SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 200, 27 September 1900, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

i CRIMINAL SESSIONS. - Wednesday, September 26th.—Before Hu Honor Mr. Justice Oonolly, Tha following Grand Jury were emi panelledß, J. Allen, A. Ambury. J. J Avery, H. M. Bauchope, G. A. Bent--8 ley, 0. Garter, A. Drake, A. B. Fookes, M. Frasar, H. King, A. Y. Kirkby, D. f Mullens, W. L. Newman, R. Price, G. i Ramson, J. Sanderson, A. E. Sykes, S. '• W. Shaw, G. Tiscb, E. H. Tribe and J, y Yeale, jnr, ' His Honor in charging the Grand j. Jury, said the cases were rather more 1 numerous than usual, but were not i likely to give muoh trouble, as in all y except one, the cases were clear. There ; were seven charges of theft—six against l one person who was employed at the a Stratford Post Office and was charged i. with stealing letters from the Post ' Office, and also with what used to be '[ called embezzling, that is, stealing 3 money passing through his hands. The P other case of theft was not at all clear, a but that was for the jury to consider. It came from Patea where money was stolen from a man who had been drinking for several days. He had drawn t, the money out of the Bank and in the ■1 course of the evening or the following y morning had lost it, but neither knew when or where. The only evidence against the prisoner was that he was seen in the company of the drunken man on the evening in question, but as others were in the man's company the i- charge might equally apply to them. ■- The only evidence which did point to i, the accused was that out of the i! 8 or i- £9 stolen a XI note was found en him which he said had be&n given to him jr by the drunken man during the even--0 ing to take care of, and this was admitted to be true, It was the Grand 1 Jury's duty to examine all the witnesses before throwing out a bill. In most i- cases after examining one or two wite nesses sufficient evidence would be found to enable a true bill to be returned, but in throwing out a bill it was necessary that all the witnesses should be examined. There were three cases of breaking and entering houses while temporarily unoccupied. In one case the prisoner was seen getting in and out of a window. In all the cases stolen property was found on the prisoners, In- one case money was atolen, There was always a difficulty in identifying money, but in this case a particular note was sworn to as part of the stolen property and the acoustd had no money a day or two before the robbery. There was a very peculiar and very unique case—one that he had never before heard of, but if there was sufficient evidenee for a bill, the oase was clear. The accused was applying for land and it was necessary for him to fill up and sign a form of declaration which had to be signed before and attested by a Justice of if the Peace. Accused took his own - application before a J.P., ..who duly attested it. He then suggested to the t Justice that to save time and trouble, a as there were several members of his ■. family applying for the land, blank t forms should be signedjjby him for the t several applications, and this irregular S act the justice was persuaded to do. Accused took the forms away with the rregular attestations, but did not even ihen obtain the signatures of his wife md children, instead of which! on account of the family being several miles distant he filled up a'l the forms, signed them, and attempted to make the applications for land with these forged declarations. This showed how irregulary these matters were carried out by the Justices of the Peace, and seemed to indicate that there was a want of discretion in making appointments to that high office. Although clearly there had been a forgery, it was not one that called for punishment, but this was not a matter that should influence the jury in throwing out the bill, as the question of punishment was one for the judge. There was one curious fact—the accused had admitted the whole proceeding, and had voluntarily signed a statement of what had taken place. Another unusual case 1 was that of personation at the last election for the Egmont district. In this ' case the accused was James F. Hicks, 1 living at Hawera, and employed at a 1 bacon factory. There was also a James I Hicks, a farmer at Hawera, who was on the roll. On presenting himself at ihe poll J. F. Hicks was asked if he 1 ras James Hicks, farmer, Hawera, md replying in the affirmative was 1 allowed to vote, although the polling 1 :lerk hesitated, but shortly afterwards ' H;cks presented himself and ' . was told he had already voted. 1 .Whether J. F. Hicks honestly believed ' he was on the roll, or whether the personation was wilful and intentional 1 , was the matter to be decided. The re- ( maining c ises were charges of assault, ' ,one being an attempt to commit a rape under brutal and aggravated circum- ' stances. Thera might be a question of ( identity, but that was not a question c for the Grand Jury, who would ' probably have no difficulty in finding a 4 true bill. In the case of Hannam, for f some_ reason his wife had been allowed 1 to give evidence against him in the T

lower Court, but that was undoubtedly wrong, as a wife's evidence could not be taken against the husband except on a charge of his assaulting hor. The Grand Jury were tbon dismissed to their duties, aud in the course of the day returned the following true bills: H. Moseley, wounding and'causing actual bodily harm; J. D. O'Brien, theft (six charges); W. Doyle (alias VVm. KennethFimklin), breakiugand entering; J. Hannam, causing bodily harm; YValter George Millard, breaking and entering; Wm, Graham, attempted rape; A. Ho'm s, breaking aud entering. The following bills were thrown out: —J. P. Murray and another, theft; J. F. Hicks, personation ; T. VV. Corbett, forgery. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. Harold Cooper Moseley was indicttd on two counts fir wounding and causing actual bodily h .rm to J net Forway, at Hawera, on August 7th. Air. Weston appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The jury were:—Messrs. F. M. Fleetwood (Foreman), K. S. Itiggall, Jas. Bruce, J. L. Ibbelson, Tlios. Mill-', Ad. Goldwater, Will. Jonkinson, Harold Hoby, Ohas. Old, VVm, Pel'ew, J ,hn Crockett, Wm. Palmer. C, S, Een-iolJ, ■J, H^pyw,

