No. 40.] * I UACTTW )*' / ' X i' i f\ 4J77 NEW ZEALAND POLICE GAZETTE. PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY. WELLINGTON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1911. N T OTICE.— For instructions as to the manner in which reports are required to be furnished for the com- pilation of the Police Gazette see Gazette No. 1 of this year. The arrest of offenders described in the Police Gazette, or respecting whom crime reports have been forwarded for insertion in the Gazette, should be promptly notified by the member of the Force effecting the arrest. When notifying the arrest of persons charged with theft or suspected of theft, it should be stated whether the pro- perty stolen, or any portion of it, has been recovered. A description of property supposed to be stolen, found in the possession of offenders, for which owners cannot be found, shall be furnished for insertion in the Gazette. All communications concerning this Gazette should be addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Wellington, and the envelope marked " For Gazette." Members of the i Force in charge of out- stations will forward them direct. The stolen animal was found in the possession of George Henry Stubbs, who produced a receipt for its purchase from Johnson, and the latter may have obtained it from one Oscar Simon. PERSONS WANTED. KAIKOHE.— 9th July last, on warrant of commitment to Kussell Police- gaol for seven days in default of paying £ 2 3s. 6d. for assaulting a female, Albert Davis, age twenty- five, height 5 ft. 9 in., labourer, native of New Zea- land, fresh complexion, fair hair, blue eyes, clean- shaved; dressed in dark suit and slouch hat. AUCKLAND.— 25th May last, on warrant of commit- ment to Mount Eden Prison for seven days in default of paving £ 3 8s. fine and costs for cruelty to animals, Peter Rawson, age twenty- five, height 5 ft. 8 in., carter, ab- original, strong build, dark complexion, dark curly hair, brown eyes, high cheek- bones; dressed in dungaree trou- sers and slouch hat. AUCKLAND.—/- 14th November, 1909, that he may be inter- viewed regarding his sale of a stolen greyhound ( recovered), value £ 25, the property of Char'es Taylor and Robert Porter, commission agents, Harry Johnson, age about twenty- eight, height 5 ft. 8 in , cook ana waiter, native of New Zea- land ( half- caste Maori), slight build, very dark complexion, long black hair, brown eyes, erect gait ; generally dressed in dark suit and cap. He was formerly employed on the Rotorua railway dining- cars, but is supposed to have gone to Sydney. AUCKLAND.— 28th July last, on warrant of commitment to Mount Eden Prison for forty- eight hours in default of paying £ 1 3s. fine and costs for drunkenness, James Reed, age forty- seven, height 5 ft. 4$ in., hawker, native of Ireland, medium build, fair complexion, brown hair, blue eyes, right leg deformed. STRATFORD.— 11th ultimo, on warrant for false pre- tences, James A. Smyth, age thirty, height 5 ft. 8 in., land agent, native of Ireland, strong bui'd. dark complexion and hair, full face, clean- shaved, slightly stooping gait, North of Ireland accent in speech ; dressed in grey- tweed riding- pants, yellow leggings, dark- grey sac coat, and greenish- coloured cap. Offender, by means of a valueless cheque, obtained goods and money, value £ 3 10s., from John Henry Bnrmester, New Zealand Clothing factory. In May last he went bankrupt and authorized the Bank of Austral- asia, Hamilton, to pay his credit balance to the D. puty Official Assignee, Palmerston North. He was last heard of at Hamilton. NAPIER.— 14th August, 1911, on warrant of commit- ment to Napier Prison for three days in default of paying 17s. 6d. fine and costs for being found in a oommon gaming- house, Ah Bang, age twenty- eight, height 5 ft. 4 in., gardener, native of China, medium build, copper com- plexion, black hair, brown eyes. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 375.) NAPIER.— 18th ultimo, on warrant of commitment to Napier Prison for seven days in default of paying £ 2 5s. fine and costs for refusing to quit licensed premises, Joseph O'Shea, age twenty- three, height 6 ft., labourer, native of New Zealand, medium build, pale complexion, dark hair, hazel eyes, boil- mark on back of neck. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 423.) PALMERSTON NORTH.— 9th ultimo, that he may be served with a notice of fine and costs (£ 2 9s.) for a breach of the Licensing Act, Joseph or William Joseph Cotter, age thirty- two, height 5 ft. 4 in., bootmaker and labourer, native of New Zealand, thin build, fresh complexion, brown curly hair, brown eyes, scar on forehead and left hand; dirty appearance; addicted to drink, and is prohibited under the Licensing Asts ; generally dressed in black coat, dark- grey vest and trousers, and small black hard hat. ( See Police Ga- zette, 1911, page 426.) He was last heard of at Wanganui. ( 478 N E W Z E A L A N D P O L I C E G A Z E T T E. [ OCT. 18 POXTON.— 14th July last, on warrant of commitment to Palmerston North Police- gaol for seven days in default of paying £ l 3s. fine and costs for assault, William Gibson, alias Farmer Giles, age twenty- eight, height 5 ft. 5Jin., flax- mill band and horse- clipper, native of Australia, medium build, dark complexion and hair, may be clean- shaved ; fond of drink and billiards; generally dressed in dark- tweed suit and green slouch hat. WELLINGTON.— 4th May last, that he may be served with a summons for a breach of the Destitute Persons Act, 1910, Thomas Tobin, age thirty, height 6 ft., labourer, native of New Zealand, stout build, dark complexion and hair, dark- brown moustaohe. He was last heard of at Rakauroa railway- construction works. WELLINGTON.— 20th ultimo, on warrant for deserting the s. s. " Ruapehu," A. W. Todman, age twenty- three, height 5 ft. 7 in., steward, native of Chili, brown hair, blue eyes. WELLINGTON.— 20th ultimo, on warrant for deserting the s. s. " Ruapehu," William Newell, age forty, height 5 ft. lljin., winchman, native of Ireland, thin build, fair complexion, flowers on left arm, coat of arms and " G." in square on right arm. WELLINGTON.— 20th ultimo, on warrant for deserting the s. s. " Ruapehu," Archibald Baxter, age twenty- five, height 5 ft. 8 in., steward, native of England, fair com- plexion, brown hair, blue eyes, scar on right arm. WELLINGTON.— 16th April, 1907, on warrant for dis- obeying an order of Court to nay £ 1 a week towards the support of his wife and child, Harold Sidney Curtiss, age twenty, height 5 ft. 8| in., carpenter, native of New Zealand, medium build, active appearanoe, fair complexion, blue eyes, wound on side of left hand ; was wearing black olothes, hard hat, and black lace- up boots. His photograph is filed in the Inspector's Office, Wellington. ( See Police Gazette, 1907, page 165.) This notification is inserted at the instance of the Education Department. ISLAND BAY ( WELLINGTON).— 6th instant, that he may be compelled to maintain his son at Weraroa Training- farm, Alfred James Hewett, age about fifty- two. height about 5 ft. 11 in., labourer, native of New Zealand, medium build, dark complexion and hair, dark- brown eyes, dark moustache ; generally dressed in dark suit and black hard hat. He was last heard of at Auckland in 1903. Inquiry is at the in- stance of the Education Department. LYTTELTON.— 5th instant, on warrant for deserting the s. s. " Rotorua," George Alfred Scofield, age twenty- five, height 5ft. 8in., outcher, native of England, slender build, fair complexion, brown hair, grey eyes. CHRISTCHURCH.— 5th instant, on warrant for failing to provide for the adequate maintenance of his wife, Thomas Johnston, age forty- nine, height 5ft. 5Jin., contractor, native of England, slight build, fair complexion, brown hair, blue eyes, long thin features, sandy moustache, small ears, mole or wart on chin, scar on right forearm ; generally dressed in dark suit, pepper - and - salt - coloured overcoat, and hard- felt hat. He is supposed to be in Sydney, and receives letters addressed " Care of General Post Office." Complainant, Elizabeth Johnston, 18 Coronation Street, Spreydon. CHRISTCHURCH.— 7th instant, on warrant fcr failing to provide for the future maintenance of his unborn illegiti- mate child, Alfred Dryden, age twenty- three, height 5 ft. 9 in., tailor, native of luvercargill, New Zealand, slim build, dark complexion and hair, brown eyes, olean- shaved; gene- rally dressed in navy- blue suit and hard hat. His mother resides in Leet Street, Inveroargill. He is supposed to have come to Wellington. Complainant, Mary Herbert, 12 Alfred Street, Linwood. CHRISTCHURCH.