SUPREME COURT. Auckland, March 12. JUDGE'S CHARGE.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 247, 17 March 1888, Page 4

SUPREME COURT. Auckland, March 12. JUDGE'S CHARGE.

His Honor delivered the following charge to tho Grand Jury:— Mr Foreman and. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,— The calendar on the present occasion is not unusually large, nor are there any offences of the very highest character included upon it. But the offences are very serious ; in fact, few of them are trivial offences. It J appears from tho calendar that 24 persons i arc charged with 28 offences. Five of these J aro called ollences against tho person, ! tho remainder are offences against I property. Of tho live otl'encos against the poison two are cases of assault, i one of them with robbery added. With 1 them 1 need not irouble you now, a- the evidence .-coins very simple and clea • in both eai r '>. Thoie arc three cases, ; unfortunateh, of that very unpleasant | description— indecout cases. There is one I of attempting an unnatural offence, which J need not fuithcr icier to. The evidencei.s unusually simple and clear. There aro two charges of indecent assault upon, female childien of tender years. In regaul to one of them. I need make no re- | mark. But- as in regaid to the other 1 think it po-Mble that a charge of a higher crime carnally knowing tho child absoj hitcly — may io laid, I wish to ask your cspecialattcntion when you come to examine the child. You .u eawai c that in these oa<-es, where children aie eoncerncn, the charge is very easily made and very diflieult to disprove. I advise you in all such cases to be .careful to see that tho child's evidence is clear and consistent, and that you find some clear corioboiation of the statement by the child. Cn regard to the case 1 refer to— a cif-e from tho Pap.'ilcuia gumfield— l should, from tho owdcmie on the depositions, advice you to be careful to see that the child luis not been tutored into what to say, and look into the antecedents and surroundings of the child and her parents. These "aro all the cases of offences against the person. In regard to the oliences again.-t property there arc first of all two chaigo>«of arson. Arson, as you are aware, means the setting fire to a building, ft does not require that the uuilding should be burnt down— simply that it .should have been set on fire, although little damajre may ic-ult. They are two cuiious cases. In both women are charged with the offence and in one of them the evidence i-« tolerably clear. In one of them, too, sio appaient motho fc disclosed. That, howex or, need not tiouble you. It i.s sufficient for you if you find that an attempt was made to burn down the house, and you will leave the rest for the petty jury. There I is the unusual number of &i\ cattle and horse-stealing cases. These are generally very troublesome oases, and I need not go into the evidence with the exception of one ca^e. ro which I direct your attention especially — that is a charge of cuttle - stealing against a butcher, in which he sends out to a run, and gets in a beast, which he slaughters. He does not conceal tho hide or head, or in any way show an attempt at concealment. When the owner of the animal comes lie is shown the hide and the head, and the butcher, being convinced then that some mistake had been made, and that he had killed some other man's animal, offers to pay the owner, and does pay the owner of the animal a very large amount for ifc, the full value at any rate. Now, as you are aware, in all ca^es of larceny it is the intent m ith which the act is done that constitutes the criminality. If the butcher simply made a mistake and knew not at the time that he was depriving another man of hi 3 property then it would not be larceny. You ir ust be* satisfied that his intent, at the time the animal was killed, was to deprive the true owner of it. If, on the other hand, you think he made a mistake with another man's beast and was willing to make reparation when he found it out, then of course it would not. be larceny. There are nine charge* of larceny of various sorts. Five of them arc cases against a couple of boys for stealing a yacht and a variety of other things from other yachts. You will have no difficulty with those cases. There aro two charges of stealing— breaking open tills and taking money from them. With them you will ha\e very little difficulty. There is one ca«e of larceny to which 1 would direct special attention- a case against some Maoris for stealing certain sheets of iion. It appears that a certain old house which has been standing upon Crown land for many years was somewhat, dilapidated and that some iron was i blown off it by the wind. The Maoris are charged with having taken a number of the sheets of iron belonging to this dilapidated house. You will have to be satisfied not only that tho iron found with the Maoris (in their house, and not in any way concealed apparently or put out of the way) was tho identical iron taken from the dilapidated house, but also that it v was taken with the intent to deprive the true owner of it. If it were taken simply through having been looked upon as- part) of an abandoned and dilapidated building, and without any intent of theft, and tbati they thought they were merely taking away something abandoned by the owner, then there Would be no larceny. You will have to decide, firstly, whether there ie sufficient evidence as to the identity of the iron, and secondly whether tho accused intended to steal or deprive the true owner of his property. There are two charges of a very simple but very clever fraud by persons taking a cheque and Retting it marked by 'the ledge* - keeper of a bank in ordor to obtain money which they had not to their account in the bank. The evidence is very clear and you will have no difficulty in finding a true bill upon it* There arc three cases of obtaining or endeavouring to obtain money by false pretences with which I think you will have very little difficulty— the falso pretences being that the person had certain property which he points out as that over which he proposes to give a mortgage and that he gives the mortgage over other property. The depositions are very simple and I need not trouble you with the details. The only other case is one of illegally pawning a saddle, with which you will have no difficulty,, as, by a clause in the Pawnbrokers Act, any person pawning the property of another without his consent— even though he doesnot do so with intent to steal— is guilty of the offence. The mere pawning ' without authority is an offence under the Pawn brokers Act. These are all the charges upon the calendar, and if you will be so good as to retire to your room the various bills will be laid before you. > v >■ Vs

