SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 76, 19 March 1908, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYAIOLTH, WEDNESDAY, MAKCU 18. Before His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. CRIMINAL SESSIONS. The New Plymouth sessions of the Supreme Court opened yesterday morning. ORAM) JLlti. '.l"he Grand Jury was sworn a- follows: Matthew Audrew«, Joseph Asher, William Bigelow, cholwill Hilling, It. YV. Bond, C. E. Baker, \Y. Bcwley. 11. A. tholwill, E. A. Ede, William Eraser, A. H. Uhsgow. F. A. (k.l ling, J. J. Parker, M. John. : ;ies, C. M. Lepper, R, J. MallLc. . ... liver, C. Pat-tie, J. Taylor, A. E. Watkins, J. C. Webster, and J. W. Wilson. Mr. W. Bcwley was chosen foremau. HIS HONOR'S CHARGE.

Charging the Grand Jury, His Honor congratulated them on the almost complete absence of crime in this flourishing district—tin? best possible evidence, he thought, that it was flourishing. There were only three bills to pla.ia before the Grand Jury, and none of these were of a serious nature or requir-

ing any direction from him. The first concerned a man named Stewart, charged with having caused actual bodily harm. It would seem that the accused went to the detective office, intending to challenge Detective Boddam with something he had said. A scuffle ensued, and the detective had his thumb injured. There was no difficulty presented in the cas«, but it had to he inquired into. A man named Birch was presented for theft, and another named Korth for false pretence*. There were no difficulties in either of the-* cases. TRUE BILLS.

The Grand Jury returned true bills in each case. A YOUTHFUL FORGER.

Leonard Copestake, a mere lad, came up for sentence on a charge of forging and uttering a cheque at Inglewood on | 25th February last. Mr. C. 11. Weston, on behalf of the accused, craved the leniency of the Court, urging that, as a lad of only sixteen years, he had not known what he was doing. His Honor said the boy must ha»e known very well what he was doing. Mr. Weston said he could not have appreciated the gravity of the offence. His Honor said that he knew all aboat it, but he may have thought he would not be caught, to which Mr. Weston replied that he could hardly help being found out, as the thing had been done in such a barefaced and foolish manner. He added that the boy's mother had made recompense. His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said it waß plain that he knew what he was doing. Really, he should not 'ie admitted to prolntion, hut owing to bis extreme youth that course would be taken. He hoped the accused would profit by tliis warning, for this was the last time upon which the provisions of the Probation Act could be extended to him. Accused was admitted to puliation for two years and ordered to pay £3 7s 6d, the costs of the prosecution. in monthly instalments of five shillings. FALSE PRETENCES.

Albert Hugo Korih wii* charged with having at Stratford on Ist October, 1907, obtained till from Thomas Lawless by false pretence?, such false pre- I tenee consisting of the issuing and uttering of a valueless cheque for JCIO, signed "A. H. Korth,'' and drawn on the National Bank of New Zealand at Napier. , $ j Mr. K. Spence appeared for th» accused, who pleaded "Not Guilty.'' The following jury was empanelled. J. Looney, J. W. Henrichs, A. Vale*. A. A. Ambridge, A. \V. Bullot, W. Humphriee, J. Abbott, A. Mate, A. L. Cooke, T. Paul, and H. Goodacre (foreman). Mr. Kerr, Crown Prosecutor, outlined the case for the prosecution, giving details of the alleged offence. Subsosequently the prisoner wrote and telegraphed on a number of occasion* to ilr. Lawless, asking him to take a promissory note for the amount of tlie cheque and to deal leniently in the matter, as news of the irregularity would probably kill his wife. Thomas Lawless, licensee of th.i Stratford &>t«l at Stratford, identified the prisoner. On the Ist October the accused a»ked liini for a bla'nk cheque. Gave him one, and a couple of minutes later Korth brought it back, filled in for £lO, signed 'A. H. Kortli,'' and drawn on the Napier branch of the National Bank. Witness cashed the cheque. This wu in the early morning. About half an hour later witness saw accused on the express train, going south. Paid the cheque into his account at the National Bank iu Stratford. It was returned to him somo days afterwards, marked "No account." Witness immediately telegraphed to Korth at the Wellington address giv;n by him prior to bis leaving. Received several telegrams and letter,, from the accused. (Letters produced.) While-* eaid Korth had represented that he might be able to sell witness' hotel. Korth wrote to his would-be client, but got no reply, so he said he would go to 'Weliington on the business. To Mr. Spence—Korth's account for board had been rendered fortnight Iv, but was still unpaid. That account had been verbally guaranteed by one of Korth's local partners in a patent he vn working. Authorised Korth to sei! Iris hotel. His Honor: What has that to do with it?

