SUPREME COURT.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 249, 24 March 1888, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

Auckland, March 20 to 22. C.vrTLE-STEALtxc*. — John McGeehan, Denis Foley, James Foley, and John Foloy woro charged with unlawfully stealing anddriving away certain cattlo, tho property of William Morgan, of Waitekauri. — Mr Hesketh appeared for Iho Foley Brothers, and Mr Whitakcr for Me^eehan, who pleaded guilty. Tho other prisoners pleaded "not guilty." — Mr Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, said that he had looked into the depositions, and lound that the cvidonce did nob substantiate tho charge against the Foleys. He would theiefore oiler no ovideneo against them. — His Honor then directed the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty " against each of tho Foloy 8, mul the jury having done so those prisoners were diholmnrcd. His Honor said that, with lcfeience to McGeehan, he had previously been convicted ot cattle-stealing, and he could nob impose a less sentence than five yeai.V penal servitude on each of the t\\ o charges, the sentences to run conemrently. Isdkckst Assapw. —Joseph Boyle, alias Taffey, alias Maori Joe, was charged with having committed this ollenceou the person of a child named Martha Tye, 7 yeai s of a^e, at Papakura, on Februaty 9th la^t.— - The prisonei, who pleaded "not guilt}," was defended by Mr Napier.— Evidence was given by Joseph Tye, Elizabeth Tyc, Dr. Bowes and Con.-Üblo MeK night. Before calling evidence for the dclence, Mr Napier submitted that theu 1 was no case to go to the jury. He wa* charged v> ith indecently assaulting, and it had been ruled that if there was consent there could not be an assault.— His Honor ruled that it was sufficient for tho jury how far tho non-resistanco of the child could be regarded as consent. Evidence was then given for the defence, with the object of ha\in^ saw the prisoner become possessed of a pocketknife. Indecknt Assault.— Joseph Boyle, charged with this often cc, wab found "guilty"' by the jury yesterday, after three hours' deliberation, and a recommendation to mercy was made on the giounds ot the chuiacter of tho Tye family. Boyle was brought up for sentence this morning, when Mr Xapier made application that he should icceive the benefits allowed by the First Offenders Probation Act. He produced a letter speaking of the piisontr's general good character from Mr Wahnsley, and commented on the jury's recommendation to mercy. — His Honor said that the Probation Officei' reported that thi* was not tho prisoner's n'rst ofience under the Probation Act, and then addressed the prisoner. He had been convicted, and rightly so, of the crime of indecent assault on a child of tender years, and it was fortunate for him that ht> had not been indicted for the higher ofience. Th 3 offence of which he had been found guilty, however, was a very serious one, and exhibited great depravity and morbid bad tasto. ThB jury had lecommended him to mercy, although he could not approve of the teutons which they ga\e, and ho fancied that that recommendation was a compromise to enable them to bring in a unanimous verdict. However bad the Tye family might be, it was scarcely likely that a child six years ■of age would have developed immoral tendencies, as had been suggested, and it should be observed that the commonest prostitute was entitled to legal protection from outrage and violence Taking into consideration the remarks of counsel and the recommendation of the jury, he would not subject prisoner to the proper punishment for such an offence, namely, the cat, which would be, and Übually was, the appropriate punishment ; but looking to the Irequency of this crime lately ho could nob do otherwise than seriously interfere with prisoner's liberty by a sentence of three years' penal tervitude. Allkg&d Fkaud. - James Thomas Lee was then charged that he did on the 10th January, 1888, by an unlawful pretence, obtain from William Henry Wyman the sum of £200. — Prisoner, who was defended by Mr Theo. Cooper, pleaded " nob guilty," and availed himself of the privilege of challenging the jurymen in several instances.— Witnesses having been ordered out of Court, Mr H. Williamson made his opening remarks. He Stated that the prisoner was charged with having obtained from Mr Wyman the sum of £200 by means of certain false pretences, that is, he made certain pretences to Mr Wyman with intent to defraud and obtain from him unlawfully the sum of £200. To prove false pretences it was not necessary to show that the prisoner made the pretences in actual words. Mr Williamson then went on to explain thafc there were four counts in the indictment, and that with rcfereuce to the fourth the prosecution could not prove directly thufc Lee said to Wyman that he had the right and title of the property known as 44 Daisy Villa," but it. would be shown that he pretended to have power to effect a transfer of the property. All of the pretences set out would be shown to have been false. It would be shown that the house known as " Daisy Villa "' was really the property of Mr Press, and thatLeenever bad the smallest interest or right to the title whatever. Mr Wyman would tell the Court that Lee took him to the top of the road and pointed length, as given in the Police Court. — out this house. He did not appear to have gone into the house and made actual inquirieß, but ho acted upon the assumption that Lee's statements were true. There would be no question as to whether a person could have avoided a swindle by ordinary caution, and if tb© jury were satisfied that these pretence* "were made, that they were false, and made with intent to defraud, they would prove upon the indictment. The evidence would show that Lee had an intent to defraud upon a definite plan, and that the whole thing, he thought, was a barefaced swindle and deceit. — Evidence was then taken at The jury returned a verdict of • guilty "on this charge: and on the Becond charge, viz., of obtaining £250 from John Dawson by false pretences, prisoner pleaded " guilty." On the third charge, of attempting to obtain money by false pretences, a nolle pro>eqiii was entered. Mr Cooper, in addressing the Court, said that the prisoner had acted on his advice in pleading guilty to the second chaige, and he now addressed the Court in view of mitigating the sentence. — His Honor said that the report of the Probation Officer did not recommend the prisoner. — Mr Cooper then stated on behalf of the prisoner that the latter had been informed by him that ho had been led on to the offences by a man who had left the colony. He also stated that the prisoner had done what he could to make repai-ation to the piosecufcor. The prisoner had not been before the Court before, and he asked His Honor to deal with him as leniently as possible. — His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said it was very sad to see so young a man depart from the paths of rectitude. Ho would, in consideration of his youth, make the sentences as lenient as possible. The sentence of tho Court was eighteen months' penal servitude ou each charge, to run concurrently.