LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 254, 12 December 1872, Page 7

LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Chapman.) Monday, December 9.

The first sittings of the Supreme Court held in Lawrence, commenced on Monday, the 9th inst.

His Honor took his seat at ten o'clock a.m.

The following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand Jury : — Edward Herbert, merchant (foreman) ; W. E. Farrer, banker; Francis Nicoll, miner; R. "Williams, hotelkeeper; John M'Cay, storekeeper; John Sutherland, sheepfarmer; I). G. Poison, Bheepfarmer; W. H. Millar, farmer; Frederick Meyer, ironmonger ; William Jamison, banker; Samuel Hales, miner; William Hayes, accountant; Andrew Ferguson, printer; John Cormack, miner ; Alexander Armstrong, hotelkeeper ; Henry Clayton, miner ; Archibald M'Kinlay, merchant. His Honor charged the Grand Jury as follows : Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury :— Were I to con6ne my observations to the state of the calendar, my duties would indeed be light. There is but one case set down for trial, or rather three charges of obtaining goods under false pretences. The prisoner is a child of tender years — a girl of 11 years of age. If you find true bills, and the petty jury convicts, it will be a question how to deal with her. There can be no doubt that, if she did commit the crime, it was more the fault of others than of herself. In law it is held that a child of her age, if proved of sound mind, is prima facie responsible. The question of holding circuit courts at Lawrence was first agitated about three years ago. At that time the crime in Otago was double what it is at present. The resolution to hold circuit courts at Lawrence was arrived at on the statistics of the previous two years. It was calculated that there would be seven prisoners for trial at each sitting of the court. During the last two years, however, crime had greatly diminished. There were only 31 cases tried in the whole province last year, and 32 the year before, including thoaa triad *t th© Diotriot Court at Oamaru. I have no doubt that, if the state of crime had been then as it is now, the Government would have stayed their hand. However, the court had been proclaimed, and he had no doubt it would prove a considerable convenience, especially in civil cases, saving much time and expense to suitors and witnesses. The duties of a Grand Jury were not to try cases, but to hear the evidence fur the Crown. No defence was put Wore ihem, the witnesses were not cross-examined, nor was their credibility tested. If they found that, by the evidence presented to them, there was a prima facie case, it was their duty to find a true bill. If, on the contrary, they thought the evidence insufficient, they would throw out the bill. It was the duty of the Crown to prove its case— guilt must not be presumed ; the evidence must be clear. In certain cases, however, the law allowed what may be called presumptive proof. In the case of larceny, if stolen goods were found in a prisoner's possession, the presumptive was that he was guilty. It was in BUch a case the duty of the Grand Jury to return a true bill, and the prisoner had the opportunity, before the petty jury, of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of the goods. There were gome matters of detail which it might be useful to allude to. Formerly Grand Juries could not administer oaths, and witnesses had to be marshalled into court to be Bworn before the only competent tribunal. Recently a statute had been enacted which gave Grand Juries the power to administer oaths. Then as to the names of the witnesses on back of the bills. It was not at all necessary that all the witnesses shonid be examined — the Grand Jury could examine as many as, in their opinion, was sufficient' The as to this unfortunate case. The child before them was charged with obtaining goods under false pretences. I .wish the Grand Jury to understand that not every lie told a tradesman, nor violated promise, constitutes a false pretence. A false pretence i 3 a statement of a pretended existing fact by which the party is induced to part with his goods. If a man went to a tradesman and said so and so owes me £10, and will pay me on Saturday night, and obtained gooods on that statement ; if the statement was untrue, it was a false pretence. It contained two statements — a promise and a false statement of facts, or of pretended facts. In the case under notice, the prisoner obtained goods ostensibly on behalf of Mr. Mount. A false pretence need not altogether be in words, as it had been held that demeanor sometimes constituted the offence, Forty years ago, in Cambridge, a man procured a stndent's cap and gowu, and went to a shop where under-graduates dealt and obtained some goods. That was a case of false pretence by demeanor. The case of man, having no account at a bank, signing a cheque and presenting it, and obtaining goods or change therefor was also a case of false pretence by demeanor. His Honor concluded by informing the Grand Jury that it did not require amajority, but that twelve of them could return a true bill.

