband having shot her, and is corroborated by a witness who was present at the time. It i<* also stated that the accused acknowledged having shot L is wife. There will toeref ore ba no difficulty in coming to a conclusion upon the factd. The sole question is whether the shooting was done with intent to murder. On that point the law in thus : — If the prisoner, with a deadly weapon, delibeiately inflicted a wound in a part where it was likely to prove fatal, the deduction that he meant to murder is clear. Improper conduct of the wife, as stuted in the depositions, is no justification. If a man finds another in the act of adultery with hia wife, and kills him or her in the firdt transport of pasaion, that would only be manslaughter, and manslaughter in the lowest degree. But the killing of an adulterer, or of an adulterous wife, deliberately, and upon revenge, is murder. Iv the second ca3e against Lunny, the shooting at McGuire appears, from the depo&itions, to be clearly proven, and it will bo for you to decide on the intent ; and if, on due consideration of the situation of ihe partiea, the statements of the accused, and the weapon employed, the criminal intention be distinctly shown, you will have no difficulty in finding a true bill. The next case is that of Christian Johnson, charged with assault with intent to com- | mit a rape upon his own daughter, a child of 12 years. There is a mass of irrelevant matter on the depositions, and probably the only valuable evidence before you will be that of the child herself. She appears to have varied in her statement more than once. It will be tor you to judge, after hearing her, how far she may be a witness of the truth, and to find accordingly. The case of -Kegina v. Reid is of a somewhat similar character, being also an assault on a child. In this case you wil 1 probably have less difficulty iv coming to a decision, aa certain evidence corroborating the child's statement will be laid before you. There ar6 only three cases of assaults, I am happy to say. In Kegina v. Dodds, which is an assault on a Tvonian, the evidence as to the assault is exceedingly clear. If the indictment is for indeceut a&sault, surely you will have no difficulty with it. But if it is for assault with intent to ravish, you must be satisfied that the prisoner intended to possess himself of the person of the party assaulted, notwithstanding any resistance on her part. Then there come no less than five cases of arson, the first being that of Ecgina v, McCarthy, who, I am told, is now au inmate of the Lunatic' Asylum, However, his state cf mind will not come bofore you for consideration. The facts appear to be that the prisoner was taken to the lock-up over night, and placed in a cell. At 5 next morning he calls out " Fire," and his cell is found in flames ; whereupon he is released, and escapes while the constable and other prisoners are engaged in extinguishing the tire. As the fire clearly originated in the prisoner's cell, it is for you to decide whether ! you can reasonably have any doubt that he was the person to light it with the viaw of effecting his escape from the lock-up. The next case of areon la that of Regina v. English. In this case the prisoner was em- ' ployed a? clerk or secretary to the Farmers' Association at Opotild ; and he is charged, first with embezzling certain sums of money belonging to the Association, and secondly with sotting 'fire to the office and papers of the Association, with the view of obliterating the traces of his crime. The evidence on the point of ar3on id extremely confused and contradictory, and you will have to give it careful consideration before finding a true bill. As to the charges of embezzlement, they aro not preferred by or on behalf of the Association whereof the prisoner was a ' servant, but by a constable who had access to their papers after the fire. There appears to have been a 3light deficiency in the prisoner's accounts, and an this zealous constable was not satisfied, although the shareholders of the Association appear to have been so, the present charges arise from his investigations. In, the mo3t important case, where the prisoner is charged with embezzling £13, it will be snown to you that he did not receive this money, but was directed to pay it to the Association by one, Sandeman,' to whom he owed it, and to whom he gave a receipt for the amount on behalf of hia employers. I confess it appears to me

extremely doubtful whether the subset quent non-payment of this sum to thf Association can be aaid to amount to embezzlement. However, if you are satisfied that the prisoner's neglect to pay tbis £13 was due to an intent to defraud the Association, and you consequently find a true bill, the question of law can be raised hereafter. There is an English caee which comes very close to this one ; otherwise I I should have directed you to throw out the bill. The further sums that the prisoner is charged with embezzling are exceedingly small. No doubt it was hie duty to pay over these sums at once to the Association ; and it will be for >ou, on reviewing all the circumstances, to say whether the prisoner retaim d them with a deliberate intention to defraud the Association or not. The next case of arson is that of Regina v. (Clarke. The prisoner is shown to have been present in his dwelling-house or shop up till a short time previous to the fire breaking out ; to have completely cleared his