— 7th instant, on warrant for failing to provide for the future maintenance of his unborn illegitimate ohild, James Corbett Sinclair, ago twenty- six, height 6ft., farmer, native of Ashburton, New Zealand, well built, fair complexion, light- brown hair, blue eyes, clean- shaved, some teeth gold- stopped. He was last heard of at Whaka- mara. Complainant, Annie Moore, Ashburton. 1 CHRISTCHURCH.— 2nd instant, on warrant for failing to ' provide for the future maintenance of his unborn illegiti- : mate child, Randolph Ernest Stanley, age twenty- one, height 5 ft. 10in., farm labourer, native of New Zea- land, stout erect build, brown hair, fair moustache, four front teeth missing, lisping speech. Complainant, Minnie Harris, care of George Harris, 78 Lower High Street. TIMARU.— 10th June last, on warrant of commitment to Lyttelton Prison for six months in default of paying £ 13 10s. : restitution for theft, Charles Arter, alias Wirth, alias Chillingworth, alias Dellingworth, age fifty- seven, height 6 ft., commission agent, native of England, slight build, sallow complexion, grey hair, wrinkled forehead, blue eyes, large nose, square chin, nervous delicate appearance, stooping gait, double rupture; well educated. He is sup- posed to have gone to Christchurch. ( See Police Gazette, 1905, page 436, and 1911, page 263.) PORT CHALMERS.— 2nd instant, on warrant for absent- ing himself without leave from the s. s. " Orari," Andrew Moore, age thirty, height 5 ft. 7 in., deck- hand and sail- maker, native of Port Chalmers, New Zealand, medium build, fresh complexion, brown hair, blue eyes, clean- shaved ; dirty appearance; dressed in dark- grey suit and black hard hat. DUNEDIN.— 29th ultimo, on warrant for failing to pro- vide for the adequate maintenance of his wife and infant child, John Rankie, age thirty- two, height 6 ft., labourer, i native of New Zealand, thin build, fair complexion and hair, long fair or reddish moustache, mark on cheek and chin, anchor on right wrist; generally dressed in darK- blue suit and black hard hat. His parents reside at Gore. Com- plainant, Norah Chowgee Rankie, Pine Hill. DUNEDIN.— 17th August last, on warrant of commit- ment to Dunedin Prison for twenty- four hours in default of paying 8s. fine and costs for drunkenness, James Thomas, age thirty- nine, height 5 ft. 8 in., carter, native of Australia, medium build, fresh complexion, dark hair, brown eyes. DUNEDIN.— 18th ultimo, on warrant for failing to pro- vide for the adequate maintenance of his child, George Alfred Baker, age twenty- four, height 5 ft. 8 in., ex rail- way fireman, native of New Zealand, slight build, fair com- plexion and hair, blue eyes, artificial teeth, erect gait ; generally dressed in blue suit. He was last heard of at Christchurch, but may have come to Wellington to stare a hairdressing saloon. Complainant, Ellen Baker, 4 Har- bour Terrace. INVERCARGILL.— 3rd instant, on warrant for failing to provide for the adequate maintenance of his illegitimate child, Charles Ledgerwood, age thirty- six, height 5 ft. 8in., baker and cook, native of New Zealand, slight build, ligbt- brown hair, sharp features, fair moustache only. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 175.) He is supposed to have come 6o the North Island. APPREHENSIONS, PERSONS FOUND, ETC. AUCKLAND.— Francis George Henry White, failing to provide for tne adequate maintenance of his wife and children: Warrant cancelled. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 367.) ONEHUNGA.— Charles de Brotherton, carnal know- ledge : Warrant cancelled. It has been ascertained by the Tasmanian police that he was not in the Dominion at the time the offence was allegedly committed. ( See Police Ga- zette, 1911, page 351.) ( 11/ 1601.) OPOTIKI.— Alexander Stewart McKenzie, false pre- tences, has been arrested by Constable Turner, Dargaville police. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 231.) TAUMARUNUI.— John James Meikle, causing an ob- struction in a public place, has been served with a notioe of fine by Sergeant Kelly, Wellington police. ( See Police Ga- zette, 1911, page 77.) NEW PLYMOUTH.— Iven Holmberg, Harry Christ- ensen, Oscar Fassum, Olaf Reiersen, and Willy Olsen, deserting the barque " Margitt": Warrants can- celled. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 341.) 479 N E W ZEALAND P O L I C E ; , G A Z E T T E. [ SEPT. 13 NAPIER.— William Gray, arrears of maintenance, has been located at Hastings. His children have been returned to him. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 449.) WOODVILLE.— Horace Henderson, failing to provide for the adequate maintenance of his illegitimate child, has been arrested by Constable Drummond, Otorohanga police, on information supplied by Constable O'Halloran, Woodville police. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 440.) WANGANUI. John Ford, theft, has been arrested hv Constable Hewitt, Pahiatua police. His correct, name is Cuthbert Younghusband. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, pagts 164 and 201.) PALMERSTON NORTH.— John Robert McGregor, failing to comply with the conditions of his release upon probation, has been arrosted by Acting- Detectives Osborn and Snow, Christchurch police. He had assumed the name Oscar Wilson. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 459 ) LEVIN.— Arthur Angove, absconder from an industrial school, has been arrested by Constable Moloney, Hastings police. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, pages 79 and 443.) WELLINGTON.— Supi Ugo, deserter from the foreign ship " Australia," has boen arrested by Senior Sergeant Ryan and Actirig- Detective Carney, Lyttelton police. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, pages 410 and 459.) NELSON.— Leslie Ellis, default of fine and costs, has been arrested by Constable Woods, Foxton police: Amount paid. ( See Police Gazette, 1905, page 229.) REEFTON.— Phillip Hynes, absconder from an indus- trial school, has been arrested by Constable D. McRae, Milton police, and returned to the school. ( See Police Ga- zette, 1911, page 243.) LYTTELTON. — Patrick O'Kane. false pretences, has been arrested by Constable S. G. Hall, Dunedin police, on information supplied by Constable Young, Port Chalmers police. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 420.) ASHI- SURTON.— Patrick O'Kane, sly- grog selling, has been located by Acting- Detective Caroev, Lyttelton police. ( See Police Gazette, 1905, page 170, and preceding paragraph.) CHKISTCHURCH.— George Wonnacott, alias Mason, failing to provide his wife with adequate maintenance, has been arrested by Detectives Gibson and Ward, Christchurch police. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 460.) CHRISTCHURCH.— William Crowley, default of fine and costs, has been arrested by Constable Holland, Cheviot police, on information supplied by Acting- Deteotive Osborn, Cliristohurch police. Amount paid. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 440.) DUNEDIN.— George Rackley, grossly indecent act, has been arrested by Constable Edwards, Kurow police. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 382.) MELBOURNE. — Denis or Daniel Murphy, inquired for, has been located by Detectives Kemp and Hammond, Wellington police. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 288.) ( P. 11/ 897.) PROPERTY STOLEN. PALMERSTON NORTH. — About 28th ultimo the business premises of ARTHUR DE LUEN, tailor, were broken into, and the following articles stolen therefrom : A gentlemen's dark- grey worsted overcoat, with black- silk lapels, made to fit a person 5 ft. 8 in. high, " de Luen and Co." on tab ; a brown- worsted sac coat, with " de Luen and Co." on tab ; a blue- striped dark- grey worsted suit, made to fit a person 5 ft. 5 in. or 6 in. high, " de Luen and Co." on tab and trousers buttons ; two pairs of blue- worsted trousers, with " de Luen and Co." on buttons, made to fit a person 5 ft. 5 in. or 6 in. high; a cheque on the bank of New Zealand, Palmerston North, for £ 4 10s., dated 30th October, 1911, and drawn by D. P. Thurston in favour of Arthur de Luen ; and 10s. in silver coin : total value, £ 19 2s. Indentifiable, except silver coin. TE NUI.