The Grand Jury retired, and after an hour's absence returned true bills against Julia Driscoll on three charges of obtaining goods under false pretences. There being no other bills, His Honor intimated to the Grand Jury that the country thanked them for their services, and discharged them. The following petty jury wrb empannelled : — Robert Hills (foreman), Samuel Cowap, Arthur Donnolly, John Downey, William Brett, John Reid, William Crozier, Samuel Curregb, Samuel M'Clnre, Matthew Tomb, John Smith, David Herd. Julia Driscoll, a gir) of 1 1 years of age, was arraigned on the charge of obtaining certain, goods from Thomas Arthur by false pretences. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr. M'Coy (who bad been appointed to that office by His Honor) appeared as Crown Prosecutor. Mr. Copland defended tbe accused. The Crown Prosecutor having briefly stated the facts of the case, called the following witnesses: — Thomas Arthur, Constable Titchener, and Mr. and Mrs. Mouat. Their evidence has, however, been so recently published in our columns, that it is unnecessary to reproduce it. For the defence, Mr. Copland called, Timothy Driscoll, the father of the accused, but his evidence threw no light on the case. Catherine Driscoll, wife of last witness, deposed that her daughter brought the things home, and told her that Mrs. Mouat had made a present of them to her. She never had received presents of the same kind before. The girl told her that Mrs. Mouat was always promising her presents. Accused got no remuneration for her services. Witness had always found her daughter truthful. Cross-examined — Did not bear Constable Titchener ask if the girl had brought anything home. The girl told her that she took the things she got at Arthur's into the kitchen to Mrs. Mouat. By His Honor — Witness' reason for not at once making enquiry about the things was owing to Mrs. Mouat having so often promised the child a present, and being afraid she might get Mrs. Mouat into trouble with her husband. She thought the present an odd one. By the Crown Prosecutor — Witness gave up the things when the constable told her Mrs. Mouat denied having given them to the child. By Mr. Copland — Witness was going to enquire of Mi's. Mouat about the things, but had not had time. The evening was dark, and she did not doubt the child's word. By the Crown Prosecutor — Her daughter told her that Mrs. Mouat kept a lot of the almonds. She did not bring home the black currant jelly, nor the lollies said to be got at Arthur's at the same time. The following witnesses as to the child's character for truthfulness and honesty were called. Mrs. White, of Gabriels, said she had known the girl for 8 or 9 years. She had done business for her, and had found her to be truthful, honest and very correct. The girl had been brought up very decently — the same as any child should be brought up. Langley Pope had known the girl 3 or 4 years: He could testify to her honesty. One night he lost £20 in notes, in Gabriels, near her house, and on looking for the money in the morning, Mrs. Driscoll asked him what he was looking for. He told her of the money he had lost, and Mrs. Driscoll said, "here it is, Julia found it and gave it to me." John Rou^han, James Harris, and Geo. Walker gave corroborative evidence as to the girl's character. Mrs. Peters said she had known the girl since she was an infant. She lived beside the family. For the last two years, she bad gone odd mess iges for her. On several occasions — the last being only about a week before this occurrence — she had gone for change for a £5 note, and she always found her correct and honest. This concluded the case for the defence. The Orowti Prosecutor having addressed the jury. His Honor in summoning up thoroughly dissected the evidence. He said the principal point they would require to keep before them, was the lender age of the child. They must s itirfy themselves that she knew she was commuting an act of the description with which she was charged. The mother's conduct excited a little suspicion. When the child brought* home the i things from Arthur's, it was but natural to think she would have made enquiry about them. This, however, I she did not do. As to the false pretencps, the case was clear enough -, the child goes f«.r some tbinsp to Arthur's under color of coming from Mrs Mouat, and on asking for 51bs of almond?, Attbur sends her baok to see if she had not made a mißtnke, the quantity being unusually large, and after a lapse of sufficient time to go to Mrs. Mouafs, she returns and says 21bs will do. The whole of her demeanor shows that she got the goods by false pretences. Her tender age would prevent her getting the goods on her owh account. Unfortunately the principal witness, owing to her habits, had not always complete command over her actions, but her husband's evidence, and

there is no reason why it shonid be disputed, is to the effect that on the day in question (the 24th of October), she was in full possession, of her senses. Supposing the girl is 11 6r twice 11 years of age, there was evidence enough to show false pretences. The question, before the jury, is whether they think the girl was capable of knowingly comi mitting the act If they had any doubt on the point, they would give her the bene6t of it ; hufc if they thought she was cunning enough to act independently in the matter, then they would find her guilty. The girl had borne a good character, whioh was greatly in her favor, and favored the idea that she was not guilty, and also raised the hypothesis that she had been prompted to the crime by others. The jury retired, and after deliberating half an hour, returned with a verdict of Not Guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said he did not proposo to offer any evidence on the other two charges. His Honor said, as tbe Crown Prosecutor in his discretion, and with his (His Honor's) perfect concurrence, had decided not to proceed ■with the remaining charges, the jury would return a verdict of acquittal. The jury accordingly brought in a verdict of acquittal on the other two charges, and accused was therefore discharged. His Honor told her father to take care that she did not get into a similar scrape asjain. The Court then adjourned till Tuesday, F^ruary 11, 1873.