goods out of the premises, and to have subaequently given a false statement to the police by stating that he had saved nothing. It is for, you to say whether that constitutes sufficient evidence on which to justify you in finding a true bill against him. The next case is Regina v. Spalding. In this case, the prisoner is, in effect, his own a< cuser, and you will probably have no difficulty in deciding on the facts. The whole circumstances, however, point very strongly to the man being ot unsound mind, bufc that question will not come before you. It will remain to be decided hereafter. The two next cases are those of arson and breaking and entering, against a prisoner named O'Brien. The sole evidence against the prisoner ia that ho attempted to dispose of certain tools, which were stolen from a workshop and from a house in Evelyn -street. The workshop was subaequently discovered to be on fire, and the theory of the prosecution is that he set it on fire in order to conceal his crime. As far as the charge of breaking and entering is concerned, you will know that the possession of recently stolen property undoubtedly casts on the possessor the onus of showing that he came by it honestly, and if he fail to do so, the presumption is that he is the- thief. You will, therefore, probably have no troublein finding a true bill on both charges of breaking and entering. But on the question of arson it will be a matter for careful consideration on your part \* hether the circumstances will bear you out in returning a true bill. The next case is one of burglary, viz., Regina v, Colley and Jones. It appears that the two prisoners, with another named Dyer, went by night to the shoo of a tobacconist ; that Dyer entered the shop through an open fanlight, rifled it, aod then unlocked the shop door, and handed the stolen property to Colley and Jones, who were waiting outside The unlocking of the door in this case is sufficient to establish the charge of burglary against all the prisoners, breaking out being at law equivalent to breaking in. The next case is Regina v, Martin and Others, but I have only just had the indictments laid before me. According to the depositions, it would seem that Martin, aided by several others, went out to shoot certain pigs at Opotiki, and that a certain Frenchman named Peter came out to stop him. Peter carried with him a gun, and appears to have presented it at the prisoner, Martin. The gun was taken from him; he was roughly used ; and the prisoners subsequently threatened te take him to Whangarei, and hand him over to the police. In order, therefore, to save himself, Peter gave Martin £5, and signed a document purporting to transfer to him a horse, which did not belong to him. It you find the circumstances to be as stated, Martin is clearly entitled to some compensation for being assaulted by having the gun pointed at him. But if he resorted to violence in order to extort that compensation, aa the case comes under the 4Sth clause of the Larceny Act of 1867, you would have no difficulty in a true bill for larceny. There are two cattle stealing cases, but in these the cattle were either lost or strayed from where they had been grazing, and the prisoner was subsequently found selling them by auction. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the cattle were in the position of stolen property,and as I have said before, the onus rests with the prisoner of showing that he came by them honestly. There is a case against a boy named Humphreys, who possessed himself of the key of a Post-office box, and he appears to have been detected in the act of taking letters from the box. This, key had opened a large number of lockB in the Post-office. It is to be regretted that any two locks should be alike, for however trustworthy the owner of each box may be himself, there is no saying to whom his key may be entrusted. Or if he loses it, it seems hard that other boxholders should risk the loss of their letters in consequence. However, this is merely by the way. The case is a very clear one, as the boy was caught in the act of stealing the letters. The next case is one against a man named McAnally, The prosecutor lent his watch to accused, who pawned it for £2 10s. This act amounts to larceny as a bailee. There is also a charge of illegally pawning under the Pawnbrokers' Act. You will find no dimcuity in deciding in this case. The next ci*se Regina v. Chambers is for forging and ut,tering a cheque. There is shown here the usual proof of gross carelessness on the part of the tradesman cashing the cheque for the accused. The cheque is signed "John Ablott." Prosecutor inquired of the prisoner uttering the cheque whether the signature is that of the moneylender •• Abbott." Prisoner replied in the affirmative, and the cheque is then cashed. If the prosecutor believed the signature to be that of Mr Abbott, he must also have behoved that Mr Abbott could not spell hia own name. It is .sometimes difficult to prove the intent of accused in these cases ; but as the prisoner here makes a false statement as to the signature, no difficulty will occur on that score. If, when presonting a cheque, a man lies ,in order to induce another to cash it, fraud may fairly be presumed against him. This remark will also apply to the case JJogr.v. Brodie. There are only two more important caaes to which I need draw your attention. The first is the charge gf perjury . against Bennett.