— 25th ultimo, from the dwelling of ANNIE DEBRECENY, a ladies' gold neck- cbain; and a gold star- shaped pendant, set with fourteen pearls : total value, £ 15. Identifiable. Suspicion is attached to Fred Bevins, age twenty- seven, height 5 ft. 8 in., ploughman, native of New Zealand, dark complexion, brown hair, grey eyes, clean- shaved, regular teeth. Suspect was charged with the offenoe, but the information was dismissed. MASTERTON.— About May last, from a hut at Flat Point Station, the property of ARTHUR ARLIDGE, a gold Maltese- cross- pattern medal, with laurel- leaf and " Presented to Corporal A. Arlidge, from the Residents of Roslyn," engraved thereon; and a South African war medal, No. 4500 : total value, £ 4 5s. Identifiable. BLUFF.— 23rd ultimo, from the dwelling of WILLIAM BENNETT, quarryman, Greenhills, a nearly new oblong- shaped brown- leather purse, with owner's name written in ink inside thereof ; a cheque for £ 12 6s. 6d., drawn on the Bank of New South Wales, Invercargill, by James Mc- Laughlan in favour of William Bennett; three £ 5 notes ; four £ 1 notes; and three receipts signed " J. Anderson," " J. Elliott," and " G. Woods and Co." respectively : total value, £ 22. Purse, cheque, and receipts identifiable. PROPERTY RECOVERED. NAPIER.— JAMES MOYNAHAN'S property has been recoverea : not stolen. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 165.) TIMARU. — WILLIAM ROBERTS'S bicycle has been recoverea: not stolen. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 451.) MISSING. DANNEVIRKE. — Since about 8th August last, Annie Turnbull, age seventeen, height about 5 ft. 6in., native of New Zealand, very stout build, about 1541b. weight, dark complexion and hair, very dark- blue eyes, full features; dressed in dark costume and strawberry- coloured hat. She left her parents' home without their consent, and was last heard of at Blackball, where she was staying with Mrs. Wid- row. Inquiry is at the instance of her mother, Mrs. H. Turnbull, Millers Road. SPECIAL INQUIRY. Special inquiry is requested for the purpose of locating Aldo Celli, alias Alfred Shanks, alias Gustav Cor- tini, alias Carvelli, alias Alfred Ferrari, alias Aldo Antonius Cellis, who is reported to have arrived in Australia on 10th ultimo from Europe. Description: Native of Italy, born in 1881, height 5 ft. 7Jin,, medium build, dark- brown hair, brown moustache ( waxed and turned up), right eye brown, left eye grey, long thin nose, good teeth, long fingers, pointed knob- shaped chin, large ears, long thin face, fresh complexion ; dresses well; speaks English, French, Italian, and a little German. His process- block photograph appears in West Australian Police Gazette, 1911, page 279. He is accompanied by two women, Maria Costillini, alias Louisa, and Eliza Storini, alias Loa. both Italians, about twenty- five years of age, black hair, rather good- looking ; flashily dressed. In September, 1910, this man, who is a white- slave trafficker, was convicted in England for conspiring to pro- cure a New Zealand girl to become a prostitute, and sentenced to six months' labour and subsequent deporta- tion. In February last he was deported to Italy. He was formerly a pseudo- bookmaker, but was| living on the pro- ceeds of prostitution at Wellington, in this Dominion. His criminal history is registered in the Commissioner's Office, Wellington. If located, he is to be kept under surveillance, and a tele- graphic communication should be sent to the Commissioner. ( C. R. 11/ 100.) 480 N E W Z E A L A . N D J P O L I C E GAZETTE. [ OCT. 11 INQUIRIES, ETC., FROM OUTSIDE NEW ZEALAND. TAMWORTH ( NEW SOUTH WALES).— 22nd August last, on warrant for embezzling £ 15 6s., the property of Thorsby's ( Limited), Charles J. Bennett, age about twenty- three, height 5 ft. 8 in., clerk, native of Auckland, New Zealand, slight build, fair complexion and hair, blue eyes, long sharp features, clean- shaved, receding chin, smart appearance, good address; dressed in blue- serge or grey- tweed suit and black hard hat or cap. His father is a nurseryman at Kyber Pass Road, Auckland. He is supposed to have come to this Dominion. Arrest desired. ( P. 11/ 1805.) SPECIAL NOTICE. Errata : Police Gazette, 1910. Owing to incorrect particulars having been furnished regarding discharged prisoner Daniel Walsh, the fol- lowing corrections are to be made in Police Gazette. 1910 page 467, viz.: Line 3, strike out the words " alias Mitchell, Matthew," and in lieu thereof insert the words " alias Craig, William, alias Watkins"; for " 2 p. c." read " 17 p. c. "; and for " ( See Police Gazette, 1908, page 448)" read " ( See Police Gazette, 1907, page 482)." In the index to Police Gazette, 1910, Prisoners discharged from Gaols, on page xxxvi strike out the words " Mitchell, Matthew, alias Walsh, 467"; and on page XLI strike out the words " alias Mitchell," and in lieu thereof insert the words " alias Craig, alias Watkins." ( C. R. 11/ 245.) MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION. Appointment as Constable. 3rd October, 1911. No. 1709.— Dow, James. Death. No. 286.— Constable Cahill, Timothy. 2nd October, 1911. LAW REPORTS. [ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.] (" New Zealand Law Reports," Vol. xxx, page 801.) [ STOUT, C. J., WILLIAMS, J., DENNISTON, J., EDWARDS, J., CHAPMAN, J., SIM, J.— 9TH AUGUST, 1911.] REX V. REYNOLDS AND PETERSON. Criminal Law— Evidence— Uncorroborated Evidence of an Accomplice— Duty of Presiding Judge to warn the Jury as to Nature of such Evidence— Two Accused jointly in- dicted— Severance at Trial— When ordered. In a criminal trial where the case for the prosecution depends wholly or in part on the testimony of an accom- plice it is the duty of the presiding Judge to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice, although it is competent for them to do so. Where two or more accused are indicted jointly, the question whether or not separate trials should be ordered must depend on whether the ends of justice would be best subserved by such a course, and that must be judged from the special circumstances of the particular case. CASE stated by Stout, C. J., under section 442 of the Crimes Act, 1908. The following is the case stated :— The prisoners were tried before me at the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court at Wellington, commencing on the 15th day of May, 1911, upon the following indictment found against the prisoners :— " IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, WELLINGTON, TO WIT. " The jurors for our Lord the King present that Edward Reynolds and Annie Peterson on or about the fourteenth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven at Wellington in the Dominion of New Zealand did unlawfully use upon Charlotte Sarah Goodman a girl then being with child a certain instrument or other means with intent thereby then to prooure the miscarriage of the said Charlotte Sarah Goodman. " And the jurors aforesaid do further present that the saip Edward Reynolds and Annie Peterson afterwards to wit on or about the day and in the year aforesaid at Wellington aforesaid did attempt to unlawfully use upon the said Char- lotte Sarah Goodman a girl then being with child a cer- tain instrument or other means with intent thereby to pro- cure the miscarriage of the said Charlotte Sarah Goodman. " And the jurors aforesaid do further present that the said Annie Peterson on or about the said fourteenth day of March in the year aforesaid at Wellington aforesaid did unlawfully use upon the said Charlotte Sarah Goodman a girl then being with child a certain instrument or other meaus with intent thereby then to procure the miscarriage of the said Charlotte Sarah Goodman and that the said Edward Reynolds did counsel and procure the said Annie Peterson to commit the said offence and thereby became a party thereto and guilty thereof." After arraignment, counsel for the prisoners applied to me to direct separate trials of the prisoners, upon the grounds that the prisoners would be prejudiced in their defences if they were tried together, by reason of the difficulty the jury would have in separating the evidence legally admissible against one from the evidence legally admissible against the other. Counsel for the Crown opposed the application for severance, and I held that the application must be refused. Application was then made by counsel for the prisoners to me to reserve the question for the Court of Appeal, which I agreed to do. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution counsel for the prisoners contended that there was no case to go to the jury because of the lack of corroborative evidence, and requested me to direct the jury to acquit the prisoners. Counsel for the Crown contended that the case should proceed and the prisoners be called on for their defences, upon the grounds that there was some corroborative evidence though small, and that the jury were legally entitled to convict the prisoners upon the evidence of the girl alone unsupported by any corroborative evidence, subject to a proper caution from the Judge as to the evidence being that of an accomplice. I directed the jury in the manner set out in the transcript of the proceedings attached to this case, and the jury re- turned a verdict of " Not guilty by direction of the Judge." Counsel for the Crown thereupon applied to me to reserve the questions whether there was any corroboration of the girl's story disclosed by the evidence given for the Crown, and whether my direction to the jury was a proper one, for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, and I agreed to reserve the questions accordingly. A transcript of the proceedings at the trial and the notes of evidence are attached hereto, and form part of this case. The questions for the opinion of tha Court of Appeal are— 1. Was I right in law in refusing an application for sever- ance ? 2. Was I right in law in holding that there was no suffi- cient corroboration of the girl's story disclosed by the evi- dence given for the Crown to go to the jury ? 3. Was I right in law in directing the jury as set out in the case herein ? The following is the direction to the jury referred to above:— Well, gentlemen of the jury, this is a very sad case. There is no doubt this girl has been seduced by Reynolds. You see, she is only seventeen years of age, with her hair down, and has to make her living by going out to service. This poor girl with poor parents has got into trouble and is anxious to get rid of her trouble. Our law says it is a crime to do so, and if she agrees to this she is a participator, an accomplice, and a worker in the crime herself. An anoient law laid down in England is that in such a case as this the Courts insist upon some corroboration of the testimony of the person who was a participant in the crime. In my opin- ion the corroboration in this case is too slight. It is so slight that I could not say to you that it would be safe enough for you to convict. You may believe and I may believe— I am not expressing my own opinion at present— that the girl's story is absolutely true. I assume the girl's story is true, but, notwithstanding that, the law is such that in this class of crime, where the girl herself is a participant and does the thing voluntarily, there must be some corro- boration of her story. This is what is indicated by our law, and therefore I do not think it is safe for you to oonvict. Of course, she may have a remedy— her parents may have a civil remedy against Reynolds ; they may sue him for seduc- tion, and they may proceed and oall Mrs. Peterson, and she would be bound to give her evidence. There may be suffi- cient evidence against Reynolds to enable the parents to sue him for seduction and get damages; but this is a criminal case, and I do not think it would be safe for you to convict on this evidence. If I am wrong in that, the Court of Appeal will set me right by having the case argued before them and ordering, if they think proper, a new trial; but in this case I advise you that it is not safe to convict. I am very sorry, but, you understand, as a Judge I must carry out what I 481 N E W Z E A L A N D P O L I C E ; , G A Z E T T E. [ SEPT. 13 think is the law. However I may feel, as I do, for the poor girl— exceedingly feel for her— in the circumstances and the disgrace and trouble that has been brought upon her, I can- not help that— I must obey what the law is, and therefore, gentlemen, I think you ought to return a verdict of " Not guilty." T. Neave, for the Crown :— 1. The jury may act upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and convict a prisoner upon such evidence, provided a proper warning has been given by the Judge pointiog out the unreliability of such evidence. 2. In this particular case there was in independent evidenoe sufficient corroboration of the story told by the girl to warrant the Court leaving the case to the jury, with a direction that there was sufficient corroboration to enable them to oonviot. There is no provision for such a warning in the Code, but the Court will follow in matters of practice the English practice. The last oase reported in New Zealand was in 1889— Reg v. Miles ( 8 N. Z. L. R. 324)— but it deals mainly with the nature of the corroboration required. The accom- plice is a competent witness, and therefore the question of his or her credibility is for the jury and not for the Judge, and it was the duty of the Judge to tell the jury that tbey might act upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accom- plice: Reg. v. Stubbs ( Dears. C. C. 555). " STOUT, C. J.— It is not disputed that this is the English law ; the question I wish raised is whether that is the law in New Zealand.] It is a matter of practice, and in order to insure a fair trial it is necessary that such a direotion shall be given. This is entirely outside the Crimes Aot. If the jury after proper warning had believed the girl's story, they could have rightly convicted the accused. A similar direction to that given here was given in Rex v. Kanis ( 4 Cr- -^ PP- Rep. 8), and, although not considered in the judgment, an observation in argument suggests the direction was wrong. [ The Court intimated that they did not wish to hear Mr. Neave on the question as to whether there was in fact corroboration.] Gray, for the accused Reynolds : — It is oonceded the rule in New Zealand is the same as that in England. The English rule is stated in Russell on Crimes ( 7th ed. Vol. ii, 2286). Substantially it is: If evi- dence of accomplice is uncorroborated it is the duty of the presiding Judge to advise the jury to acquit the prisoner: See also Taylor on Evidence ( 10th ed. 688, par. 967); Rex v. Tate ( [ 1908] 2 K. B. 680) ; Rex v. Kirkham ( 25 ' i'. L. R. 656) ; Rex v. Everest ( 73 J. P. 269) ; Halsbury's Laws of England ( Vol. ix 408, par. 780). Rex v. Everest ( 73 J. P. 269) says the Judge should " direct" an acquittal. This case was followed in Rex v. Warren ( 73 J. P. 359); Reg. v. Boyes ( 1 Best. & S. 311). In Reg. v. Robinson ( 4 P. &. F. 43) the Judge ordered an acquittal. [ Neave.— In that case there was a variance between the crime alleged and the evidence led.] Rex v. Mason ( 5 Cr. App. Rep. 171). Advice not to con- vict is a direction to acquit. Even if the duty was to advise the jury not to acquit the Court should consider whether there was corroboration, for the Court will not order a new trial unless there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice : Section 445 of the Crimes Act, 1908. [ The Court intimated that the question of whether there was corroboration or not would not affect its judgment on the question of granting a new trial.] On the question of severance : The rule is correctly stated by Cooper, J., in Rex v. Whitaker and Burford ( 10 Gaz. L. R. 213). Rex v. Gibson and Holroyd ( 7 Gaz. L. R. 528) is distinguishable. There was only one piece of evidence that was not evidence against the other, and that did not pre- judice the other. Here the evidence against Peterson would prejudice Reynolds. In Rex v. Davis and Haines ( 12 Gaz. L. R. 700) there was a joint charge and a charge of con- spiracy : See Archbold's Criminal Pleading ( 24th ed. 218); Halsbury's Laws of England ( Vol. ix 361, s. 701) ; Reg. v. Brown ( 15 N. Z. L. R. 18) ; Reg. v. Boulton ( 12 Cox C. C. 87); Reg. v. Bradlaugh ( 15 Cox C. C. 217). Neave, in reply :— As to severance, the case for the Crown depends on belief in the girl's story, which is admissible against both defendants. Herdman, for the accused Peterson, adopted Mr. Gray's argument. STOUT, C. J.:— In this case I specially desired that the whole question of the necessity for corroboration in cases like the present should be raised. What the English law is there does not seem to be any doubt, though there are chance expressions to be found in the judgments of several Judges that are not all reconcilable. The English law is, in cases of this cha- racter, that if the evidence is only that of an accomplice, and is not corroborated, the Judge is bound to warn a jury