SUPREME COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume I, Issue 18, 13 June 1868, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. (Condensed from the "Daily Times.") Saturday, June 6th. (Before His Honor, Mr. Justice Chapman.) The Court aat at ten o'clock. Oscar Clayson, convicted of forgery, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labor. Samuel Symms, convicted on Thursday of having obtained L 8 by false pretences, was brought up for sentence. Upon the advice of his counsel, he refrained from saying anything -when asked, k 'why sentence should not be passed upon him." The Judge said that the prisoner's offence was aggravated by his not having been in want at the time. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. FELONIOUSLY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. Moss Davis was indicted for having, on the 11th of April last, at Dunedin, feloniously received a gold watch, which had been stolen from R. W. Shepherd. Mr. James Smith, instructed by Mr. Ward, defended the prisoner. * The watch was, on Good Friday night, stolen from the prosecutor by Joseph Allen, and the latter was, on Friday last tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. At the trial the prisoner was produced as a witness, and he admitted having bought the watch from Allen. The proseciitor now stated that he wa3 presennt when a search was made in the prisoner's premises, and when a watch dial and works had been found. He identified the dial. It had a chip in the pivot of the second hand, which he remembered having noticed years ago — th« watch having been a family relic. Another chip had been caused during its transmission from England, and it was particularly noticeable. Several witnesses were examinnd, the principal one being * man named Joseph Allen, whose evidence we give in full : — Joseph Allen : I was in the prosecutor's company on the 10th of April last. I went with him from the Occidental Hotel to M'Cubbin's Hotel. He had a watch on that night. I took that watch. I sold that watch the next day to the prisoner. I sold it in the forenoon. I got L 2 30s. for it. When I offered the watch, ha asked if it was honestly come by. At first, I said yes. He asked me was I sure it was honestly come by ; would I tell him straightforward, as he did not, if there was any risk, wish to put it in his window. I «aid', • " Will it be right?" and he replied, " Yes." That he did not wish to expose it in his window, if it was not honestly come by. I then admitted that it was not honestly come by. I had told him the watch for L 2 10s., and he forced me to give him a receipt for it. He said after I told him that it was not honestly mine, " I have given you a 'square ' price for it ; you j will have tb give me LI back." There

were two policemen standing in front of the shop ; and I, afraid that he would give me, the watch, and chain into their possession, gare him back the pound. By Mr. Smith : I was convicted yesterday of having stolen the watch. Of course, I pleaded Not Guilty. The pri soner gave evidence against me, and I did say that he Had committed perjury. I say that either he or tho detectives committed perjury ; for he asserted yesterday, that he had never denied that he had bought the watch from me. I did not consider L 2 10s. a "square " price ; 1 wanted L 5 for it. I told him at first that the watch belonged to a mate of mine, who had authorised me to sell it. I spoke to the people in the gaol yesterday about the case. The Judge, in summing up, said the fact of the prisoner having bought the watch was admitted, the identity of the watch was also admitted, and the only question was, did he buy it knowing it to have been stolen 1 At the eleventh hour, Allen was placed in the box, and he gave evidence which, if true, placed the prisoner's guilt beyond all doubt. But that evidence was not only subject to comment from Counsel and Judge ; but it would require careful consideration from the Jury. Allen was a convicted thief, convicted partly by the evidence of the prisoner. He was more— he was an acknowledged thief, and he gave evidence as a tainted person. The question was, was he entirely free from malice against Davis ? If the jury thought he was not, let them reject his evidence altogether. But upon the concurrence of that testimony with other testimony, they might be disposed to five it weight. Assuming that Allen's evidence was rejected, what were the other points relied xipon by the Crown as proving • guilty knowledge. Denial, paying under price, selling under price, and destroying identity by breaking the watch up. The prosecutor had said that a trading hawker had offered him Lls for the watch. The prisoner had bought it for L 2 10s., and had realised at the outside L 6 for it. The price given was a very low one, and the prisoner should have exercised more caution in bnying from a man of Allen's appearance. The Judge then reviewed the evidence, dwelling upon the points relied upon by the prosecutor, reminding the jury that it was not upon one circumstance alone they were to find a verdict, but upon all. The Jury, without leafing the box, returned a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was remanded until today for sentence, to enable him to call witnesses as to character. The Court was adjourned until to-day at eleven o'clock. Monday, June Bth. sbntjbnce. Moss Davis, who was convicted, on Saturday last, of having feloniously received stolen property, was brought up for sentence. Mr. Peter Sherwin was called. He said he had known the prisoner for thirteen years, and had had considerable business transactions with him in Melbourne. He had always found the prisoner straightforward and honorable. Two other witnesses were called, but they did not appear. The prisoner, upon being asked the usual questions, said — This is an unfortunate affair of mine, your Honor, and it is the first offence. I have been in business here and in Melbourne more than fourteen years, and no one can say anything against me. I never took credit, but always paid my way, and bore a good character. I am fifty-four years of age. lama cripple, and am subject to rheumatics. I have been in prison for two months, and that, I think, is sufficient punishment for a first offence. I leave I myself in your Honor's hands, and trust you will be lenient to me. The Judge said— The offence of which you have been convicted is a very serious one, and the Legislature has marked its sense of its dangerous nature, by assigning to it a much higher punishment than to common larceny. The highest punishment that can be given in cases of common larceny is three years, but the highest in cases of receiving is*fourteen years penal servitude, the Lpgislature thus regarding the offence as high as aggravated larceny. It is therefore impossible to pass over an offence of this kind without awarding a severe punishment; but at the same time, one not too severe. I will take into consideration that it is your first offence, and that nothing is known to the Court against you. You have received a good character from one witness ; and possibly, had others been present, they would have given you an equally good character. It is a grievous thing that you should have done this at your time of life, when you ought to have known better. In most cases, a thief and receiver occupied a low station in society, and the latter did not keep a house which, from its very nature, would tempt thieves to apply to them. The evidence was strong against you. It cannot be told that the jury did, or did not, take into consideration Allen's evidence ; but, apart from that evidence, there were criminating facts proved that were ' conclusive. I shall not give you penal servitude, because it is your first offence, j and because of your previous good cha- j racter. The sentence is that you be imprisoned in Dunedin Gaol for two years, with hard labor. FORGERY. William Marshall was indicted for having forged a certain draft with intent to defraud. He was further indicted with having uttered the same, knowing it to have been forged. He pleaded guilty. Sentence was deferred. CATTLE STKAZIXG. Charles White was indicted for having, on or about August 30fch, 1866, stolen a strawberry heifer, the property of John Lawson. Mr. James Macassey appeared for the prisoner. The case for the prosecution was, that in March, 1864, the prosecutor purchased a cow ; and in September or November of the name year, she had a calf, which was, ty the prosecutor's instructions, branded JL conjoined. Thn calf was frequently seen about the run, from which its mother had been originally purchased ; but about six months after it was branded, it was missed. In August, ISI6, a Mr. Evans purchased six oattle

from the prisoner, the latter telling him that he had bought thsm at a sale of Messrs. Chalmers stock at Tokomairiro. The cattle were branded TA, and amongst them there was the prosecutor's heifer. Lately the heifer was sold to Messrs. Boult, and by them slaughtered. Its hide had been preserved, and by its identity was proved. The contention of the prosecution was, that the heifer, at the time of sale to Evans, wa» only eighteen or twenty months old, and that as all the cattle sold to Messrs. Chalmers were fat cattle, and two or three years old, the prisoner's account could not be true. The prosecutor proved the purchase of the heifer, and he knew the hide produced to have belonged to it. He had seen the hide on Messrs. Boult's premises. In answer to Mr. Macassey, the witness said that he had threatened that, unless he received L2O and his expenses, he would take proceedings. George Cameron said that the heifer had, when a calf, been left on his run by the prosecutor. He had branded it JL conjoined. On the day of the sale of Mi. Chalmers's cattle, he had gone closely through the mob to see if any of his own cattle had got mixed up with them. He did not see Lawson's heifer amongst Chalmers's mob, and did not think it could have been there without hi* seeing it. William Boult said that he recollected seeing a strawberry heifer in his yard in January last. It was branded TA, and had something like CC. He purchased the heifer from Thomas Evans. It was killed about nine weeks ago, and the hide wai taken possession of by the police. Thomas Evans stated that, in August, 1866, he purchased six head of cattle from the prisoner, and branded them TA. The prisoner told him that he had bought them at a sale of cattle from Moa Flat Station, in July, 1866. Th 9 accused gave me a receipt ; and from something he heard, he obtained from him another receipt. Shortly after he purchased the cattle they strayed, and he offered a reward for them. He had bought the cattle for the purpose of breeding, and had kept them for that purpose. Gerit A. Chalmers said that he recollected selling cattle at Tokomairiro, in July, 1866. They were all between two-and-a-half and five years old. One lot was sold to White. I remember that a person named Draper claimed one of the cattle put up for sale -as his. It was given to him. Duncan M'lntyre, who had brought' Messrs. Chalmers's cattle down for sale, gave similar evidence. He would not SAvear positively, however, that the heifer in question did not get mixed up in the mob. T. Meredith Smith, Monnted Constable, said that when he arrested the prisoner the latter gave him a receipt for fifty-seven head of cattle which he had purchased from Messrs. Chalmers, and he asserted that the heifer in question was one of that lot. Mr. Macassey said the case was one which should never have come into Court, or when it did come it should have been withdrawn. He reviewed the evidence for the prosecution, showing that the prisoner, who waa in a good position in life, had practised no concealment, had acted openly in the sale of the heifer, and had always asserted that he bought her at the Tokomairiro sale. He would be able to prove this by evidence ; and he would then ask from the jury, nob only an acquittal, but an expression of opinion that he left the Court with his character unblemished. The following evidence was given for the defence :—: — William Draper : lam a farmer. I reside at Waitahuna, and know the prisoner. I remember the cattle sale at Tokomairiro in July, 1866. I set up a claim to a cow, which was included in Chalmers's mob. It was drafted ready for sale, but, in consequence of my claim, it was not sold. 1 recollect the prisoner purchasing a small mob of cattle at the sale. The hide produced belongs to one of the mob purchased by the prisoner. I was at the Beaumont when Chalmers's cattle crossed. At Treweek's station, I saw some of my own cattle, and the cow I claimed at the sale. Chalmers's mob included a good many cattle about fifteen months old. I did not see the heifer — the subject of this inquiry — at this time. I helped the prisoner to take possession of the cat+le purchased by him. I saw the heifer amongst them. The JL conjoined was visible, and the heifer was also tar branded. Agnew, and a man named Lees, drove the mob for him. I saw the heifer at Scrubby Flat, on the 25th July, with the other cattle purchased by the prisoner. In August, I again saw her ; she was then branded TA. By Mr. Haggitt : I saw the heifer for the first time at the sale yard. I saw tha JL distinctly. There was no other brand on it. It appeared to be fifteen or eighteen months old. George Agnew : I reside at Waitahuna. The prisoner is my brother-in-law, and I have been in partnership with him for some years. I was present at the sale of Chalmers's cattle at Tokomairiro. Mr. Lee and 1 helped to take delivery. In August, 1866, the prisoner sold some cattle to Thomas Evans, amongst them being a heifer, which we took delivery of at Tokomairiro. I subsequently saw the heifer at Scrubby Flat. By Mr. Haggitt : M'Jntyre was not sober on the day of the sale. Draper was. I can swear positively that the heifer was purchased at Chalmers's sale. I never said to anyone "leave her [meaning the cow claimed by me at the sale] with the mob, as I intend to become a purchaser, and intend tp take her back with the mob I'll bny." I saw the heifer running at the back of Cameron's place about last January twelve months. By Mr. Macassey : I saw M'lntyre at the sale. He was often talked to by Mr. Chalmers, and was hardly able to draft the cattle. Mr. Macassey was about to call other witnesses, when the Foreman of the Jury asked the Judge if tho ca*e could be stopped, as they- were perfectly convinced of the prisoner's innocence. The Judge said that ffc certainly could, and he concurred in the action taken by the Jury; He had felt inclined to direct an acquittal before. The prisoner was therefore discharged. We learn by telegram that George Eogers has been acquitted of the cnarge of embezzlement.