SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 254, 5 April 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, April 5. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.] The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court for the Canterbury district was opened this morning at 11 a.m, at which hour his Honor Mr Justice Williams, attended by the Sheriff (Dr Back), took his seat on the bench. The Registrar then read the proclamation by his Excellency the Governor, assigning the Canterbury judicial district to his Honor Mr Justice Johnston, and also the request of his Honor Mr Justice Johnston to Mr Justice Williams that he would undertake the duties of the district. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand Jury ; Sir M. Lc Fleming, Messrs A. Hornbrook. E. M. Templer, W. Kennaway, B, Dobson, 0. Bain, H. H. Hennab, G. Booth, F. Pavitt, G W. Hall, J. Beaumont, J. Jacobsen, F. H. Valny, E. Pavitt, S. 8. Field, H. P. Murray, Ayns'ley, and B. A. Hargreaves. Mr H. P. Murray-Aynsley was elected as foreman of the Grand Jury. His Honor’s Charge. His Honor then proceeded to deliver the following Charge, “ Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—The charges you will have to investigate, though not much above the average in number, are some of them of a very grave nature. There are two cases of forgery—a crime of common occurrence here. I find that during last year there were not less than six convictions in this district for this offence. Ignorance is the parent of many crimes, but forgery, and crimes of fraud generally, require a certain amount of education to perpetrate them successfully. As education becomes more widely diffused, it may reasonably be expected that crimes of violencewilldiminish,butit will be indeed unfortunateif crimes of fraud become more prevalent. In this province noble efforts are being made to promote education. If these efforts are to produce good fruit, it must ever be borne in mind that education, to be complete, must develop ■- the moral sentiments as well as the intellectual powers. Do not think that I with for a moment to enter on the

vexed question of religious education. I merely urge the importance of some moral training, that children at our State schools may be taught to admire what is noble and generous, and to detest what is mean, and may become upright and honorable men and women. We must look to the education of the emotions, as well as the mechanical acquirement of knowledge, if we wish to reap the full benefit of education as a preventative of crime and as a means of producing good citizens. You will have to consider a case of cheating at play by means of false dice. The results of recent English legislation in criminal matters have been for the roost part embodied in the New Zealand Criminal Law Consolidation Acts. There is, however, an English statute on the subject of gaming, the provisions of which have not yet been adopted by our Legislature. This statute enacts that any person winning money at play fraudulently shall be deemed guilty of obtaining such money by a false pretence, and shall be punishable accordingly. The offence of fraudulent play is indeed indictable at common law, but the only statute in force in New Zealand on the subject, is one of the 9th year of Queen Anne, which may be regarded as obsolete, as it prescribes a punishment that cannot now be inflicted—a conspiracy to cheat at play like any other combination to do an illegal act, constitutes an indictable offence. The additions to the Court-house are now for the most part completed, and render it an exceedingly comodious building. I regret that it has not been possible to have the new Grand Jury room ready for the present sittings. Gentlemen, if you will retire to your room the bills will be laid before you.” The Grand Jury then retired to their room to consider the Bills of indictment presented by the Crown Prosecutor. BURGLARY. Philip Green was indicted for having on the 22ud day of January, 1875, about the hour of four o’clock in the morning, burglariously broken into the house of one Thomas King, in Montreal street south, and stolen therefrom two coats. The prisoner pleaded “ Guilty.” The prisoner was further indicted for that he on the 7th January. 1874, had been convicted of felony in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, on two charges. The prisoner made a statement to the effect that he had been drinking at the time of the offence, and knew nothing about it. He denied any felonious intent. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to five years’ penal servitude within the colony. FORGERY AND UTTERING.