of the danger of convicting on such uncorroborated testi- mony. That warning may vary in language according to the circumstances of the case, but the English authoritie show tha; if that warning has not been given the conviction will be set aside : See Rex v. Brown ( 6 Cr. App. Rep. 24) and Rex v. Stone ( 6 Cr. App. Rep. 76). The question as to whether our criminal procedure in this respect was to be different from that in England was not raised or argued by counsel for the Crown ; and we must, I assume, hold that though we have now no common- law offences, and though we rely on statutes for our definition of crimes, and though our law requires in some instances more than one witness, our law is the same in this respect as the English law. This being so, I am of opinion that I should not have directed that the jury should find a verdict of " Not guilty," but only have warned them of the danger of relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, and also have told them that they could, without corroboration, have found a verdict of " Guilty." As was said in In re Meu- nier ([ 1894] 2 Q. B. 415) by Mr. Justice Cave, " I know of no power to withdraw the case from the jury for want of corroborative evidence, and I know of no power to set aside a verdict of ' Guilty' on that ground." This being so, there must, in my opinion, be a new trial. It is therefore unneces- sary to consider the question of whether there was corrobo- ration. The other question is as to severance. In cases of two or miore conspiring together to commit one offence and com- mitting it, it is ever difficult to decide whether there should or should not be severance. In many cases severance has been refused. When I declined to allow severance I had only the depositions before me, and the evidence of the detective did not impress me that it was corroborative of the prosecutrix, nor that it had such a bearing against both the accused as on consideration I now think it has. The evidence referred to and appearing on page 16 of the case, though admissible against the female accused, is not ad- missible against the male accused. This being so, the question is whether severance should have been granted. So far as Rex v. Davis and Haines ( 12 Gaz. L. R. 700) is concerned, I am of opinion that the circumstances in that case were quite different from those in this case, and if severance had been allowed in that case it oould never be refused in any case. I may add that I find it difficult to lay down any definite rule as to when severance should be granted, save that it should be granted when it appears clearly to the Judge that there is some evidence against one prisoner that would not be admissible against the other prisoner, and which, if admitted, would substantially affect that other. That there has been a great conflict on the subject appears from the consideration of some cases I shall cite. In Reg. v. Richards ( 1 Cox C. C. 62) severance was refused without the consent of the Crown. The trial was before Baron Gurney, Mr. Justice WilliamH, and Mr. Justice Maule. Reg. v. Black- burn and Others ( 6 Cox C. C. 333) was a case in which severance was asked for. The prisoners, Blackburn, Moore, and Walsh, were jointly indicted for murder. Sergeant Allen said that it appeared from the depositions that the evidence against Blackburn mainly rested upon statements and depo- sitions made by the prisoner Moore before Moore was him- self in custody on the charge, and as these statements, although not evidenoe against Blackburn, would be read to the jury, they were calculated to prejudice his olient's case. He admitted that he could not find any precedent for this application — that is, of severance. Mr. Justice Talfourd said, " He had no opportunity of knowing the nature of the evidenoe to be adduced against the prisoner Blackburn, but if there was nothing besides the accusations of Moore it would become his duty to withdraw the case altogether from the jury as against Blackburn. The case must proceed in the ordinary way, and, of course, the counsel for the prose- cution would inform the jury that the statements of a prisoner were only evidence against himself. Each prisoner had, of course, a right to challenge the jurors as they were called." Reg. v. Jackson ( 7 Cox C. C. 357), was a case of a joint indictment for murder. The prisoners had made statements implicating one another as being connected with the charge. Baron Bramwell, after consulting Baron Martin, allowed a severance. Reg. v. Ram and Ram ( 17 Cox C. C. 609), was a case of a joint indictment for rape. Counsel applied for severance on the ground that admissions by one prisoner, or questions and statements put to such prisoner, were not evidence against the other prisoner. Lord Justice Bowen, the presiding Judge, said, " It is a matter for the discretion of the Judge. Admissions by one prisoner or statements made to one are not evidence against the other, and should be separated in the direction of the Court to the jury. The jury are to be presumed capable of treating the evi- dence separately. Both prisoners can give evidence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and this minimizes the chance of any evidence against one only unduly prejudic- ing the other. I do not think there is any danger of injustioe by permitting a joint trial in this oase." 482 N E W Z E A L A N D P O L I C E G A Z E T T E. [ OCT. 18 Reference during the argument was made to the case of Rex v. Dibble ( 1 Cc. App. Rep. 155). In tuat case the prisoner was tried along with a co- prisoner named White There does not seem to have been any application for severence. A witness, Williams, was called by the Crown, and he said Dibble was innocent. He had, however, made a previous statement that he was guilty, and his previous statement was put in evidence. White made statements before the trial implicating Dibble and Williams, and his statements were put in as he was on his trial, but at the trial he withdrew his charge against Dibble. The only evidence against Dibble was that he was seen some hours before and some hours after the burglary with Williams and White, and that he had made false statements about his knowledge of White, and had given contradictory accounts of his absenoe from barracks on the night of the burglary. The Lord Chief Justice said, " This case is undeniably one of verv grave suspicion. The difficulty arose very largely through the fact that White and Dibble were tried together. The statements of Williams and White were evidence against the latter, but not against Dibble, and it is difficult to doubt that the jury were prejudiced against Dibble by that evidence. Even the fairsummiDg- up and grave oaution of the Recorder to the jury could not prevent that from happening. Counsel for the Crown was not to be blamed for the fact that in his opening he explained Williams's statement to the jury; he could not foresee that Williams would turn round and deny every word of it. He was, moreover, quite entitled to put in Williams's previous statement of Dibble's guilt, by way of cross- examination, to discredit Williams's story in the box, where he said Dibble was innocent. He was, however, mistaken in contending that the jury could rely on that statement as evidence of Dibble's guilt; on the contrary, the only evidence on that noint was the witness's statement in the box that Dibble was innocent, and the production of his previous statement to the contrary could only negative that. The unfortunate admission of Williams's and White's statements, unavoid- able as it was, may have prejudiced the jury; it was impossible to believe that they had no effect on their minds; it was impossible to discover whether, in their absence, the jury would have considered Dibble's guilt to be proved." The conviction was quashed, the Court having no power to order a new trial. A reference to the English text- books will show that this question of severance rarely comes before the Courts. The cases I have referred to are all that are mentioned in Mew's Digest of Criminal Law down to the end of 1897 save Reg. v. Aheame ( 6 Cox C. C. 6), which only decided that one of several persons jointly indicted for a conspiracy to murder may be tried separately ; See Digest, columns 699 and 700. In the treatises of Roscoe and Archbold there is little reference to the matter, and none in Stephen's Digest of tbe Law of Criminal Procedure, and none iu Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanours. In