I Mr. Spence: It lias a great deal to do with the subssquent loan of £lO. ■ His Honor: But this is not a loan. It is a charge of issuing a cheque ou a bank in which he has no account. His Honor returned the "authority' given to Korth to sell the property, : remarking he had uo use for it. Cross-examination continued The question of Korth'a expenses was not j mentioned between them. He did not arrange for accused to go to Wellington, but knew Ik. was going. Made no arrangement with accused about a code for telegraphing. In his tirst letter to ; accused he asked for a return of the «*le authority and payment of €11). He offered to accept a proper!v-endorsed bill for the £lO. Accused sent him two I bill?, and he returned both. He placed this matter in the hand* of the police i in February, having given ample time ior a refund of the money. Horatio Xel-oir au officer in the employ of the National Hank at Napier, stated that there was no account in thn books of the bank in the name of Albeit Hugo Korth. Mr. Spent.- said be did not intend to call evidence, but would show that the jfiving of this cheque \ a & ;l distinct connection with the contemplated sale of the hotel. H was ridiculou- to siippo<o that otherwise Lawle> ? would given this blauk cheque to Korth, a comparative stranger, and a man unable to pay his board. Under ordinary circumstance:,, would he have cashed th« cheque without remark? The conversation concerning the sale of the pro. party bad a direct Iwariug on the for this airangenicut or agreement, he suggested, promoted the advancing of £IO cipen=cs to Kuith and the signing of that cheque. Hi- Honor would '.ell them that it the .■iicum-ia.iice, surrounding the giving oi the cheque— Hi* Honor: Vou don't know what I'll tell the jury. Mr. Spem-e said (hat il the circumstance- went to prove there was n,> intent to defraud, it mu-t vvci"h :ii favor of the pri-oner. What was a tin advance to a man who -aw a chance of selling a property worth C1.">..5W: Was there not -ome connection lietwecn the authority to sell and the giving of tli.; JCIU ill return for a cheque'.'' Some acknowledgment wa« needed by Law- !<•:»». lor hi-' wife knew nothing' of thi, transaction.

His Honor: Si he v,anted security .0 show his njfe. eh? We have h«j «viilmcr of petticoat government, Mr. Spence! llr. Speme said he didn't allege that. But he pr.-umed Mrs. Lawless was in llw busine-- with her husband, and that they would «n through the wish together. I His Honor: So he mu-t have a value- | less cl>e,|ue a- security! lint the jury j were men of common scu ; e. and they ! would know that an 1.0.t". or «onielhin;» <■! th.it kind would be {riven. Mr. S|»-nee commented on the faft tluit Mr. J.a.. it-- had immediately paid in the che-pir. Why ,|i,l he do that? Cioliablv fur -nino r.M-on of In- own. His Hcii.ir: Wliv didn't \-..n a-k hint? He wa- in tin- l.o\. «l,y ,|i,|„'| ,„ u j.i. him? I'm 2oiiiL' to i.dl the juiy'tn ta'.c no notice ..f i! -u^ L ...-ii,,M-. I don'l like in-iuu.i'ioii- of thi- kind ao.ain-t a I respectable tr.ide-iii.ni ulio |u- !„.,.„ m | box .'ll.l {jiv.ii hi- .■i-i.|,.n..... ; Mr. Spence -aid lie intended n „ „„. | fair inference. Rut hi' '.-** *■„. , tilled to the sanie oon-iderarion «- Mr. j Linle—. a j he n-.is innocent until proved i Iguiltr. I TTis Tlonor .-ail that hod Mr. Spemv i wanted an explanation from Mr. T,sw- I less lie could hive «ot it from him in j the hov. ATr. Lawless «ave sworn evidence. »n ,ath. The accused was not <jnU» in the same position, as Mr.

Spenee well knew, and it was no* fair to make insinuations against the witness without aouie attempt to justify them.