In this case Bennett is charged with having falsely aworn, in an affidavit filed in certain bankruptcy proceedings, that a certain promissory note was not endorsed when presented to him. The witnesses swore to the contrary, and after hearing their evidence you will probably have no difficulty in deciding. Of course the defence will come in s or consideration hereafter. The last case is that of Green y. Kay for libel. There is no necessity in this case for defining theexact nature of criminal libel, as the language alleged to have been used is exceedingly strong. On proof of the writing and publication 6f accused, you will probably find a true bill. But as the original letter containing libel was destroyed by the party who received it, you will be very careful to satisfy yourselves that the copy produced before you is a true one. I think these are all the cases to which I deem it necessary to draw your attention You have probably all frequently served »b • Grand Jurors before ; and therefore, in reference . to your duties, 1 need only remind you that in each ea& you have merely to inquire whether there be sufficient cause to call upon the accused to answer it. You will now retire to your room, and the bills will be laid before you. The Grand Jury then retired. Horse-stealing. — John Honrickaon, alias Hansen and Ferguson, and other aliases, beiag being arraigned on the charge of stealing a horse, pleaded not jyuilty. Prisoner said "he took the horse." but did not sell it. Mr Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, said the prisoner was indicted for having borrowed a black, pony, and then loffcred it to aMr Coonibe for £2 10s, giving a receipt for the monei. Mr Coonibe finding that the pony was stolen, let the police know of it, and the prisoner was arrested. The prisoner had pleaded being drunk as an excuse. Poaka (a native). Samuel Coombes, boardinghouse keeper, and George La wry gave evidence, anil the jury found the prisoner guilty, but j recommended him to the mercy of the Court. ] His Honor said he would give effect to the recommendation of the jury, although he could not see on what grounds it was given. The judgment of the Court would be imprisonment with hard labour for IS months. Larcexy. — James Milne was arraigned on thq caiiage of feloniously stenling a watch. The Crown Prosecutor having opened the case, Charles Xewson, builder, deposed that ho was •werking at the new Coffee Palace, when he had his watch in his waistcoat hanging near the door. He saw accused about 2 o clock ; missed his watch about five. By the prisoner : Did not see prisoner take the watch. B. A. Goldwater, manager of Levy & Co.'s pawn office, deposed to the prisoner pawning the watch produced with him for l(»s., and Detective Walker gave evidence as to arriho. The jury found the prisoner guilty and Hts Honor sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour. October 5. House-breaking.— Poihipi (a Maori) was arraigned on tho charge of breaking into J. G. Walmesley's store at Opotiki in July last, and stealing 11s 6d and sundry goods. —Mr Hammond acted as sworn interpreter. —Mr Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, stated the case to the jury, which was that Mr "\Valmesley found accused in his store, and when caught he had Us 6d in the heel of his boot. — The defence was that the prisoner was on the premises in search of hie horse. — Henry George Walmseley, auctioneer at Opotiki, deposed that he closed his store in the evening, and left Us 6d in the Cash box. The store was locked up. On the same evening he loat £2 out of his cashbox. Witness saw prisoner shouting for a number of his Maori friends. He returned to His store some time after and caw some one in his store. He got a Mr Hume to assist him, and he caught the prisoner, with the help of a constable. — By the prisoner : Was certain the prisoner was the man caught in the yard. Had given prisoner money, but not 10s. The amount found in his boot corresponded with what I had missed from my cash-box. — The prisoner continued the cross-examina-tion at great length, asking a number of irrelevant questions.- David Hume confirmed thelast witness's evidence, and wae cross-examined for nearly 20 minutes by the prisoner. — Alfred John Sisam, constable in the Opotiki township, gave evidence as to arrest of prisoner. He also said that Mr Walmesley had told him he had left a sum of Us 6d as a trap, having lost £2 before that evening. The prisoner having made a statement to the jury, His Honor summed up against the prisoner, and the jury gave a verdict of guilty, when his Honor sen tenced him to IS months' hard labour. Uttering. — Thomas Chambers, alias John Chambers, was indicted on the charge of uttering a false cheque last July. — The prisoner pleaded guilty, and had nothing to say. Hie Honor said that as the crime had been assisted by the carele^sneefc of the person who received the cheque he would lighten the sentence.— Judgment, 18 months' hard labour. Illegal Pawning.— James McAnaly pleaded guilty to pawning a watch which he had borrowed.— Judgment : Imprisonment with hard labour for cix calendar months. Breaking and Entering.— P. Anderson pleaded guilty to stealing a cup from the shop of H. Kohn, but not to breaking in. He did not know what he was doing at the time.— Judgment: Two years' hard labour. Stealing Carpenters' Tools. —Luke, alias Laurence OBrien, was charged with feloniously stealing a quantity of carpenters' tools.the property of Alexander McLeod. The prosecutor was working in a house in Hepburn -street, and locked up certain tools there when he went home. Next morning he found his tools gone.— John Oleen, pawnbroker, Constable Lamb, and Detec« tive Hughes gave evidence on the part of the prosecution.— His Honor having briefly addreesed the jury, they returned a verdict immediately of guilty against the prisoner. — Judgment : three years' penal servitude. Youthful Prisoners.— Henry John Humphries, a little boy whose head just appeared above the dock walls, pleaded guilty to the larceny of a letter, th« property of the Postmaster-General,' and with stealing a roller, the property of Mr Percy Smith.— Mr Mahocy appeared for the prisoner, and epoke as to the prisoner being of very tender age, and having been playing truant ; and finding a koy, tried, as a boy would, to see if the key would open *ny ot the letter-boxes near which the key was found. The learned counsel called the Court's particular attention to the boy's perfectly open manner, no concealment being attempted. Good bondsmen could be produced, if the Court would allow the young prisoner to be allowed to go out under bond, and try to recover his character. — Mr Williamson did not object to the prisoner being allowed to go out under bond, to be liable to be called on to appear when needed. His Honor spoke in a very kind manner to the little prisoner, and told him that his future now depended on himself. He would be allowed to go out under two bonds of £25 each. He would have to leave Auckland district bo as to be away from bad aeeociatee, and would be liable to be callsd on to appear at anj time for 3 years. Thomas Weston, another youthful prisoner, bat with much mc^e - — — >. Matures than the last, pleaded gm'ey o breaking in and entering the house of a Mr Hardy. —The prisoner's father applied through the Crown Prosecutor for his son to be allowed to go out under bond.— His Honor allowed this under one bond of £25, and spoke to prisoner seriously as to his not throwing the chance now offered him away.

. - t - . ___-■ (i( i The Remuera Ae^j».,Caqef Stephen Spalding was charged that he did maliciously set fire, on the 3rd of August, to a cattle shed in Remuera, belonging to the Auckland Dairy Company. Mr Franklin appeared for the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case, which was to the effect that the prisoner had been employed by the Auckland Dairy Company, and on leaving it, bound himself not to Bell milk after a certain time. This agreement appears to have rankled in the prisoner's mind, and ho appeared to have made' sundry threats about destroying tne building of the Company. Joseph Booth, one of the proprietors of the Auckland Dairy, deposed as to the correctness of the plans produced of cattlesheds. Knew prisoner ; he left the Company's employment in January or February last. Witness gave evidence aB to the agreement entered into by the prisonor when working for them. When prisoner left he was very excited about this agreement, which would not allow him to set up in business tor himself, and madelin offer of £50 for it, which witness accepted. He eeemed unaccountable for his actions, and threatened to destroy himself. Witness then said if tb« agreement was preying on his mind he would give him it free. He also spent three hours with the prisoner trying to soothe him. Prisoner had poison with him, which witness got from him. He would not accept the agreement that time. He was afterwards offered the agreement for £10, but he said he would have it on his own terms or he would swing for it". He said "he would make it hot for wit j ness " Witness considered he had *' milk on the brain " from his actions. Charted Clayton, Arthur HalliJay, and j Constable McGovern gave evidence. Mr Williamson then addressed the jury to the effect that unless the prisoner's counsel could bring proof of poisoner's insanity, they would be obliged to cansider nira sane. Mr Franklin (for the prisoner) began a statement concerning an accident which the prisoner had met with in England, when the Crown Prosecutor objected. His Honor ruled that it was not admissible for counsel to make a statement, although prisoner could. Mr Franklin, continuing his speech, ran through the evidence, and argued that the prisoner, from the evidence brought forward, was evidently suffering from an insane fit when he committed the act of setting fire to shed?. His Honor, addressing the jury, told them that what they had to decide was whether the prisoner was suffering from that species of insanity which would make him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. The jury then retired, and on their returning found the prisoner guilty of setting fire to the shed, but that he was not accountable for his actions. They also brought in a special verdict that the prisoner was insane. His Honor then committed prisoner to the Asylum during the Colonial Treasurer's pleasure. October G. The North Sbore Shooting Cases. Evidence was led yesterday afternoon in the charge against Michael Lunny of shooting his wife at North Shore on 16th Jane last. Margaret Louisa Lunny, wife of the prisoner, said she had lived for 15 years with him, till laat June, when the shooting took place. The prisoner had illused her ever since their marriage. Witness then deposed to the shooting ; prisoner having fired twice at her, one shot taking effect in her loin. Prisoner tried by cross-examination of the witness fr> prove that he had received provocation, also that witness had told him she intended to run away with McGuire. Witness admitted that ehe did take a house under the name of Mrs Thomson, also thai McGuire stopped at the house two nighre. There was no one in the houee but the two of them. —Mary Ann Renwick deposed to the shooting, and said piisoner seemed sober at the time. — By the prisoner : Heard Airs Lunny tell prisoner just before the shooting that she intended leaving the prisoner for good. — Edward Hopkins,of the North Shore, corroborated the two former witnesses as to the shooting -Dr. Parkineon, practising at Devonport, gave evidence as to the wound and wuat caused it. The prisoner then made a statement to the jury to the effect that what he did wag to intimidate his wife, who had confessed her adultery with McGuire to him, and he could have killed her had he wished. — His Honor addressed the jury, calling particular attention to the fact that although there was no doubt the wife of the prisoner had misbehaved herself, that was no excuse for the prisoner acting as he did. The jury then retired for nearly half-an-hour, when they brought in a verdict of not guilty on the first count, but of guilty on the second, namely, with shooting to