Alexander Le Bas was indicted for having, on the 27th February, 1875, forged a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, for the sum of £3O 10s, purporting to be drawn by Howard, Brothers, and also with having uttered the same, purporting it to be genuine. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr. Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr J. L. Wilson was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case were very simple and conclusive. On the 27 f h February the prisoner went into the White Hart Hotel, and procured from the barmaid there a blank cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, which she took from the book kept in the hotel. He then went over to one of the tables and commenced writing on the cheque. The next day he proceeded to the Golden Age Hotel, and offered the landlord there a cheque for £3O 10s, which Mr Allen, however, refused to cash. After this he went to Warner’s Commercial Hotel, where Mr Warner gave him £9 on account of the cheque, retaining it in his possession. On the cheque being presented at the Bank in the ordinary course of business it was refused payment, as there was no account in the name of the drawers of the cheque. Information was given to the police, and the prisoner was subsequently arrested, For the prosecution, Mr Duncan called Chief-Detective Feast, who stated that the prisoner, on being arrested, told him that he had got the cheque from two men who had given him £1 for his trouble in cashing it. The evidence of Anne Warwick, the barmaid at the White Hart Hotel, went to prove the prisoner getting a blank cheque from the book at the Hotel. She also identified the ch.que by the number corresponding with that on the butt of the cheque-book. She did not see the prisoner write on the cheque, but it was one of the four persons who were together. Henry Allen, the landlord of the Golden Age Hotel, gave evidence as to the prisoner tendering him a cin que for £3O 10s on the Bank of New Zealand, and requesting him to cash it, which witness declined, not knowing the signature. Mr Francis Warner, proprietor of the Commercial Hotel, deposed to the prisoner handing him a cheque for £3O 10s on the 28th February last, and receiving £9 on account of it. When presented at the Bank it was dishonored, there being no account in the name of the drawer. The evidence led to show that no such firm as Howard Brothers existed, and that the cheque produced was contained in the book issued by the Bank of New Zealand to J. W. Oram, White Hart Hotel. The prisoner, for the defence, called Detective Benjamin as to whether a man named Pugh had not since his committal told the witness something about the two men from whom he said he had received the cheque, but nothing was elicited by the question. The prisoner then addressed the Court, stating that he received the cheque from two men on the Sunday morning, who asked him to cash it, which he did at Warner’s, giving them the £9 he received, and they handing him £1 for his trouble. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of “ Guilty” on both counts of forging and uttering. His Honor intimated that he should defer passing sentence until next morning. EORGING AND UTTERING. Frederick Cooper was indicted on two charges of forgery and uttering. Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty” to both charges. His Honor intimated that he would pass sentence next day. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Frank W. Turner was indicted for having on the 16th day of November last, then being the bailee of one watch the property of James Johnston, appropriated the same to his own use. The prisoner, who was undefended *>y counsel, pleaded “Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. BURGLARY. John Montgomery was indicted for that he on the 2nd February last, about tba hour of 4 a.m., burglariously broke intoAud en-

tered the dwellinghouse of one Walter Spring, at Southbridge, and stole therefrom two watches and money, A second count charged the prisoner with having stolen the watches and money from the house of the said Walter Spiing. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded •‘Mot Guilty.” Mr J. L. Wilson was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case as disclosed by the evidence, were as follows:—On the date mentioned in the indictment, the prosecutor Spring had in his possession two watches, besides money in the till. The house was locked up as usual, and in the morning, when the bar was opened, it was found that a window leading to that portion of the premises had been broken open, and the two watches and some money stolen. Information was given to the police, and the prisoner being followed, was found with one of the watches in his possession; the other had been found since the prisoner’s committal, wrapped up in a handkerchief known to belong to him. Sergeant Barlow stationed at Leeston, deposed to the arrest of the prisoner on the 2nd March. Joseph Voke, the barman at the Irwell Hotel, deposed that the prisoner was in the Hotel on the 2nd March, and asked him to open a watch, when on doing so he found that the number corresponded with that reported to him, as having been stolen from Spring’s Hotel, Southbridge. Witness told the prisoner that the watch did not belong to him, but while he was absent from ihe bar the prisoner left, but was overtaken by the witness, who locked him in a room of the hotel and gave information to the police. On the 30th March witness had occasion to shift a case in the room where the prisoner was confined in the hotel when he found the second watch produced wrapped up in a handkerchief which he had seen in the prisoner’s possession. Walter Spring, the prosecutor, deposed to having lost on 2nd Feb., two watches and some coin. Had seen the bar locked the previous evening. In the morning he was called by his barman, who told him that the bar had been broken into by breaking the bar window and sliding back the ca*oh, and that the watches and money had been stolen. During the preceding evening the prisoner was drinking in the bar of the hotel. Michael Shee identified one of the watches produced as his property, which he had sent to Mr Grossman, the jeweller, who had forwarded it back to Mr Spring for him.

The prisoner then addressed the jury, denying that he had stolen the property as alleged. His Honor summed up. [Left sitting. - )