Horse Stealing.— William Poyl&plesded guilty \o the charge of , having on the 41 J.9th of pecomber 1887 stolen ope chestnntirnpe, 1 the i property of pne ,Johh RenniO.^Anderson. His Honor remarked 'i his < <s6m>w i that such a young lad' had- already. , been twice v Qonvicted H©^ hiixi .that ' the oftence wa§ and liable' to 14 years* ponal servitude. ' Under "the circumstances,' he WQuia^entenc© him to two years' hajdlaJuHir.' t .< r i\ t i M , JAk^ok. —Johanna changed with setting fire ta hei; -dwelling; house in J?ranklln p Hoacl oi^bhe 28of toecSmber

JLBB7 with intent to defraud the North British Mercantile Insurance Company. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. The evidence has already been fully published in our columns. Detective Walker produced a plan of the building. The prisoner did not call witnesses, bub addressed the jury on her own behalf. Her {statement, was simply a total denial of any connection with the case. She said that the tire had been a great loss to her. She had only recently" had fcho property fenced, and the would not have done .so if she intended to burn it down. The Xl 7 ]o* second mortgage was due to Mr S. Jaekton for transferring the mortgage. The accused made a statement to the effect that some peison wanted her property, and thought that if she was put into gaol it would be put up at auction and they would then be able to buy it cheap. — His* Honor then summed up theexidencc. Ho said that there could bo little doubt (hat the hou^e had been set on lire. The question then came, by ■whom ? There was the question to be considered as to whether it was the prisoner who started the lire. The evidence of Olson and Erickson was pretty conclusive. Theio was also the fact that the accused denied having the key, i and yet it was afterwards found in her possession. While men were trying to get into her house and stop the tiro she walked coolly away and told Mrs Maloney that her house had been burned down. They must also take into consideration, on the other hand, that there seemed to be no possible native for the accused to set tire to the house. In no cn>Q could she derixe any bench" t from the destruction of the house, and it was for them to say whether that would counter-balance the very direct testimony of Olson and Erickson.— The jury then retired to consider their verdict.— After the lapse of about an hour, they returned into Court with a verdict of guilty upon the second count of settingtireto thehonse with intent todefraud. — His' Honor asked if the residence of the prisoner was in a thickly-built neighbourhood. —Constable Bernard replied that it was, and that the adjoining tenements were built of wood. In answer Lo the usual question, the prisoner expressed a hope that His Honor would take- into consideration the fact that she had already been nearly three months in gaol. — His Honor said that the prisoner "had been found guilty by the verdict of the jury of an attempt to set tire to the house, and theic could be little doubt but that she had been guilty of the otlence, as the evidence was to his mind very clear. The crime of arson was one of the xvoist thatcould becommitted,in that it must be done deliberately and at great danger to others ; in fact, it was only second to murder. He felt bound, under the circumstances, not to inflict a lightersentence than four years' penal sen itude. Larceny as a Bailee.— Arthur Robert Welham xvas charged with the larceny as a bailee of one rifle, onedouble-barrelled shotgun and one shot belt on the 2nd February, 1888, the property of one Montague Weatherly Marriott "--Prisoner pleaded not guilty. —Mr Humphreys appealed on behalf of the accused. — Montague Weatherly Marriott, a retired officer from the Imperial Civil Service, deposed that he became acquainted with the prisoner many months ago in the Auckland Library. He represented himself to be a duly qualified medical practitioner. They went away together with a man named Xa\-anagh. Witness paid all expenses. At Tokatoka witness ran short of funds. He then entrusted the prisoner with txvo valuable sruns in order to laise funds. Witness identified the guns and belt produced as his property. He told the prisoner to pawn the guns but on no account to part with them. He next saw the guns in charge of the constable. Witness never saw the prisoner again until he was in the custody of the police.— By Mr Humphreys : He went with the other two to the gumh"eldB intending to write a description of them to the English nexvspapers. Witness did not dig gum nor share in the gains of the others. He also gave his watch to the prisoner to raise money, which was afterwards returned to him by the police. — Walter Chad wick, storekeeper at Te Kopuru, deposed to the prisoner and Kavanagh coming to his store. They wanted to sell txvo guns which the prisoner said xvere his own. Prisoner said that he wanted to raise money to go to Hokianga. Witness refused to buy. Subsequently Mr Brown bought the guns.— Peter Brown deposed to purchasing the guns. The shotgun xvas purchased from Kavanagh, and the rifle from the prisoner. — Constable Neill McLeo 1, stationed at Dargavillo, deposed to arresting the prisoner on Saturday, the 4th of February. Prisoner was drunk when arrested. The following day prisoner said that he had made a mess of it, as the guns belonged to Captain Marriott, and had been given to them to sell, but that they had done wronc in not going back to Captain Marriott to settle up.— This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and Mr Humphreys addiessed the jury on behalf of the accused. — His Honor then briefly summed up the evidence, after which the jury returned, a verdict of '«' Guilty. "—Mr Humphreys asked that the case should be dealt with under the First Offenders Act. — His Worship remanded the prisoner in order that the Probation Officer might be afforded time to report. His Honor placed prisoner on probation for twelve months', on condition that he became a total abstainer.

THE MALUA ROBBERY. James M alone y, Thomas McDowell, and Edmuhd Nelson were charged with that they did, on the 28th December, 1887, feloniously steal and carry away the yacht Malua. The prisoners pleaded guilty to this charge. They were also charged with larceny of a large quantity of gear, etc. , belonging to the Matangi. — Maloney and Wilson pleaded not guilty, and McDowell pleaded guilty. — Mr H." Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, stated that he proposed to call McDowell as a witness in this case, and would in consequence enter a nolle prowqui against him, so far as the second, charge was concerned. — His Honor eaid that McDowell had pleaded guilty, and Mr Williamson added that he had not •intended to proceed against the lad on this charge, and would now abandon his in'teufcion of calling him' as a witness. — A large amount of evidence was taken, as «in the Lower Court, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. Wilson and Maloney were then charged witli robbery from the Rita and Maritana and pleaded guilty. — The jury, after brief deliberation, found the prisoners Wilson and Maloney " guilty " on the charge of stealing from ,the yacht Matangi.— His Honor, in passing sentence, stated that Maloney and Wilaonhad been found guilty, on their own confession, of the theft of the yacht Malua, and 1 also with several other thefts, ; and on th 6 Verdict of the jury they had been found guilty of theft fronvtho yacht Matyngi. ' t If these .bad been first offences he might hove looked leniently upon them as the result of ft boys' ieecapade, but he found that each had been sentenced four times, for larceny, and one of them for larceny of a yacht before. They had been found guilty of a very serious crime indeed.' > The sentence of the Court was that in reepect of, the theft of the yacht, *fttloney«ndWilion would.be sentenced to