Bowen- Rowlands' work on Criminal Proceedings on Indictments and Information there is no reference to severance, and only these rules laid down as to joinder of persons— viz., two or more accused may be joined in the same indictment if in fact they have jointly com- mitted an offence; principals in the first and second degree, and accessories before and after the fact, may be joined in the same indictment. It therefore is apparent that the question is one entirely for the Judge that tries the case, and that his decision on the matter cannot be appealed from, as it is entirely for his discretion. As this Court has not dealt with the question of whether there is or is not corroboration, I think the proper course to follow is to leave the decision to the Judge that will have to retry the accused. To deal with it now necessitates, it seems to me, considering the effect of the evidence— at all events, that on page 16 of tbe case. In my opinion, the order should simply be an order for a new trial. Judgment of Williams, Denniston, Edwards, Chapman, and Sim, JJ., delivered by Williams, J.:— It has long been recognized as a universal practice in Eng- lish Criminal Courts that where the prosecution depends wholly or in part on the testimony of an accomplice it is the duty of the presiding Judge to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but at the same time to tell them that it is com- petent for them, notwithstanding such warning, to convict the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of the accom- plice. This is not a rule of law, either at common law or by statute, but a rule of practice only founded on the experience of the Courts that it is dangerous to rely on such testimony unless corroborated. It is, in fact, not a rule of law, but a rule of common- sense. The Courts in tbis Dominion have from the first followed this rule. There is nothing in the Crimes Act which abrogates the rule or suggests that it is no longer in existence. No doubt here, as in England, there are cases where there is a statutory provision that the corroboration of a witness is required. The fact, however, that there is such a statutory requirement in certain cases cannot in any way interfere with the rule which is not a rule of law but of practice only. In the present case the learned Judge who presided at the trial did not warn the jury as to the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but in effect directed them to acquit the acoused, and did not inform them that notwithstanding his direction it would have been competent for them to conviot on the uncorroborated evidence of the accomplice. The verdict of the jury, " Not guilty by direction ot the Judge," showi that the jury treated the direction of the Judge not merely as a warning, but as a command. We are of opinion, therefore, that there was a miscarriage and a substantial miscarriage in tbe present case. Tne Crown has the right to have the opinion of the jury taken after they had been duly warned that it was unsafe to act on the uncorroborated ovidence of the accomplice. If the jury had found the prisoners guilty on such uncorroborated evidence the verdict could not have been set aside. We think, therefore, that the verdict of the jury should be set aside, and that there should b9 a new trial of the prisoners. A further question arises in the case as to whether the prisoners should be tried separately. Tuere is no doubt that where the ends of justice require it the Court before whom the prisoners are tried has a discretion to order that, although prisoners are indicted together, they should be tried sepa- rately. This Court, however", now approaches the oase as if there bad been no trial, and its advice is asked for the guidance of the trial Court as to whether the prisoners should be tried separately. Whether they should be tried separately depends on whether the ends of justice would be best subserved by such a course being taken. The accused Reynolds is charged practically as an accessory before the fact according to the case for the Crown. His connection with the affair ceased when he brought the girl to Mrs. Peterson's. If the actual crime was committed by Mrs. Peterson it was committed after Reynolds had ceased to take an active part in the affair. The aotions of the prisoners, therefore, are not so intermingled that the case for the Crown would be prejudiced by trying them sepa- rately. That of itself would not be a reason for trying them separately, but if otherwise there is a good reason for trying them separately the fact that the Crown will not be pre- judiced by separate trials is an additional reason why they should be tried separately. Whether there should be a separate trial in any case must depend upon the special cir- cumstances of the case. In the present case we are. of opinion that such special circumstances exist, and that there is a reasonable apprehension that there will be a mis- carriage of justice unless the prisoners are tried separately. New trial ordered. Solicitors for the Crown : Tbe Crown I, aw Office ( Wel- lington). Solicitors for accused Reynolds: Wilford and Levi ( Wel- lington). Solicitors for accused Peterson : Herdman and Kirkcaldie ( Wellington). " New Zealand Law Reports," Vol. xxx, page 884.) [ S. C. IN BANCO. CHRISTCHURCH — ( DENNISTON, J.) — 14TH AUGUST, 1909.] REX V. MCKINNON. Contempt of Court— Publication of Evidence forbidden by Justices — Contempt of Inferior Court— Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to punish by Attachment. The Supreme Court of New Zealand has power to punish by attachment contempts of inferior Courts. The King v. Davies ([ 1906] 1 K. B. 32) followed. On a trial before two Justices for an offence under sec- tion 41 of the Police Offences Act, 1908, an order was made forbidding the publication of the evidence. The defendant, with full knowledge of the order, published in the newspaper New Zealand Truth, of which he was manager and editor, an aocount of the act the subject- matter of the information, stating that his information came from a purely outside source. Held, That the publication was a deliberate contempt of Court calling for exemplary punishment. MOTION by the- Crown for writ of attachment against John Thomas McKinnon, of the City of Wellington, manager and editor of the newspaper New Zealand Truth, for his contempt in publishing or allowing to be published in the said news- paper of the 3rd January, 1909, a report and account of the evidence given upon the hearing of an information under section 41 of the Police Offences Act, 1908. The two Justices who heard the information had made an order under section 432 of the Crimes Act, 1908, forbidding any suoh publication. Stringer, K. C., for the Crown. J. A. Cassidy for the defendant. 483 N E W Z E A L A N D P O L I C E ; , G A Z E T T E. [ SEPT. 13 DENNISTON, J.:— By tbe Criminal Code Amendment Aot, 1905, it was pro- vided that where on any trial before any Court of justice the Court is of opinion that the interests of public morality require that all or any persons shall be excluded from the Court it may exolude such persons ( with certain exceptionsi therefrom accordingly ; and that the Court in any such trial may also, by order, forbid the publication of any report or account of the evidence therein or any portion thereof ; and that the breach of such order, or any colourable or attempted evasion thereof, might be dealt with as contempt of Court. In a Court before two Justices of the Peace, sitting in Christchurch on the 2nd January last, on the hearing of an information against a man and a woman for having com- mitted a grossly indeoent act in a public place contrary to section 41 of the Police Offences Act, 1908, the said Justices, by an order made by them in open Court, forbade the I publication of any report or account of the evidence in such case, either as to the whole or any portion thereof. Notwith- standing this order a newspaper called the Neiu Zealand Truth, on the 30th January, published what is sworn to be a report and account of the evidence given on the hearing of the information. The article in question was headed in highly displayed headnotes, " A Kiltie Kuddle. — What happened in Hagley Park.— The Handsome Stranger and the Trusting Miss.— Rangers reckon the Pair were rorty.