SUPREME COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 108, 5 March 1870, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Condensed fi^m the "Daily Times.") Tuesday, Ist March, lauceny at kakanuj. Eugene M'Carthy and Christopher Francis Le Grand were indicted for having, on the 19th December last, stolen various articles of jewellery, the property of F. Lachniann Hay man. Found Guilty, and sentenced each to 18 months' imprisonment. FORGERY. An elderly man named James Nicholas was indicted for having forged a cheque for £3 10s., purporting to bear the signature of the Hon. Matthew Holmes. A second count charged the prisoner with uttering the same. The prisoner was undefended, and endeavoured to prove an alibi. He was fonnd guilty, and sentenced to eighteen months, with hard labour. ASSAULT WITH INTENT. George Haggerty was indicted for having, on the 24th November last, at Hindon, committed this offence, A second count charged the prisoner with having attempted to commit suicide. This was a painful case, as the prisoner was charged with committing the offence on his own daughter, aged 14 years. The Crown Prosecutor, in disclosing the particulars of the case, remarked that up to the time when the offence was committed the girl lived with her father and mother at a place about four miles from Hindon. On the 24th November she left home accompanied by her father to deliver a message from a Mr. Webb to a Mr, Anderson, who resided near that township. When they had gone a short distance the prisoner sat down and asked her if she had told her mother on the previous evening that he did not like to »o to the house, and she replied in the affirmative. She then ran away from her father, who followed her. He called after her to stop ; she did so, and he bid her go back to the place where they had first stopped and bring his swag which he had left behind him. When she brought him the swag he beat her, seized her by the arms, dragged her aside from the track, and perpetrated the alleged offence. She made no resistance, thinking it useless, her father being so much stronger than herself. She continued her journey as far as Hindon with her fa+her ; delivered her message, and told her mother when she returned home what had taken place. Mrs. Hastgerty subsequently gave information to the police. According to the indictment, no capital offence had been committed, and the prisoner was called upon to answer the minor charge — indecent assault. Testimony, bearing out the statements made by the girl, would be adduced by Dr. Hulme, who had examined an article of her underclothing. When taken into custody, the prisoner begged the constable, for God's sake, not to inform any one of the charge on which he had been arrested. The prisoner, his wife, and the constable had to cross the Taieri in a boat, and whilst doing so the prisoner interrogated his wife as to whether she had given him into custody. At that time she did not reply, but she remarked shortly afterwards that Dr. Inglis had said no such thing (meaning a capital offence) had occurred, but that it would be better that the matter should be cleared up. On the boat arriving a short' distance from the opposite shore, the prisoner jumped into the river and sank, but came to the surface shortly afterwards ; the constable then caught hold of his whiskers, and kept his head above the water until he was rescued. The prisoner, whilst in the water, made desperate attempts to free himself from the constable ; and the latter, finding that the lives of those in the boat were being endangered, threatened that, if the prisoner did not desist, he would iise his revolver. The prisoner

then said, " For God's sake, shoot me ; put an end to me ; that's all 1 want." The girl was examined, and denied that she entertained any ill will against the prisoner. On arriving at Hindon, she remained for a short time at two houses, but did not speak to the persons there of what had occurred. Dr. Inglis and Dr. Hulme were also examined. The former stated that the girl was brought to him to be examined. He did examine her, but found no evidence of the commission of a criminal assault. Subsequently, however, it was found that an article of underclothing, said to have been worn by the girl when the alleged offence was committed, gave evidence of an indecent assault. Mr. Barton made an able speech on behalf of the prisoner, and. The following persons, most of whom had known the prisoner for a considerable length of time, -gave him a very good, character: — Mrs. Chitty, Mrs Baxter, and Messrs. T. Spedding, Duncan Stewart, Peter Henderson, Allan Boyd, and John Marriott. After the Crown Prosecutor had replied, and His Honour had summed up, the jury retired about six o'clock. About 11 o'clock p.m., His Honour left the Bench ; the jury, not having agreed upon a verdict, were locked up for the night. The following morning, being no nearer a decision than before, they were discharged. His Honour said that considering the jury had been locked up for twelve hours (without food) he would be justified in discharging them without their coming to a verdiQt. They would not be discharged for the remainder of the sittings of the Court, but common humanity would justify him in discharging them for three or four hours at least. An order for a new trial by a fresh jury was granted. ARRAIGNMENT. Edward Charles Young, late collector to the " Oamaru Times" Company (Limited), was brought up on two charges of embezzlement ; he pleaded guilty to both charges. Sentence, nine months' imprisonment, "Wednesday, 2nd March, robbery at mo a flat. Edward Sutton was indicted for having, on the 13th instant, at Moa Flat, stolen from the person of William Ross, a miner, a pocketrbook containing two £10 notes, one £5 note, several bills of exchange, and other moneys. The prisoner was undefended.

From the opening statement to the Crown Prosecutor it seemed that on the day in question the prosecutor (Ross), the prisoner (Sutton), aad other persons were drinking together at M'Leod's hotel, Moa Flat. They all got drunk, but the prosecutor more so than any of the others. The prosecutor lay down in the store of one Nicholson, $nd it was presumed that the property was removed from his pocket whilst he slept. When he woke up the prosecutor asked Nicholson whether he had seen his pocket-book. Nicholson replied that he had not, and ultimately, with the view to a discovery, it was proposed and agreed that the men should allow themselves to be searched. This was done without finding the property ; but subsequently the prisoner requested Nicholson to change a £5 note. Nicholson had heard that there was a £5 note amongst the missing money, and suspecting the prisoner, refused to change the note, but kept it in his possession. Ultimately the prisoner confessed that he knew where the pocket-book was, and took Nicholson to a spot about 100 yards from the store, where, in a hole in a sod fence, the pocket-book was found, but the contents had been abstracted. On the following morning a constable spoke to the prisoner, and the latter said he wished to point out something that a man had planted. He then proceeded to a place about 50 yards from the hotel, and from underneath a stone near a flax bush, the two £10 notes, which had been amongst the property stolen, were taken. The prisoner yesterday confesped that he took the pocket-book from the pocket of the prosecutor, but said that he had intended to return it to him on the following day. The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of "Guilty;" and His Honour sentenced the prisoner to be incarcerated for two years, with hard labour. EMBEZZLEMENT BY A POLICE CONSTABLE. James Carter, late mounted constable in charge of the Teviot district, was indicted for having embezzled moneys belons[ing to the Government. Those moneys chiefly consisted of sums the prisoner had collected on account of immigrants' passage money, of which he had failed to send in a return to Mr. Sub-Inspector Percy. Jane M'Kenzie, of Long Valley, Angus M'Phail, of Moa Flat, and others proved by their receipts that they had given moneys to Carter. Mr. Barton addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner at considerable length ; after which, His Honour summed up by reminding the jury that the prisoner had himself admitted having received the moneys ; and said that there was no necessity for going into particulars as to whether he was bound to account for them. That was evident. Certainly, there was no proof of any instructions having been given that he should account for the money monthly, but as the learned council for the Crown had pointed out, there was the statement which he made to one of the witnesses, viz., that it would be a part of his duty to account for the moneys at the end of the month. Again, there was the statement which he had made in writing respecting the first mentioned sum, that it would be paid in full on the 15th December, 1869. That statement was evidently false, because, as it had been shown, he had already received the money. Next, it appeared that no entry of the sum received had been made in the books at the station, although, according to the evidence, it was usual to make entries of such payments. The prisoner also absconded from the Camp when confined to it by his superior officer, and was arrested about 60 miles from Lawrence, and when arrested he stated to the constable that he would not have been caught had he been possessed of sufficient money to carry him on; that if he had once got into Canterbury they would never

have fonnd him. There was also the statement which it was alleged he made at the Resident Magistrate's Court — viz., that he had received the money, but declined to say what he had done with it, and would reserve his defence. It was necessary to show that he had taken some steps to forward the money — that had not been done. The learned counsel for the prisoner had said a good dea], during a very ingenious argument, that they had not the evidence of the man Titchener, who on one occasion took charge of the station in the absence of Mr. Percy ; but they had this fact before them — that it was part of the duty of the officer to account for the moneys to Mr. Percy, and there was no possible reason for suggesting that there had been a lapsus on the part of any of the officers. With regard to the very high character of the prisoner, of course it must make all regret to see a man who had borne so good a reputation descend to such an act as this ; but the jury must not let such considerations deter them from doing their duty, if the evidence was clear and indisputable. Such circumstances might be taken into consideration when sentence was being passed, but it should in no way interfere with the verdict of the jury. If, however, they entertained any reasonable doubt about the prisoner's guilt, they might properly take his character into consideration in coming to a decision. The jury then retired, and on returning into Court, gave a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. FORGERY AND UTTERING AT LAWRENCE. Henry Charles Richards "was indicted for having, on the 25th November, forged a certain receipt for money. A second count charged him with uttering the same. The prisoner was defended by Mr. C. E. Barton, and, at his request, all the witnesses in the case were ordered to leave the Court until required to give evidence; From the opening statement of the Crown Prosecutor, it appeared that the prisoner had for some years past been carrying on the bnsiness of a law and mining agent at Lawrence, and that amongst other persons, for whom he acted in that capacity was the late Mr. W. Griffin, who had carried on the business of a butcher, at Lawrence. Griffin died about the month of August, 1869, and left a will by which he appointed the prisoner one of his executors. At the time of Griffin's death, the prisoner was indebted to him in the sum of £27 4s 2d, for butcher's meat supplied. A claim for this sum was made upon the prisoner by the other executors. The indebtedness was spoken of by them to the prisoner, shortly after Griffin's death, and at that time the prisoner produced a document purporting to be a release by Griffin to the prisoner of all claims due up to that time. That document was produced by the prisoner in the first instance, in his own house at Lawrence, and, on that occasion, the other executors, who were well acquainted with the handwriting of Griffin, expressed an opinion to one another, if not to the prisoner himself, that the signature to the document was not genuine. Subsequently the executors commenced legal proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Lawrence, to recover the debt above mentioned, and when the case came before the Court for trial, the prisoner pleaded a set off, and also set up the alleged release in answer to the action which the executors had instituted. The document had been retained by the executors, but on notice being given by the prisoner, it was produced. The prisoner swore that the document had been signed by Griffin in his presence. The Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and stated, in the presence of the prisoner, that in his opinion the signature to the document was a forgery. Although that statement was made in the prisoner's presence he did not offer any explanation or express any surprise. Immediately after the eonclvsjon of jbhe case, the prisoner was arrested by Constable Smith, - and told that he was charged with having committed a forgery, and in reply he remarked, " Well, all I can say is that I did not commit the forgery." Of course (continued the Crown Prosecutor) as Griffin was dead the Crown could only offer evidence respecting his handwriting, and he proposed to call witnesses who were well acquainted with it. There were several peculiarities in connection with Griffin's handwriting. In the first place all the persons who would be called to speak of it would state that they never knew him him to sign his name otherwise than as " W. Griffin," whereas the signature attached to the release was " Wm. Griffin ;" and the clerk in the Bank where Grffin kept his account would state that if during Griffin's lifetime a cheque had been presented at the Bank signed " Wm. Griffin " he would have refused to pay it on account of that difference. There was also another peculiarity connected with Griffin's handwriting, namely, the final "n" in the word "Griffin" the deceased always slurred, and therefore, instead of making a complete "n " the last letter always resembled an "r," so that his signature appeared more like "Griffer" than "Griffin." Again the the document, on the face of it, bore evidence that the contents and the signature were written by the same hand. There was also another circumstance — it was alleged, when the case was tried at Lawrence, that the prisoner stated that he saw Griffin cancel the stamp by placing his initials upon it. The initials "W. G." on the stamp did not correspond with Griffin's ordinary initials. The following witnesses were examined for the prosecution : — W. L. Simpson, Warden, respecting the case heard before him at Lawrence ; Dr. E. Hailey, bearing testimony to the fact that Griffin was not able to write so firm and bold a hand at the date of the document, nor for some time previously ; Donald John M'Donald, T. M. Smith, W. E. Farrer, and J. L. S. Keen. 3. M'Leod Nicolson recognised the signature to Griffin's will, and stated that he recollected having a conversation with Griffin on the 11th or 12th July last, when he stated that he had had a " squaring up " with Richards (the prisoner) ; he said he wouldhave no further "truck" with him, and on it being suggested that he should not take his word for it, inasmuch as when he was the worse for liquor

he would say anything, Griffin replied, " Oh no, it's in black and white." Alfred Fletcher, butcher, Lawrence, had been in the employ of the late Mr. Griffin for fully two years ; he kept the books connected with his business as butcher. The prisoner was indebted to Griffin. The signature to the (alleged) release was not in the handwriting of the late Mr. Griffin, nor did he ever see him sign his name " Wm. Griffin." William Hayes, accountant and commission agent, also stated his belief that the signature to the (alleged) release was not in the handwriting of the late Mr. Griffin. At this stage of the proceedings the Court adjourned until next day. [By a telegram received last evening we learn that the Jury, after retiring one hour, found Richards guilty — sentence reserved until Monday.]