Mr. Hpeuce remarked on th« subsequent action of the parties. Ml. Lawless, defrauded and cheated out of £lO, had waited for four and a-half months before handing the matter to the police For months he took the ordinary slepi to recover a civil debt, which this undoubtedly was.

ilr. 'Spenee proceeded to put to till jury that they might find that the circumstances Kiirrounding the {-ivitij; of that cheque entitled them to doubt the alleged criminal intent. His Honor said that the "surrounding circumstances" must lie tliat Lawless knew at <h» Unit that this was n valueless cheque. Mr. Spenee: right, sir. His Honor: I'm so glad you think lei right, Mr. Spenee. It's n source or great gratification to me, although it's not the customary manner of accepting a ruling of the Bench. Mr. Spenk'e: The general rule is ■ His Honor: That is my ruling. T hope ( know what I'm about, Air. Spenee. I think I do. I ought to do. Al any rate, 1 don't intend to debate it. Mr. Spenee: That is so. =ir. The addr«B6 to the jury was concluded at 12.49. His Honor said Hint Mr. Spenee had spoken for so long that the jury must almost have forgotten the evidence. They were asked to believe that Ijhw- | less had not told the truth. The Judge said he had given his evidence well, and told a reasonable story. The contentions of the defence were ridiculous, and tended to show tliat Mr. Spenee knew very little of what went on in the criminal courts This system of false pretences by the issue of valueless cheques was exceedingly common, and small tradespeople and publicans often cashed them on far more nimsy representations than had appealed to Lawless. Had he not cashed the cheque

under the circumstances it would have been very surprising They were asked to believe that this dheque was given as a security. That was Laughable, Everybody knew what a valueless cheque was, and what the consequence was. People didnf give valueless cheques as securities for loan. He had never heard of such an acknowledgment in hie life. If they could disbelieve Lawless, whose credit was unimpe.aehed, if they could say his story was improbable, and that he knew the cheque was valueless, they would acquit the prisoner. Of course the prisoner was entitled to a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt would b« caused by the belief that Lawless had perjured himself in the box. Could they believe that he whs wrongly endeavoring to semi an innocent man to gaol? The jury returned at 1.30 with a verdict of "guilty." A long list of previous eonvictioai iraa put in. His Honor: That's the innocent man that borrowed the money. Tie ad£ed that this was a very had business, an:' the aeensed was no doubt an habitual offender. His Honor would have to fdd another to the population of New Plymouth, where the habitual criminals' prison was. situated in a nice climate, amidst charming scenery. Prisoner would be sentenced to 18 months' hard labor, and declared to be an habitual offender in terms of the Habitual Criminals Act. 1906. THEFT AT STRATFORD.

Sandy Birch, alias J. Angus, alia* J. Robertson, was charged with the thelt of a saddle, the property of Henry iiilpatrick, al Stratford, on 7th December last, lie pleaued not guilty. Mr. Kerr prosecuted lor the Crown, and Mr. C. 11. Weston conducted tor the defence. The following jury was Messii, U, King, P. Wells, H. Buckle, Herbert! Petch, Al. Clow, \Y. Lints, W. Fellew, C. E. Bellriuger, C. Carter, F. C. Mace, \V. J. Greenhill, and A. Cliard. Air. <). E. Bellringer was chosen foreman. Counsel »aid the facts of the case ware very isiuiple. Henry Kilpatrick

on 7th December last, placed a saddle, tfidle, and breastplate in Mr. Newton King's geed-roorn at Stratford. On th» name morning the prisoner, it would seem, took the gear away and entered them for sale at Mr. J. D. Morison's auction mart in the name of 1!. Johnson. The gear was sold, and the accused received the purchase money. Henry Kilpatrick identified the «*>irile, bridle, and martingale produced. He had placed them in the seed-store at eight o'clock in the morning. At \i o'clock that day he went for them, but they had gone. With Constable Hyde he next saw them in the possession ol Carter, the creamery manager, at Stanley road, on December 10th. He gave no authority lor anyone to i«move the articles. He remembered seeing the accused at Mr. King's grain store between !) and 0.30 o'clock on the morning he left tile articles there. He llad known accused when, the latter was driving lor Mr. Phillips at Ngaiiv. and was going under the name of itrown. To Mr. Weston: Had no difficulty in recognising his property, George Pugh, storeman and auctioneer at Morison/s auction mart at Stratford, remembered the accused entering for sale the saddle, bridle, and breastplate on December 7th last. Those produced were the "lot.'' They were »nUred In the name of K. Johnson, and w«r« sold the same day to Mr. Carter, of the Stanley road, for £■> 10s or thereabouts. To Mr. Weston: Recognised the prisoners the man who brought in the "lot." The goods were brought about 9.30 in the morning. Re-examined by Jlr. Kerr: He had absolutely no doiibt about the identity of the accused. Robert K. Melville, accountant in the same auction mart as the previous witness, said he remembered seeing accused at the mart on the 7th December, and remembered paying him a cheque for £2 10s, on account of tlie sale of a saddle, bridle, etc. The cheque was to "order," and made payable to "E. Johnson." later the payee reappeared with the cheque, saying' he wanted it made payable to "Alexander Brown."

He altered it accordingly. He had no doubt of accused' identity. He wore a beard at the time. To Mr. Weston: Accused was away only about ten minutes. He had not been asked for this evidence in the lower court. •'. \\. Carter, creamery manager on the Stanley road, gave evidence an to the purchase of the articles produced for .C2 15s. A few days afterwards Kilpatrick claimed them as his.

Defective Boddam deposed as to the iirrest of the accused on 3rd of January lust. When told of the charge he replied that he would "like to go to Stratford and get it over.'' To .Mr. Weston: Had Uu conversation with the accused between the lockup and the Stratford courthouse. He did not advise him to plead "guilty." Air. Weston said it was a ease of mistaken identity. I'he accused gave evidence that h* bad licch working for Mr. I'hillips, <rf •Nganc, for four months. He had pr»-vioii-ly been working at SUathmoie. He had been in Stratford only about lout times, and never up in the township, (in December 7th he went into Stratford to assist Mr. Chamberlain to gel possession of some bullocks and other gear that his employer had pur. ( ha.-ed at auction the day before. They started work at about *UO a.m. Mr. I'hillips assisted. When the work was done he went home, through Xgairc, where he got his pony shod and bought some tobacco. He arrived home before noon, and had lunch there in the kitchen. In the afternoon he logged up n. paddock preparatory to ploughing, and did not- return to' the house until about ;, o'clock. He spent his Christmas holidays in .\cw Plymouth, where he was arrested. Asked the detective what he was being arrested for, and on being told of the charge, he said: "Let us g,i to Stratford. I can very soon clear my.-elf of thai." He had' never | j >oon riigh or Melville, the two witnesses, until he saw them in the S.M.

Court, and he had never been in Morison's mart in his life. At Stratford, whilst being taken front the lock-up to the courthouse, and just outside the building, he met Detective tloddam. The latter asked him to plead "guilty. ■' Witness said he was not going to plead guilty to a thing he was uot guilty of. The detective rejoined, "You're a d fool.'' He had been convicted before. Cross-examined: Denied getting a cheque from Melville. A list of thirteen previous convictions was put in. Mr. Weston, addressing the jury, said that too often the fact that a man had a ''record'' damned him for ever. He would ask ihe jury to rise above that, and give the accused a "run for his money." Doubtless two policemen out of every five knew this man as well as they knew their mothers, nnd this operated against him. If he were within shouting distance of a crime, he was blamed. Why wasn't Angus arrested right away for this theft? He considered that the two witnesses from the mart had had no opportunity of getting an impression of the man's feAtures, and it was possible that they were mistaken. It really looked as if the thief knew oi accused's resilience near Stratford and that he was passing under the name of Brown. So it was easy to put this trouble on him. Mr. Weston commented on the fact that the course of the cheque had never been traced. The delay in effecting the arrest suggested to him that there had been suspicions in other quarters, but, these not materialising, the man with the bad record had been pounced on.

His Honor said there was undoubted- \ ly a theft, the stolen goods were sold , at auction, and a man received the . proceeds. They had been told that the ; two young men in the mart had had , no opportunity of observing the man , with whom they were dealing. He , thought otherwise. The accused admit- . ted ocing in the vicinity of the goods i before they were stolen. He also stated that he had yoked the bullocks, gont home, and so on. How easy it might have been to prove this, but no attempt had been made by bringing independent evidence. The jury must also look at accused's character. He was not to be convicted by his previous record, but where it was his evidence against that of two positive and disinterested witnesses on the question of identity, then the jury must take into consideration the fact'lhat he liad been convicted fully a dozen times before. The jury retired at 3.55, and returned at 5.15 with a verdict of ''guilty." His Honor, in passing sentence, said the accused was one of those unfortunate people who ought not to be at large, for his own sake as well as that of the public. Curiously enough, although he had a long string of convictions, he could not b e classed as an habitual criminal, for he had been convicted on only three occasions in the Supreme Court. Had he been convicted on (his charge in the lower court he could have lieen treated as an habitu.il offender. By this legislative over 1 - siglu. New Plymouth would be deprived, of the prisoner's presence other than for a limited period. He would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labor. ASSAULT. Alexander J. Stewart was sentenced to three months' hard labor on a charge of assaulting Detective Boddam on the night of Bth January last. Mr. Kenappeared for the Crown, and Mr. Johnstone for tin' accused.