— And the Bench believe them." A column and a half of matter followed, and fully justified the headnotes. It contained a pruriently offensive and suggestive narration of the details of the sexual act the subjeot of the information. That there might be no mistake as to the intention of the publication, the writer mentioned the fact of an order having been made forbidding the publication of the evidence, " which," the writer adds, " this paper regretfully suppresses. Fortun- ately we have been able to give the facts from a purely outside source"— a shallow subterfuge which could deceive no one, and which is not attempted to be supported. The facts disclose a deliberate and impudent contempt of the Court which heard the ease. The insolence of the defianoe of the Court may possibly be attributable to the fact that those responsible for the publication may have relied on a belief that an inferior Court possessed no direct means of punishing for a contempt not committed in open Court. Fortunately recent English deoisions have established that these Courts are not without means of redress. In The King v. Parke ([ 1903] 2 K. B. 432) it was held that where, a person having been charged before the Petty Sessions with an indictable offence triable only at the Assizes, matter is published in a newspaper tending to interfere with a fair trial of the charge, the High Court had jurisdiction to attach the publisher of such matter for contempt of Court, notwith- standing that at the time of the publication the person charged had not been committed for trial. In The King v. Davies ([ 1906] 1 K. B. 32) the Court of King's Bench decided for the first time the broad doctrine that the Court of King's Bench has power to punish by attaohment contempts of inferior Courts. Before The King v. Parke ([ 1903] 2 K. B. 432) it had been doubtful whether there was any remedy but the slow and cumbrous one of indictment. The whole of the judgment of the Court is valuable and instructive. This Court has in these matters the same jurisdiction as the High Court. No one of these propositions was questioned by counsel for the defendant. In considering the punishment for this contempt we must consider its character. I have said it was deliberate and insolent— made with a full Knowledge that it was a con- tempt. The object with which it was made is equally un- mistakable. Parliament has found it necessary to limit in certain cases the Press of the Dominion in the exercise of the discretion it had before possessed in publishing the evi- dence of proceedings in our Courts. This, as can be seen by the parliamentary records of the debate on the Bill, arose from the recent coming into existence of journals of the class of which the newspaper with whioh I am now dealing was there quoted as an illustration. In the present case the only objeot of the newspaper in defying or attempting to evade the law must have been its inability to resist the publication of a particularly salacious specimen of the class of cases by the publication of whioh it lives and thrives. To accomplish this it has taken the risk of insulting and defying the law and the Court. It is obviously a case for exemplary punish- ment. The present defendant alleges— and, I may assume, truth- fully— that he did not see the manuscript of the article oom- plained of until it bad been published, and that to the best of his recollection he was not in Wellington when it was pub- lished. But by assuming the position of registered manager of the newspaper he undertakes the liability for what appears in it. That is shown, if authority were needed, by Ex parte Green, In re Robbins ( 7 T. L. R. 411). He cannot but be aware of the character and tone of the publication whose responsibility he assumes. He has taken no steps to disclose the person or persons actually responsible. I shall iu this instance regard the fact that he is probably not directly responsible for the contempt by not sentencing him to prison — a penalty 1 should certainly have inflicted on the writer or the wilful publisher of the article. The defendant must not, however, rely on such immunity continuing. As to a money penalty, I suggested on the hearing that the person legally responsible would be indemnified by the proprietor or pro- prietors. To this I received no denial. In any case it must be shown that newspaper- proprietors and others responsible for such conduct as we are now dealing with cannot escape penalties by sheltering themselves behind nominal defend- ants. For the gross and offensive contempt you have committed you will ba fined £ 100, with costs as between solicitor and client, to be taxed. Solicitors for the Crown: T. W. Stringer, Crown Solicitor ( Christchurch). Solicitors for the defendant: A. Dunn ( Wellington!. (" New Zealand Law Reports, Vol. xxx, page 924.) [ S. C. HEARING. WELLINGTON—( CHAPMAN, J.) — 14TH AUGUST, 1911.] REX V. LAWTON. Criminal Law — Indictment for Attempted Rape — Prisoner under Sixteen Years of Age — Power of Court to commit to Industrial School — The Industrial Schools Act, 1908, Section 20. The prisoner, a lad of fourteen years of age, was arraigned upon an indictment for attempted rape. Be- fore the jury was empanelled his counsel applied to have him committed to an industrial school under the provisions of section 20 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1908. Held, That the Judge had power, without sending the case to trial, to make such an order. APPLICATION to the presiding Judge to commit the prisoner, a lad of fourteen years, arraigned upon an indictment found by the grand jury for attempted rape, to an industrial sohool under section 20 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1908. The application was made by counsel, who represented the mother as well as tbe accused after arraignment, but prior to the empanelling of the jury. Ostler for the Crown. Fitzgibbon for the accused. CHAPMAN, J.: — I am of opinion that I have power under section 20 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1908, to make the order suggested by counsel for accused. It does not matter whether accused is oonvicted or not, for the section expressly empowers the Court, where the accused is within the definition of a child — that is, under sixteen years of age— to deal with him in a different way— that is, to send him to an industrial school. Here he is very little over fourteen, and the girl is a little older. That means that, without sending the case to the jury at all, I can intercept the verdict and deal with him in that way. It is a very strong power to give to a Court, buB it is evident that it is given in the interest of the accused himself, and is to be exercised for his benefit as well as for the benefit of the community. It is very much better, in his interest and in the common interest, to deal with this boy under this section than to send him to gaol. I propose to take that course irrespective of the guilt of the acoused, and accepting his own version of his conduct. It is to his credit that in admitting the fact accused endeavoured to free the girl from blame. Solicitors for the Crown : The Crown Law Office ( Wel- lington). Solicitors for the accused : Fitzgibbon and Perry ( Wel- lington). (" Times Law Reports," Vol. xxvii, page 562.) [ COURT OP CRIMINAL APPEAL — ( LORD ALVERSTONE, C. J., PLCKFORD AND AVORY, J J.)— 24TH JULY, 1911.] REX V. JOHN SYME. Criminal Laic — Sending Letter threatening to Murder — Special Verdict— Effect of. The appellant was indicted under s. 16 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, for sending a letter to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, M. P., threatening to murder one Alfred Reed. At the trial the Judge left the following questions to the jury: " 1. Is defendant guilty or not guilty of malioiously sending the letter threatening to murder Alfred Reed? 2. Did he intend to murder Reed, or was the threat ' bluff,' and made in order to oall atten- tion to his grievances. 