Janet Forway stated she was living with the prisoner as his wife. On August 7th the aocused, at breakfast time, called her all sorts of bad names. At dinner time words ensued, and witness said she would make him prove his words. She struck him with come unwashed collars. Accused lifted his dinner knife and struck her arm with it (scar on left arm shown), She ran out of the house and screamed " Murder." Two neighbours—Roberts and Brown came to her, one bound up her arm and another went for a doctor. Subsequently she went to the hospital, and was under chloroform for three hours. Remained there four days, and was under treatment for four weeks. To Mr. Weston: Had lived with accused as his wife for two years, and had always been treated well previously. She was angry with him, and would , have strack him with anything Mhe could have got hold of. She thought the blow with the knife was accidental. His Honour: I shall tell the jury that is all nonsense if the other evidence comes out as in the lower Court. Did not know what tho disputo was about. Re-examined : Prisoner accusod her of impropriety, not with one, but with dozens, and it was those accusations that angered her. To His Honour: Her arm was across her face when 6he received the blow. Did not know what made her put her arm up. G. Roberts and R. Brown corroborated the last witness. Dr. Sloane gave evidence as to the extent of the injury, which was a wound about three inches long, and one or two twigs of small arteries were cut as well as a branch of considerable size. The cut went nearly to the bone. There must have been some force used with the blow to make such a wound, frnm the nature of 'which he inferred the knife was blunt. To Mr. Weston: Probably the knife entered at the upper end of the wound. This concluded the case for the prosecution. The Foreman intimated that tho jury would like to know whether prosecutrix had lived with the prisoner as his wife since the quarrel. For the defence Mr. Weston called the accused, who said on the day in question Mrs. Moseley came into the kitchen and he asked her why she had not got the lunch ready. They then had some words about a matter that had been discussed the previous night, and a quarrel ensued. The woman used a lot of bad expressions to him. His Honour: I shall express myself very strongly to the jury as to this evidence, as the woman was not asked a word about using strong expressions to the prisoner. To Mr. Weston: The woman came towards me I was in the act of cutting a piece of beef, and seeing another blow coming towards me he threw his hand, which held the knife, backwards. He was protecting his face, and was still seated. He had no intention of striking the woman with the knife. He followed her outside to help her, but she would not let him. To Mr. Kerr: Prosecutrix had not lived wjjih him as bis wife since the occurrence, Was sitting all the while. Did not know how to account for the way in which the arm was struck. Did not know the wound was a serious one. Hefollowed her because she was screaming "murder" and "help," He had been married, but was divorced at (he suit of his wife on the ground tf adultery. To His Honor: The divorce was in 1898. Janet Fowbray recalled, stated tint she had not lived with prisoner situe the assault, she had sp„kon to Liai j several times, Dr. Walker stated he had examined the scar on Mri . Mowbray's arm dur- ; ing the luncheon adjournment He 1 believed the wound was caused by an | up-cut, as its extent corresponded with < the area of arm exposed in the position t described by th-j woman, in all proba- < bility the accused was expecting a blow, t Mr. Weston submitted that the | question was whether the intention was i to strike or defend himself. The evi- t dence was conflicting prosecutrix ] stating she was on the defensive, and prisoner stating that the woman was [ giving a second blow with the left I hand. Prosecutrix had admitted it i

was an accident, and the weight of evidence was in favour of the story that the woman was striking out with the left arm and the prisoner suddenly striking out his right hand, which held the knife, so as to guard himself from the blow, the wound was caused by an accident. Accused was entitled to the banefit of the doubt. t Mr. Kerr replied, contending that prisoner's guilt had been established though prosecutrix had tried to screen him. His Honour pointed out to the jury that there were two counts for the one offence. On the count of intent to cause bodily harm the prisoner should have the benefit of the doubt, As to [ the conflict of evidence, the prisoner's conviction or not was a matter of no importance to the prosecutrix, while it was it was vital to tho prisoner, and therefore his evidence should bo accepted with caution. Tho parties had been living together for four years, and prisoner had bo-'ii divorced from his wife in consequence. In reviewing j

s the evidence, His Honour pointed out . the discrepancy in relation to tlio , alleged second blow stated by the prisoner as about to bo given by the , woman. The woman's evidereo had I the greater probability of truth. Th< , woman screaming "murder" did not give the afl'air the appearance of an accident. There had been no supges- . tion either by (he prisoner or hit counsel that the wowan was striking out with her left hand, Dr. Nloano's evidenco was rcinaikablo for what liwas not asked. If a man could bo such a brute as to inflict a wound of that natiue on a woman with he was living, would it nut be likely that ln> would swear to anything to get out ui the co! xequunntv. Tin- I'mestlons 1.0 lie considered were (1) Jul the pnsoner intend to cause bodily harm (probabiv ; on this poiit the jury would .-.ivo the • prisoner the benefit of ilm »',oubi), «uul (2) did ho eauxo bodily harm. The juiv, after a bug .u liiioi . brought in a veulict of fiuiliy ui ti second and minor count, with a otiu • recoimm-ndation to uiciv.v on tinground tiiat luo woun.i was in f- - a fit [i: ;