do grievous bodily harm. A rider was attached recommending tho prisoner to mercy on account of the conduct of his wife. This morning Michael Lunny was charged on the second indictment in the North Shore shooting affair, namely, with shooting at one George Plunket McGuire on the 16th June lapt, with intent to kill, and also with shooting at the same' person with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. — Mr O'Meagher, who appeared a* counsel for the prisoner, challenged several of the jurors. — The Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury at length, and referring to the bullets fired at McGuire, which had not yet been found, said that evidence would be brought forward to show that the building in which the shots were fired was rotten, and the bullets might easily be lost in the woodwork.— G. P. McGuire, blacksmith, who was so deaf that the interrogating counsel had to stand close to him, gave evidence aa to Casey calling him on the night of the shooting, and the prisoner bursting the door open. Witness caught hold of prisoner, and asked him what he wanted. He said he wanted to speak to witness, and then a pißtol was discharged over the prisoner's shoulder who had his back to witness. Witness was not struck by bullet or marked by flash or powder. Witness never touched the prisoner's hand which held the revolver. Witness then escaped from the room. In crossoxamination by Mr O'Meagher witness made several contradictory statements He admitted that he knew the house taken by Mrs Lunny, under the name of Mrs Thomson. Occupied the house with Mrs Lunny. Had tea the night before and breakfast the next day with heir. Spent the following day, Sunday, in her company, and slept the following night in tho same house. The prisoner never caught him with his arm round his wife's neck. Mr O'Meagher showed by the deposition that wioness had stated that prisoner had done so in his evidence at the police court. It waß arranged between witness and Mrs Lunny to correspond by means of letters left in a box in witness's bedroom. B(*d made Mrs Lunny presents of a watchchain, an album, some baskets, and had taken her to the Opera. — Martin Casey, after giving evidence as to the shooting, said that prisoner had said to him that he had intended to shoot both his wife and McGuire, and then give himself up.~JameB Featherstone gave evidence as to getting the pistol from the prisoner. He seemed mad with trouble.

Hia Hpntfr summed up to the jury? who after? aMeiScf^fdliha' the prisoner notfcttilty. MrO'Meagher then called constable Hutchison, who gave prisoner a very good character. His Honor then gave sentence on the former charge of shooting Mrs Lunny as .follows :—: — Prisoner at the bar, it is fortunate for you that the jury have taken the most merciful view of your case, doubtless through compassion for your domestio troubles. In that compassion I do not altogether share, and from your own statementsut seems $iat nothing could exceed your^oaloua.vindictiveness towards yourHvife. except your, courtesy towards her supposed paramour, McGhiire, until you contrived to , possess yourself of a revolver, then your vengeance Instead _of being shown in a fair fight with a man, vented itself in a cowardly attack on a defenceless woman. It is doubtless a sore ovil to bo linked to an adulterous woman ; but. considering the various statutes on matrimonial matters, the multiplication of lawyers, and the reduction of Crown fees, which have brought the luxury of divorce within the reach of the humblest artisan, there can bo no oxouse for resorting to firearms in order to .get 'rid of her. The medical evidence shows that, if your murderous bullet had ponctrated further, you would now have been Irocoiving sentence in that dock for the heaviest crime known to the law. I take all your domestic matters into consideration and give full effeot to the recommendation to mercy made by the jury, when I sentence you to be imprisoned and "kept 10 hard labour for two years. Indecent Assault.— James Dodds, 20 years of age, waß charged with indecent assault on Elizabeth Bower, a lady of 50 years of age.— The prisoner pleaded guilty, and called as witness to character a William Andrews, who said prisoner was "a very rospectable young man." — The Judge sentenced him to three months' hard labour and one flogging of 25 lashes. Embezzlkmbnt. — George Harcourt, charged with fraudulently ing £26, the money of the Dreka Gold Mining Company, pleaded guilty. — Prisoner also w<w charged with embezzlement of trust moneys (£1,000) of one Lawson ; prisoner pleaded guilty to this also ; as also to several others. Sentence ;12 months' imprisonment.