SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2299, 18 September 1908, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SITTINGS. I The half-yearly sittings of tho Sup- . l'omo Court in Gisborne were commenced before lli« Honor Air. Justice Edwards yestorday morning. THIS GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as the Grand Jury:—Edmund Chrisp, L. T. Byrnes. A. Cuthberl, A. L. Muir, J. Diiiryni]il.\ 11. Al. Porter, Li. A. King, T. A. Coleman, TV. F. j lies, J . T. Evans, G. K. Pasley, D. ! Moricu, D. Kirkpatrick, TV. 11. TVi 1loc'k, G. It. TVyiliu, Vincent A. Pylce, \V. G. M'cLaurin, A. F. Alatthowa, J. H. Evans, TV. Pet tie, TV. Morgan, it. Johnston, and Alfred Dowing. Air. T. A. Coleman was chosen foreman. ADDRESS TO THU GRAND JURY. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury, said the Court would present a number of bills for I heir consideration, but none of them would present much difficulty. Tho most (serious'was acharge of attempted murder, in winch tiie,evidence given in the lower court was very strong. The jury was not bound to call witnoiacs to substantiate the evidence, but they could do so if thoy desired, or they could remi'g their bills on the evidence placed before them. If they thought it necessary they could hear the evidence ot'tlio girl whoso life was attempted. Two other cases presented special circumstances. Ono was that In which a mail, Norman Marlow, was charged with carnally knowing a girl under sixteen years of age. The alienee was ' apparently committed with the girls consent, but that did not affect the matter. Tho act was nevertheless a crime, and the Grand Jury could put tho man upon his trial. Tho consent of the girl did not reduce the crime, though it might bo taken 'into .account if tbc prisoner was found guilty and affect the punishment that would be inflicted. The other case (bat would require attention was that of William Rowell, 'charged with false pretences. The evidence showed that the accusoil, having a bank account in Gisborne, had been warned by the Bank manager that before he drew any cheques ho must make arrangements to moot them. Notwithstanding that warning the accused drew a cheque for £5 at Napier, and did not liavo sufficient funds to his credit to meet it. Tho accused, however, arranged bolore a prosecution was threatened, for the cheque to bo met, and no one was defrauded. It was a question as to whether the accused had any fraudulent intent, and it was questionable whether tho man should be put upon his trial. If the Grand Jury considered .there was fraudulent intent the .■-'large should be heard. His Honor then stated tho law in regard to a charge of false pretences, and said that there could hardly do a crime unless there was intent to defraud. Proceeding, His Honor said that two other prisoners wore charged with a number of thefts of saddlery and harness, but ho did not think thore would be any difficulty in a decision being arrived at. The Grand Jury then retired. Tho Grown Solicitor (Air. Nolan) made an application that the evidence of Martha. Parsons, in the case against Johnston anil Keegan, should bo taken on affidavit, as the witness was ill an bed. Tho application was granted. The Grand Jury returned truo bills in tho following cases:—To Raroa, horse-stealing, at TVairoa, James Garrity, attempted theft jAticliael Cleary breaking and entering, Walter Symons attempted murder, Norman Alarlow carnally knowing a girl under 16 years, Joseph Dante theft, Al. M. O’ Halloran forgory and uttering, A. E. Lichtwark and Norman Alarlow theft (five charges), Joseph Johnston and Jas. Keegan breaking and entering and theft. NO BILL. In the case of William Rowell, charged with false pretence, “no bill” was returned, anil tho prisoner was discharged. ALLEGED HORSE-STEALING. To Raroa, a native, was charged with stealing a horse, tho property of Rewi Te Roro, ait TVaiapu, on August 13, 1907, having received the horse knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. The accused pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empannelled:—TV. S. Dunstan, P. H. Graham, J. A. Eaton, E. H. Pavitt, Donald Gordon, George HaLl, Greenwood, Willan, J. Colley, Donald Brin, It. F. Piesse, G. Primrose. Air E. H. Pavitt was chosen foreman. All* J. TV. Nolan, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr TV. L. Rees, instructed by -Messrs Rees Brothers and Blight, defended. In opening the ease Air Nolan said tho prisoner was charged on two counts, andi the evidence would show that a grandson of the owner of the horse hail the stolen .animal running in a paddock. Tho prisoner would try to show that he had authority to sell the horse from the grandson Natalia, but the owner of the horse would deny that statement. Nntana Alatai, residing at TVaiapu, said lie know a. native named Rewi and had had numerous transactions in dealing with horses 1 . Ho gave Rewi a black mare and foal, which he took .away. TVitness afterwards saw the horses at TVaiapu with brands on them. He did not give the prisoner authority to sell the horse. To Alt Rees: Ho went to Te Ar.aro.a_ about three years ago, and took his best horses with him. He did not tell the prisoner he could sell any of the horses lie had left behind. He dill not toll the prisoner ho had given the foal to Rewi. Rewi Te Roro, residing at TVaiapu, said he knew the prisoner, and remembered the last witness giving him a nia.ro and foal. He took possession and put them in his paddock. About three months afterwards the horses got out of the paddock. The foal was branded and turned out. He next saw tho foal being ridden by a anan named Frank Emmanuel, who said: the prisoner had sold it to him. TVitness said it was his horse, and Emmanuel said the prisoner hail arranged the matter with Natalia. He valued tho horse at £2. Frank Emmanuel, of TVaihuka, said that ho bought .the colt from accused for 15g. TVitness said ho would like to buy the pony, and.' accused said he would write to his cousin, who owned the horse. Later accused said he hail permission to sell the horse and witness 'purchased it. Constable TVales, Port Awamii, said that he spoke to accused about the horse on .Tune 2G, when he said that if he had known that Natalia hail given the horse to Rewi, lie would not have sold it. To Air Rees: Accused made no 'attempt to conceal the sale of the horse. Air Rees outlined the case for the defence and called— Tu Raroa, the accused, who said that be was a cousin of Natalia. TYlien Natalia left bis place he did ■not take all the horses with him, and owing to the .relationship accused was allowed to do anything he liked with the remainder. He sold other horses besides the one in question, and told Natalia about doing so. Natana knew that he was dealing with some of the horses, blit bad not said anything about the disposal of the money obtained for them, lie had no 'knowledge that the horse belonged to Rewi, but when lie found out that, it did. lie offered him £2, but Rewi demanded £4 or lie would take it to court. To Air. Nolan: Although not receiving direct authority to see any of the horses, he considered he was justified in doing so. He sold another horse besides the one in question, to Emmanuel for 7s. TYlien Natana went away ho told accused and other relations that lie did not care anything about the horses he had left behind him. Mr. Rees said he would call no more evidence. His Honor questioned the native Natana in the witness box, who said that he left the horses behind him as worthless when lie went away, and would not have cared much if they had all been disposed of by his relations. After counsel for the defenco had .addressed the jury, His Honor said it was quite plain that the prisoner thought lie was quite justified in selling the horse. The only tiling he could cee against the prisoner was his statement to Emmanuel regarding

i h t; ■ivr i ttcn\ m i fclior ity >tfe teollj tho iliorso. Tin; case wns undoubtedly very weak, and wlion that was the ease ho had no hesitation in saying so, although ho did not mean it as a direction to the jury to acquit the prisoner. The jury, without leaving their seats, returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. ALLEGED UREAKING AND ENTERING. Michael Oleary was charged with having, on August Gth., broken and entered into the shop of Rosaline Noilson, in Reel .street, with the intent to commit theft therefrom. Mr. R. \V. Nolan, Crown Solicitor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. VV. L. Rees defended. The following jury were empanelled:—ll. Neill (foreman), J. B. Leyden, E. Roderick, J. A. Robb, E. A. Baton, E. llabgood, Win. Hay, Jns. McFarland, 11. B. White, A. Martin, ,J. Barker, J.J. Rosbotham. Ily. Harding, stableman, stated that tho premises of his employer adjoined those of Miss Noilson, in Reel street. On the night of tho 7th August, about 10 o'clock, he was in the stables and hoard a window broken. He got up and went out but found nobody in the street, lie then went into the trap shed and struck a match, asked if anyone was there, bait- got no reply. Hearing a noise his attention was directed to a window into Miss Neilson’s shop, and he saw a man’s boots and ankles protruding out of the window, the rest of his body being inside. Accused was evidently coming ouit of the window, and witness called out to him, asking what lie was doing. Witness moved sonic traps in order to get clear to the man, anu on getting close to him, accused, who was the man that came out of the window, struck and kicked him. Witness knocked accused down and kept him for 2U minutes. Eventually a constable came and accused was given in charge, and while tho constable was looking at the broken window accused offered witness first 5s and then 10s to let him go. To Mr. Rees: Accused was not drunk at.the time. When accused kicked' witness, he knocked him (accused) down and dragged him out on to the roadway. He did not measure the size of the window which he saw accused come out of. Rosaline Neilson stated that she had left the shop in Peel street on the night of August 17th. All the windows and doors of the establishment were securely fastened. On arrival next morning she found a window smashed. Accused had no right in her shop. To Mr. Rees: The size of the broken window was about 15 by 27 inches. There was no article of much value .'n the shop apart from the ordinary stock. There was a small ledge inside window. Constable Anderson gave evidence as to tho arrest of tho accused at 10.45 p.m. on August 7th. ’When ho arrived at Quinn’s stables the witness Harding had charge of tho accused. He found tho window into Miss Nielson’s shop broken, mo-.t of the glass being on tho inside of the shop. The space was quite large enough, m his opinion, for a man to got through. He found a golosh under the broken window, and a black howler hat a few yards away from tho window. "When arrested the accused had no hat on, and witness gave him the hat- ho iound, which he (accused) put on. Accused asked witness if ho was being arrested for drunkenness, and witness replied “No. for breaking and entering.’’ Accused then asked to bo let go. To Mr. ReC :: Tho glass was completely out of the frame, no piece remaining in the putty. Accused was not drunk. Constable Scott said that lie was on duty on tho morning of 7th August at the Police station. He saw that the accused was wearing a golosh on his left boot. In company with Sergt. Hutton witness received from the witness Harding another golosh, which, on comparison, proved. t<> be the fellow of that worn by Accused. Inside Miss Neilson’s shop window there was an American trunk which boro .traces of dry dirt. To Mr Rees: In his opinion it was possible for a man to get through the broke;: pane. Thi; concluded the ease for the prosecution and for the defence Mr Rees called— William Stewart, bootmaker, Peel st., who gave evidence as to, on the night of August 6th, seeing two men scuffling near Quinn’s stables. One man was standing up and the other was lying on his back on the ground. The man standing up said to the other one, “If you move I will kick your I) inside out.” The man oil the ground was quite drunk, and was repeatedly _ asking for his hat. Just above witness’ shop there was an alley-way leading L> Mrs Melrose’s house, through Erskine’s yard. To Mr Nolan: He was four or five minutes talking to the two quarrelling men, and thought he was speaking the truth when he said that the man on the ground was drunk. Edward Law, barman at the Gisborne Hotel, said that on tho night in question he saw accused three times, and on each occasion lie was drunk. Just before closing time witness refused to serve accused as lie was too drunk. Michael Cleary, the accused, said that lie was drinking all day before the night in question. He did not remember being refused drinks at the Gisborne Hotel, hie played a game of billiards in the Masonic Hotel between 5 p.m. aml 6 p.m., but did not remember anything else until the pane of glass was broken. Ho had no intention 0 f going into the trap shed, but was trying to get home to Mrs Melrose’s, where lie stayed. When lie heard the glass break he thought lie was in Erskinc’s yard. Ho had no intention of entering Miss Neikom’s shop, nor did he do so when the pane got broken. To Mr Nolan : Etc remembered .absolutely nothing until the window broke. He thought that his arm went through the window. Ho did not know the witness Harding, and did neither hit nor kick him.

To His Honor : Harding never moved any traps to got at him. After the window was broken he was ten minutes trying l 0 get out from among the carts, and lie did not hear Harding call out to him. In his opinion the glass must have been loosely in the sash to break out without leaving any jagged' pieces. To Mr Nolan : The goloshes {produced) were his property. Charles Bailey, laborer, gavo evidence as to seeing accused on the night mentioned in the Gisborne Hotel. Accused was vorv drunk near 10 p.m.

James Melrose, boarding-house keeper, said that the back entrance t<> bis bouse was through Erskino’s yard in Peel Street. Prior to the arrest of accused he (accused) paid witness for a bed for the night and got the key about G p.m. To Mr. Nolan : If accused hid been drunk ho would not have been given a bed. John Chambers, stableman at the Railway Stables, said: that lie saw accused at the stables about- 5.30 and again about 7 p.m. Accused was under tlie influence of liquor. Mr. Rocs briefly addressed the jury, and contended Iliat the accused was too drunk to know what he was doing. He got into the right-of-way by mistake and accidentally broke, tlie window. The accused bad no intention of breaking into the shop. Mr. Nolan said tlie evidence of the witnesses for the Crown had boon, given dn a straightforward manner, and they could have nothing to gain by giving false evidence. The evidence showed that the prisoner got •to the window from the hack of the shed, and liis hat was found between the window and the back of the shed. His Honor, in reviewing the evidence, said it did not matter how drunk the prisoner was if they were satisfied he was breaking into tlie premises. The prisoner was able to give an account of what took place after the glass was broken, but did not remember wliat took place before. It was plain the story for the prosecution and the story for the defence would not stand together. It was clear the man had been drinking, but as to whether the man knew what lie was doing was another matter. Such cases of petty thefts were common, sometimes the theft came off, -and sometimes .the thief got caught. The question was whether the prison-

or was likely, in.his drunken stale, to mistake the right-of-way. Ir the jury could boliovo that, the pi Ujone. would bo entitled to the bonont of tho doubt. , , The jury then retired, and returned in fifteen minutes with a verdict of “not guilty.” . ■ Addressing the prisoner, His Honor said: Prisoner, tho jury havo acquittod you. I will not, however, say that they have been wrong in so doing. I very much regret that lam not able to make you pay tho amount of tho oxpense to. which tho oountry has boon put owing to your disgraceful conduct. It is entirely owing to this bestial conduct that you are in your present position. You will bo discharged, and it is to bo Imped that in tho future you will reform in your manners. ALLEGED CARNAL KNOWLEDGE The next case called was thait of Norman Marlow, who wu6 charged that, during tho month of February lost, ho did unlawfully carnally know one Agnes Mischewski, tho sakl gill being oven the ago of 12 and under the age of 10 years. Mr. J. \V. Nolan prosecuted, on behalf of tho Crown, and accused, who was undefended, pleaded “not guilty.” Tho following jury was empanelled : H. Currie {foreman), T. N. Andrew, John Adair, N. Nicholson, Robert Reijd'.e, Wm. Lewis, A. A. Hepburn, J. Healy, 11. Henderson, W. S. Black, P. AV. Buslmell, and James Gilmore. Mr. Nolan outlined the facts of tho case, and called several witnesses. The evidence tendered by Agnes Mischewski, Annie Troves, Patrick Hofen, and Sergeant Hutton was practically identical with that given in the lower Court, and published in the “Times” of June Bth. Accused* cross-examined each witness in turn, asking gevorail questions rather reflecting on the character of the witnesses. His Honor at one stage interposed, stating tbit the questions wore really only being asked for the purpose of discrediting and insulting the witnesses. Accused: Oh, no! not at all. I don’t think so, Your Honor. His Honor: Never mind what you think. I say otherwise, and mine is the voice that rules the Court. I shall not allow any further questions Of the sort. Accused, giving evidence, said he did not wish to deny the charge of carnally knowing, but pleaded that lie had been informed and was under tho impression that the girl was 17 years of age. His Honor briefly reviewed the evidence, and said that really the only point for tho jury to consider was if tho accused could reasonably be believed to have thought tlio girl to be over 16 years of ,age. Tlie jury retired at 5.30 p.m., and at 10.5 p.m. returned with the intimation (that there was n<> possibility of their agreeing on the question. The jury wore accordingly discharged, and on the application of Mrl. Nolan, leave for a re-trial was granted.