Mr. westen, m mitigation, put in a certificate from the Humane Society of Australia showing that tho accused had saved lives on tbreo occasions. He suggested that tho report of the Probation Officer might ho obtained. His Honor: It would be a mockery to grant probation in a case of aggravated Assault against a woman. Constable Wbitmoro was culled i\nd gave prisoner a good character. Tbe witness stated that ha had been present at the bouse on an occasion previously when the partios won quarrelling. The woman was greatly excited and slightly the worse for liquor. His Honor said that had it not been for the recommendation of the jury and the evidence of the constable he should have passed a heavy sontonce. The evidence of the constabio clearly showed that both parties had violont tempore and hardly knew what they wore doing. The fact, however, remained that the prisoner had inflicted a wound on the woman tho effects of which tiio would probably fcol nil her lifo. die prisoner was sentenced to nino months' br.rd labour. STKATKOIiI) I'OST OFFICE KUBBCRIES. Joseph Daniel O'l'vica v.;i.s indicted for stealing XI 1G* 1 , tho property of Iht: Crown ; also with stcaiiug a letter at tho Stratford I'o.-it, Ollico ; also stealing £1 4s, tho property of tho Crown ; also with stealingli'.s; a'f-o with stealing .£7 10s; also with stealing a letter containing two XT notes. Mr. Fookes appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded guilty to all tho charges. Mr. Fookeg pleaded for leniency for tho accused, who was only 22 years of age, and had previously borne a good character, having been employed as a letter carrier. Latterly' he had fallen into temptation. The total amount was .£l7, and lie proposed to call the Postmaster on prisoner's behalf, Thos. Wellington ltapley, Postmaster at Stratford, said accused joined the service in 1891, and served ns a messenger tlireo years under witness. Accused boro a very excellent character, ttud all in tho ollico, as wo.l as iu the town, had a high opinion of accused, who was very respectful and obliging. Witness was about to recommend him for promotion. Acoused was receiving about £7 10s a month, including horse allowance. The full extent of defalcations was abDut £4o—the first of which tdok place in September. Jn Stratford there was no place of recreation beyond billiard rooms, and if young men drifted to these places they would soon run away with money. J. Bewer, of Stratford, gave accused a good character, and would be quite prepared to keep him in his employ. His Honour said he was very sorry to have to sentence the prisoner, who had lud a good character, and was on the way to advancement, For each of the Utters stolon tho prisoner might be sentenced to 14 years. He had the painful duty of passing a sentouco of two years hard labour on each of the indictments, the sentences to be concurrent. Prisonor was completely prostrated on hearing tho sentence, and had to be assisted from the dock. IiREAK IN(J AND KfiTKltl.N'U. Wm. Doyle (alius Wm. Kenneth Franklin) was indieed for breaking and entering the premises of Wm. Ellerm, on Sunday, April Bh, and stealing various articles therefrom. The iollowifg jury was tmp.nillcil: —ilc'SM. J. Aslicr (foreman), R, W. (Jottier, it. Oolanii), Ad. GolchvaW, Lr.ouey, It. N, Hooker, i[. T AIW. Win. Gii.']i:,;.s, W. J. IV,, ~. < r trfcon,ll, 11-tni-:, :utd J. - t miff Tau piiioiur war, J p' jaded not guiky. Air. Kerr prosecuted, Wm. El!oru>, grain insrch'. iv I siding oa tho Junction Kjad, itud tiu; ho left home on tho day in question, previously making all ibois and win dors secure. On returning certain articles were missed, especially the contents of a monoy box. He identified some coins produced as having formed part of the contents, also a ladies whip. A ladies watch and ling were also missed. Ha met the prisoner near the llenui bridge on the J unction Road. Evidence of identification of the property was given. His Honor summed up against tbe prisoner anrl-tlio jury ahues< immediately returned a vir-iict of guilty. Itacord of previous chiiges were put in and tho primer was sentenced .to two yiars imprisonment >vith haul 1 ibour. In the cases where tho Giand Jury throw out the Hill formal appli, ation was made for tho discharge of the accused, Mr. Weston appeared for Mr. Corbett, elao for Mr. Hicks, and instructed by ifrr. Treadwell, for Mr. Murray. Mr. Hammorton appeared for Mr. F. Shaw. The Court adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning.