SUPREME COURT.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 297, 8 September 1888, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Auckland, Sept. 2. 1 Burg laky. — William Anderson Crombie wus charged that he did on the 14bh June, 1888, about 3 o'clock in the morning, unlawfully steal two bottles of spirits fiomthe Thistle Hotel, the house of Mary Coyle,, and did burglariously break out of the said house. There was a second count, charging the prisoner with stealing one bottle of whisky and one bottle rum, the property of Mary Coyle. — His Honor gave leave to amend the indictment, the accused having been wrongly indicted as " Androw " Ciombie. — Prisoner, who wa.s dofended by Mr Buckland, plodded not guilty. --Mr H. Williamson, in his, opening, stated that the prisoner was charged with having broken oub of the promises of Mrs Coyle, liceneec of the Thistle Hotel, on the morning of the 14th June. Burglary might be committed by breaking out as well as by breaking into a hou-e. Evidence would be given to show that bheprisoner went into the hotel a little before 10 o'clock on the night of June 18th and oidcred a gla^s ot beer. Mrs Coyle left prisoner standing at the bar countot while she was depositing some money ii the .safe, and when she came back to the bar the prisoner ha I disap penred. Mrs Coyle subsequently missed the key belonging to the cellar door. About three o'clock on the following morn-, intr Constable Kel&o observed tho prisoner leaving the neighbourhood of the front door of the Thi-tle Hotel, and his suspicions bang aroused he followed the prisoner. Tho cons! able noticed that the piisoner threw away something in Lornc-strcet, and arre-ted him. The prisouoi stated that he had some spirits wttich he obtained from a Customs odicer, and thai lie had thrown the bottles away because he did not want to get the* oilicer into trouble. Constable Kelso letumod with his prisoner to the Thistle Hotel, and then Mr& CoyJe noticed that a couple of bottles had been taken from a shelf in the bar. Pieces of the bottles thrown away by the prisoner weie packed up by the constable, and they wore found to bear a label similar to other bottles in the bar. Something was said about a koy in the prisonei's presence,and a key was heard to drop on the floor. It would be for the jury to say whether the prisoner dropped the key, which was the one missed from the cellar door. —Evidence was given by Mrs Maiy Coyle. John Broun (baiman), and Constable Keleo. —No witnesses were called for the defence, and Mr Buckland addressed the juiy on the prisoner's behalf.— The jury then retired, and after an hour's deliberation returned with a verdict ot "guilty of larceny, but not guilty of burglary." His Honor asked the Crown Prosecutor whether he was prepared to accept that verdict, Mr Williamson replied that he felt justified in accepting the vcidictof "guilty of larceny," and he would enter a nolti proscqui in the cliaige of burglary. His Honor deterred sentence. Gkand Jcjky. — The (jiand Jury found ■' no bill " against John flonrickson on two charges of forgery and uttering, and true bills in the remaining indictments, and having finished their labouis they were thanked by His Honor and discharged. Sentknck- — William .Anderson Ciombie, found guilty of the larceny ot two bottlea of spirits, from the Thi&ble Hotel was brought up for sentence. Mr Buckland stated than the prisoner had held a good position until recently, when he hid given way to drink, and asked that the leniency of the Court should be extended to him. His Honor addressing the prisoner, said that he had been found guilty of the larceny of two bottles of spiri s. This seemed a trifling thing, bub it was a? much a crime to take a bottle or two of grog as to steal t'so. At the same time His Honor said he would give him as light <j sentence as possible. He could not do so ultogothei as the prisoner had been pieviously convicted of larceny. The sentence of the Coutt\\d> imprisonment with hard labour for nine calendar months Em BE/MLhAjBM 1 . — 1 >a\ id Edmund Porter was chained that he did, on the 18th of Novembet, 18S7, being then aseiwint, of the Colonial Bank of iN'ew Zealand, receive into his possession the sum of C3O in the said bank, and that he did fraudulently embezzle the same. Theie was a second count, charging the prisoner with thai* he did, within six calendar months of the first offence, viz., on the 12th December, 18S7, embezzle