SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 422, 27 February 1890, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

The sitting of the Supreme Court w-i. resumed ou Tuesday morning, before Mr Justice Conolly. lahoeny. Tbe first case taken was that against Walter Watson, for larceny, atTologaßay, of £9 7s, belonging to Hugh Williamson. Mr Nolan prosecuted, and Mr DeLautour appeared on behalf of the prisoner, who pleaded not gnilty. The following jury wore empanelled : Messrs Esple (foreman), R. Robertson, Slack, G. Jones, 0 Nei', A. Hird. W. Stuckey, Somers, F. Tietjin, G. Ball, C. Hausen, and Miller.

Messrs J. H. Williamson, T. Butler, W. Burton, H. Munro, Leslie Steele, W. H. Ryan, R J. Coupar, A. Becket, W. Goldstein, J. H. Smythe, F. Parker (Frastertown), E. C, Wright, D. Kearney, R. D. Maney, and G. Arundel, and Mrs Steed gave evidence for the prosecution, which was in effect that Williamson had lost a pocket book containing money and other valuables, that Watsou was one nf the bushfalling party and could have had access to the money, the pocket book being kept io a coat only worn on Sundays and special occasions ; that accused, though previously professing he had no money, was, a few weeks after the pocket book was lost, in Tologa, whither he had gone on an exonse of being sick, and was spending money very freely there. The accused’s expenditure was traced, and accounted for nearly to the amount lost, the evidence being all circumstantial. Fur tbe defence Hirini Te Kara was called, but it appeared that the Justices hud failed to bind him over to appear at the Supremo Court. John Brown, however, was present, and deposed that accused had come to his place at Makaraka, and he, having known him for some years, invited him to stay there, for a oouple of weeks, and they would go up to Panikau together, and take a bushfalling contract. He understood accused had then no money, but he had stated ha had about £lO which he had in trust for some of his previous mates. Getting at Panikau too soon for the bush to be ready they separated, witness offering to get Watson anything he wanted. Understood that Watson had money, but none of his own, Mr DeLautour ably reviewed the evidence, contending that there was nothing to connect the prisoner with the theft, and pointing out that the entries in aoo'ised'e pocket book, which could not possibly have baen made up for the purpose, and Mr Ooupar's evidence, proved the correctness of the atatment that accused had received money from Mr Coupar. It did not matter to the Jury whither the accused had epent such money without a proper right to do ao—.-tiqjt had nothing to do with the charge. Mr Nolan, while admitting that the evidence was only circumstantial, urged that the links were so complete that there could be no doubt as to who was the guilty man. He impressed upon tha Jury the improbability of Watson’s siory, and the suspicious way in which he had acted all through. Before being orrested he bad been told that if he accounted tor the money he had spent he would not be arrested, but the accused had tried to hide from them the pooket book which he said would give tbe information that he got it from Mr Coupar, Counsel also threw discredit on Mr Brown's evidence.

His Honor dealt minutely with tbe evidence, putting the points very plainly to the Jury, the aumming up being rather in favor of the prisoner. After about twenty minutes’ consideration the Jury agreed, their verdict being an acquittal of. the accused. PAPE. Tbe Court raaumad again at 10 yesterday morning. „. . . Tbe first case called on was that of Hirini Tanati charged with ravishing a native girl. The accused pleaded guilty, but said that the girl had been made common use at. His Honor was sorry that the old barbarous custom of intercourse With young children was still by gome natives not considered as a crime, »nd ail wch cases brought bsfora him, whether consent were shown or otherwise, would be dealt with very severely. The sentence of the Court was eight year’s penal servitude.

fobgsbt, Rewai te Kaurs was charged with forgery, by altering the sum stated on a obe?M‘ Mr Rees appeared for the accused, - ~ 110 pleaded not guilty. The following jurymen were sworn :—J. Greaves, J. M, Arundel, 8. Parker, (foreman), W. Bell, G. Garrett, A. Lange, A. J. O’Neill, F. Tietjin, J. I>. Jones, G. Jones, 8. Boland, T. Goldsmith. Evidence similar to that in tbe R.M. Court having been given for the prosecution, and the case for the Crown having closed, His Honor enquired of Mr Rees whether he intended to call any evidence. Mr Rees said he had evidence which would go to prove that the accused was not always responsible for his actions. At that stags, however, he would like to call His Honor's attention to the case Regina v, Simoana (3 N.Z. Jurist, Court of Appeal. 62), in which it had been decided in exactly similar olrcumstances that the altering of the cheque did not amount to forgery because no ordinary person was likely to be decsivsd by such a clumsy alteration. He would ask His Honor to put it to the Jury that the prisoner was not guilty of the crimes of which be was charged. His Honor, after referring to the case cited, said there was nothing left but to stop the case. In any event be would have directed the Jury that the case was an exceedingly weak one, as the cheque, before it got into the prisoner’s hands, had been already in circulation for two months, like a bank note. He then directed the Jury to return a verdict of not guilty, which was accordingly done. The figures on the first cheque had been altered from £4 5s to £44 ss. On a second indictment, fur similarly altering a cheque from £1 Sa to £lO 9s the Crown offered no evidence aud on the Judge's direction a verdict oi not guilty v»> worded. This oouoluded the criminal

CIVIL BUSINESS. The civil business commenced yesterday aletrnoon, when the case D. McDonald v, Te Kani end others, claim £lOO on a dishonored promissory note, was heard, Mr DeLautour appeared tor plaintlfi pud Mt Hess for defendants. After hearing the evidence Hie Honor gave judgment ior the plaintiff, with Interest at 8 per cent annum, from October 1888. Costs on the lowest scale. This morning the case Bank of New Zealand v. Graham, Pitt and Bennett will be hearfi.