penal servitude for seven years, and for three of the other offences ponal Bervitude for three years, the sentences to run concurrently. Addressing McDowell, His Honor said ho was disposed to take a more lenient view, on accounb ot his youth, and the possibility that he had been led away by the elder prisoners. Bo would be sentenced to penal servitudo for 3 yetu^ for the oheftof the yacht, and to 1 years' penal servitude on each of the other charges, sentences to run concurrently. No Bill. --The Grand Jury returned no bill again.st Jaincs Barrett, cattlo stealing. Ausox.— Ann Morisoy was charged that .she did on the 10th I'ebruary teloniously set lire to a dwelling-house, the pnoporty of -John Morisey, at Cambridge. Theie was alao a second charge against the accused of betting ilro to a house at Cambridge on February 10th, with intent to injuto the said John Morisey.and a third charge of seting lire to a mattre&s and other tilings under a certain house belonging to John Morisey at Cambridge, on the 10th February. The prisoner pleaded "not guilty." It appeared in evidence that the accused was mother ot the occupant of the cottage referred to, and that she had not been on good terms with her son and daughter-in-law for some time prior to the fire. On tho 10th February last, Morisoy and his wife heard footsteps outside the house, and afterwaids discovered that it had been set on iire by means of a mattress placed under the house. — Mrs Mary Burton deposed that the accused camo to her about 5 p.m. on the 10th and stated that her son had thrown her out. Witness gave the accused two old skirts, one of which was produced in court, also some food, ana then advised her to consult the Mayor of Cambridge.— Constable ßrennan deposed that he went to Morisey's house on tbe night of the 10th and saw rags burning close to the building. Amongst the rags was tho dress produced, One of tho house blocks was somewhat charred. Witness then went to a small fowl house about 40 feet away, and found the accused there fully dressed. Witness accused her of setting fire to her brother-in-law's house, and she denied having lit any tire. Witness produced some wax matches with red heads, found near the cottage, and similar matches found in tho fowl-house, and took the accused into custody. This concluded the evidence. — Accused made a statement as to ill-treatment she had received at the hands of her son, but gave no explanation as to how the skirt received by her from Mrs Burton came to be amongst tho rags found burning at the cottage* — His Honor, in addressing tho jury, said there was really very slight evidence that the house was actually on Hro although one of the blocks had been charred. This, however, did not apply to the third count, in which rags were found burning beneath the hou.seand the jury would have to consider how far prisoner was connected with that fire.— The jury after brief deliberation returned a \erdicbof "not guilty," and the accused was discharged.

Unnatural Offence. — Thomas Stow wa s charged with that he did attempt to commit an unnatural offence and pleaded guilty. Mr O'Meagher appeared for the defence, and asked that prisoner should be remanded till to-morrow to permit testimony as to character being obtained. The request was acceded to. — Prisoner was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

Illegally Pawnikg.— Alexander Howe, alias James Brown, was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with illegally and with unlawful intent pawning a racing saddle the property of John Katterns on the 30th December. Mr Humphreys appeared for the accused. Evidence was given to show that the saddle had been lent to the accused for his personal use, and that he pawned it without authority with Emanuel Mendlessohn. Constable Haddock deposed to the arrest of the accused, who admitted having pawned the saddle for drink. — Mr Humphreys addressed the jury with the object of showing that there was no fraudulent intent on the part of the accused in pawning the saddle, and that -the accused inaended to redeem the saddle within a very short time. --The jury returned a verdict of " Not (Guilty " against the accused, who was then discharged.

Cattle Stealings. — Thomas Baker was charged with he did feloniously steal and drive away certain cattle the property of Hapeta (a native) on the 22nd December 1887. Mr E. Heakoth appeared for his defence.—A verdict of "Not Guilty" was returned.

Assault and Robbery. — John Peter Evans pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. Forokry and Uttkring. — William John Lloyd, alias Henry James Sunderland, was charged with forging and uttering a certain authority to sign a cheque upon the National Bank of New Zealand for the sum of £28 10s. Prisoner pleaded "guilty" to the charge and also to a charge of pretending to Robert Baxter, a teller at the National Bank, that a cheque for £19 presented by him (the prisoner) on tho2sth February had been marked by the ledger-keeper, and was a v^ood cheque. -Mr Humphreys addressed^ he Court on behalf of the prisoner, who, he said, had previously borne a good character. He asked tha.fc the, accused Bhoulcl be dealt with under the Eirst Probationers Act, and added that if he were released he would' leave the colony and endeavour to make amends for his offence. — His Honor said he would postpone passing sentence for weveral reasons. The Probation Officer's report stated that Lloyd, haying -left his friends in the United States, B"eb out on a tour of the world. Ho resided for throe months in Queensland, and then came to this colony. Ho lost all his money in gambling, and then committed the offence with which he was I now charged. His Honor said he would also have to consider whether the forging of the authority— viz., writing the initials of the ledger-keeper " H. C." and the number "1378" upon the cheque— was a forgery within the meaning of the Acb ; this would be a point for tho Court of Appeal. He deferred sentence until this morning. Prisoner was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.