the sum of £12, and a bhiid count charging him with having embezzled ,I*B, also received on behalf of the Colonial Bank of New Zealand, on the Sth February, 1888. Prisoner pleaded guilty to the indictment, and also to other indictments charging him with having embezzled tho lolluw ing sums of money, received by him on behalf ot the said bank, February 21*1, 1888, Cl 2; March Bth, £8 ; April IQlh, .CIO; May sth, .CIO ; May 30th. £10 ; Juno 7th, C 4 ; June 14th, £6 IO«. Mr H. Hesketh appeared on behalf of the prisoner and made application that he should bo admitted to probation. The charges weic eight in number, but the circumstances weic peculiar. Thepii&oner was a young man 24 years of age, and he was also understood to be married. He entered the Colonial Bank at Wellington in 1881, and was iemoved to Auckland in 1886, when heentei ed the Cambridge branch of the Bank. At the time the prisoner left Wellington lie was indebted to tho extent of £100 and when he reached his dvsbinab on he infoimed the Bank of his position and made application for the achance of that amount. He agreed to make repayments by instalments of i's a month. At> that time hia salary was £140 per annum, and the effect of this arrangement was to reduce his salary to £80 per annum. Them were two other payments he had to make, viz., Cl 2 13s 9d yearly fdrlifc insurance, and £6 5s guarantee px-emium, further reducing his salary to about £70 a-year. It wa.s in November last that the tirst of these offences was committed. He (Mr He&kcth) did not wish the Court to be under the impression that the money was appropriated under any set plan. The way of doing it appeared to have been very simple, and must have placed the prisoner in a veiy extraordinary dilemma, as he knew that he must be found out at the end of the month. The prisoner had himself and a wife to support, and there was on the face of the depositions this feature, that the manager of the Bank deposed to the prisoner having decamped. It was true that he went from Cambridge bo Napier. He (Mr Hesketh) believed that the prison* r went there for the purpose of making money to refund the sums misappropriated to the Bank. The Bank officers would inform the Court that the money was offered at Napier. So far therefore there had been a desiie on the part of the young man to make his defalcations good. They had no doubt come about in this way extending over a period of seven months, the prisoner not having the moral courage to make his position known to his employ erf. Mr Hesketh then quoted authorities in support of his application.— His Honour said he had no doubt that the Comb- had power to grant probation, 6ven whore ■ tho Probation Ofticer did not recommeud it, but at the same time the Court would bo very much guided by the opinion of the Probation Oilicer. - Ho could •<ake no guidance from what had been done

by otherjudges under other circumstances. In the present case, -as to there being -a number of offences, he could agree that it was within the power of the Court to apply ' the Probation Act, but, looking 1 to the, (Circumstances of the case, he entirely .agreed with the Probation Officer, that the circumstances showed a deliberate criminal intent; a wellplanned deliberate criminal intent, carried out through a number of months, so as to exhibit such a ciiminal intent as the accused could not reasonably be expected to rcfoim without punishment. The interes's of the public would not be I .served by placing- on probation a person who had deliberately planned the robbery of his employers. His Honour then addressed the prisoner, lie said he was sorry to see that thes>e offences were done in a mode which indicated great deliberation , and great planning, that the prisoner had planned deliberately the alteration of books, and the forging" of entries in order to make his books balance. He had not put hib hand into the till for an emergency — that would have been a much lighter oU'encc — but had gone on week after week falsifying the books and appropriating the money of his employers. These circumstances? would ; not allow him to pass the prisoner with a light sentence. This would simply be placing a temptation before the eyes of othci clerks in banks and ottering a pre mium to dibhouesty His Honor added that be was sorry topee a young man in the position of the accused, and that if the accused hud a wife, he was sorry for her. The sentence of the court was three years' penal servitude on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. Laucknv i'hom a Dwelling. — William Noble and James Stoddart, alias (Jeorgo Stewart, were charged that they did on the 23rd June, 1888, unlawfully steal certain moneys amounting to £108 and tour cheques, the property of Patrick IJrodie, licensee of the Naval and Family Hotel, situated at the corner ot Pitt-street and Karangahape Road. There was a second count in the indictment, charging the prisoners with receiving the same money and cheques. — Prisoners pleaded not guilty. — Mr Madden appeared on behalf of the prisoner Noble. — Mr If. Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, in his opening, stated that none of the witnesses could swear that the prisoners were seen in the neighbourhood of the Hotel the time the money was stolen. It was suggested that possibly some other parties were concerned in the robbery, and that the money subsequently came into possession of the prisoners. The jury would, under these circumstance", be abta to find a verdict of guilty under the second count in the indictment. Evidence was given at length, and went to show' that Patrick IJrodie was the licensee of the Naval and Family Hotel, and that on the 23rd of June Mrs Brodie had accumulated in a drawer in her bedroom, upstairs, £108 in money, and 4 cheques, in the aggregate £9 13s 3d. This money was in the drawer wrapped in some paper, and £18 12s 9d in silver was wrapped in £1 parcels. Later in the day, Mrs Brodie found that the drawer had been bmst open, placed on the bed, and the money taken away. Elizabeth Brodie, daughter of Mrs Brodie, recognised a £5 note (produced) received by her on the 21st June from Mr King, and placed in the drawer in question : and a sovereign, contained in the parcel was identified bi a .son of Mr Brodie. because of its peculiar character. A cab-driver named Johnson deposed that he drove tho two prisoners from the corner of Shortland - street and Queen - street- on the night of June 23rd to the Ellerslie Hotel. From there he drove the prisoners a little further away, where they alighted, and on their return he dro\e them bai k to Auckland. — John Chaate deposed that the piie-oneis came to his house on the night in question, and asked him to take chaigc of a parcel. He did so, and after they left his suspicions were aiou-ed as to the contents of thepaicel. On the following morning he sent it to the police, unopened, by a boy named Biennan. — Detectives Tuohy and Grace gave evidence as to the arrest of the prisoners. Noble had in hi^ pockets £1 Is 4d, the pound being in gold, and Stoddart £2 5s 6d, the two pounds beinj? in gold, making up thiec sovereigns missing from the money handed over to the police. The prisoners, when aue«ted, made contradictory statements which were subsequently found to be untrue. Witnesses were cross-examined by Mr Madden and by the piisonor Stoddart, with bho object of shaking their testimony as to identification of the accused, and of the notes and coin produced. Mr Madden, in opening his case for the defence, •said that the evidence he would :id- ■ duce would lie sullicient to '•how that the j police and otheis had been mistaken with rcgaul to the identity of Noble in this matter, who was neither at Biodie's Hotel, in the cab, or in Mr Chafle's house on tl.e day in question. Captain Abiahain Palmer deposed that he kept a boarding - hou«e in Crey-t-treut, Auckland. On the morning ot June 23rd, he saw Noble, who was diesoed in a daiU suit of clothes. Noble went to the taccs, and returned to witness's houso about 6.50 p.m. He remained in witness's, houwo and presence till 9.30 p.m., when he left the luuse dressed in dark clothes. Noble ert/urned about 11.50 p.m. The lig-ht fuib worn by noble in Court were being cleaned and pressed by Mrs Palmer on the Saturday in question. — In answer to Mr Williamson, witness said that he did not come forward with the evidence at the Police Court because he was not called. — Jno. Richard Kitchen depo&ed ti>at on the 23rd June Uist he went to races at Pottci's Paddock with Noble, who was dressed in a daik buit. Witness* saw Noble again at 7 o'clock and about 9.*0. p.m. at Captain Palmer's and then went with Noble to the Anchor Hotel. He paited with Noble shortly after 10 p.m. outside of the Anchor Hotel. Counsel then addressed the jury, Mr Madden arguing that a clear alibi had been proved for noble, and His Honor then summed up.