3. Did the defendant send the letter of the 15th June with the intention of so alarming 484 N E W Z E A L A N D P O L I C E G A Z E T T E. [ OCT. 18 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald as to the safety of Reed's life that Mr. Macdonald and his friends would support defendant's claims against the Home Secretary and the police authori- ties ? " The jury did not reply directly to the questions, but returned the following verdict: " We are of opinion that defendant wrote the letter of 15th June with the object of pressing Mr. Ramsay Maodonald and his friends to support his claims against the Home Secretary and the police authorities. We are further of opinion that he did not intend to murder Reed, and that the threat was ' bluff' and made in order to call attention to his griev- ances." The Judge considered this finding equivalent to a verdict of guilty, and ordered a verdict of guilty to be entered. Held, That the Judge was right in treating the verdict as one of guilty. THIS was an appeal on certificate against a conviction of the appellant under section 16 of the Offences against the Person Aot, 1861, at the Central Criminal Court on the 4th instant, for sending a letter to Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald, M. P., threatening to murder one Alfred Reed. The appellant was then sentenced by Mr. Justice Darling to six months' im- prisonment without hard labour. The case is reported in The Times of 5th July. Mr. Charles Bray appeared for the appellant ; the Attor- ney- General ( Sir Rufus Isaacs, K. C.), Mr. Bodkin, Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, and Mr. Graham- Campbell for the Crown. Mr. BRAY, opening his argument, said that at the trial Mr. Justice Darling left three questions to the jury— namely, " ( 1.) Is the defendant guilty or not guilty of maliciously sending the letter threatening to murder Alfred Reed ? ( 2.) Did he intend to murder Reed, or was the threat ' bluff ' and made in order to call attention to his grievances ? ( 3.) Did the defendant send the letter of 15th June with the intention of so alarming Mr. Ramsay MacDonald as to the safety of Reed's life that Mr. Macdonald and his friends would support the the defendant's claims against the Home Secretary and the police authorities?" The jury did not specifically answer any of these ques- tions, but they found the following special verdict: " We are of opinion that the defendant wrote the letter of 15th June with the object of pressing Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and his friends to support his claims against the Home Secretary and the police authorities. We are further of opinion that he did not intend to murder Reed, and that the threat was ' bluff ' and made in order to call attention to his grievances." Upon that Mr. Justice Darling said that was a verdict of guilty, and he ordered a verdict of guilty to be entered. The question was, What did the verdict mean ? He submitted that it amounted to a verdict of not guilty. To support the charge there had to be malice shown, and by that he meant a wrongful or illegal motive ; and, secondly, the letter had to contain a threat. There was no answer by the jury on the first point, and consequently they must be taken to have found that the appellant did not send the letter maliciously. The letter sent, which was dated 15th June, 1911, was in these terms : " Dear Sir,— I am in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, and thank you for your kindly meant advice. I regret, however, I cannot accept it. I know the strength of my case, and I know that Mr. Churchill, powerful as he is, dare not face a public exposure with only the evidence now in his possession, and without a single additional witness my case is so damning to the Commissioner that Mr. Churchill knows he dare not let it become public knowledge and still refuse redress. " As you say in your postscript, like yourself I am a Scots- man, and while we belong, as you state, to a calm, rational people, there is another characteristic: Scotsmen are dour and do not lie down under such gross injustice as I have suffered. Mr. Churchill need not fear for his own skin. I had no intention of touching him, because I have too healthy a contempt for a coward who would stab in the back as he has done. I have no desire to do anything wrong and in spite of my two years' worry and trial I am perfectly cool and do not write in any impulsive or rash temper. Those who know me can assure you of this. I am, however, firmly resolved to overthrow this cursed officialdom which is slowly ruining our country, and I repeat now, calmly and with a full knowledge of the consequence to myself, that if the members of Parliament will not do their duty and if I am unable by any other legal means to obtain justice I am quite prepared to kill Mr. Reed with my own hands and leave the judgment with my countrymen. " I have seen several of my friends in and out of Parlia- ment, and on their advice have decided to wait events. I hope when the Home Office vote comes on in the House the Labour Party will throw the weight of their voices and votes in the scale for justice. Meantime arrangements are being made for public meetings to arouse protests in London, and as a stanch Liberal I truly regret that Mr. Churchill's ob- stinacy and short- sightedness at the present critical period of Liberalism is likely to damage the cause of the working- classes.— Yours faithfully, JOHN SYME." Por the appellant to call attention to his grievances, con- tinued counsel, was not a malicious object. MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD.— Did not the letter amount to a threat?— but the jury thought that the appellant did not intend to carry it out. MR. BRAY submitted that by the use of the word " bluff " the jury took the view that there was not a threat at all. Mr. Justice Darling contrasted real threats and " bluff." If it was not a real threat, there was no threat at all. MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD.— Words may be used in joke, but apart from that, what is the difference between a threat and a real threat? MR. BRAY said the real question was whether there was a threat or not, and he submitted that there had been no threat. According to the letter a number of conditions had to be fulfilled before the appellant was in the last resort pre- pared to take the law into his own hands. He contended that, the prosecution having failed to prove malice, the con- viction was wrong and should be quashed. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL submitted that the jury's findiDg was sufficient, and that the Judge was right. The appel- lant's object in writing the letter and in using the threat contained in it was to induce Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to take a course in the House of Commons which he would not otherwise take; the appellant wanted Mr. Ramsay Mac- Donald to believe that he ( the appellant) was going to take a desperate course. The jury's finding involved that there was a threat, although the threat was not intended to be carried out; it was " bluff " in that sense. It was not contradicted at the trial that the appellant in- tended Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to believe that he intended to murder Reed. There being no justification for the send- ing of the letter it was sent " malioiously " within the mean- ing of the section in question. MR. BRAY, in reply, submitted that the letter was a mere piece of rhetoric. The appellant's defence throughout was that he never intended to threaten. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in the course of his judgment, dealt with the nature of the charge against the appellant, and observed that the learned Judge had indicated the ques- tions which he proposed to put to the jury, three of which he reduoed into writing. They were as follows : ( 1.) Is defendant guilty or not guilty of maliciously sending the letter threatening to murder Alfred Reed ? ( 2.) Did he in- tend to murder Reed, or was the threat " bluff" and made in order to call attention to his grievances ? ( 3.) Did the defendant send the letter of 15th June with the intention of so alarming Mr. Ramsay MacDonald as to the safety of Reed's life that Mr. MacDonald and his friends would support defendant's claims against the Home Secretary and the police authorities ? The jury did not reply directly to the questions, but re- turned a verdict in the following terms : " We are of opinion that defendant wrote the letter of 15th June with the object of pressing Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and his friends to sup- port his claims against the Home Secretary and the police authorities. We are further of opinion that he did not in- tend to murder Reed, and that the threat was ' bluff ' and made in order to call attention to his grievances." The learned Judge considered this finding equivalent to a verdict of guilty, and sentenced the appellant thereon to six months' imprisonment. It was contended, said his Lordship, by Mr. Bray, on behalf of the appellant, that this verdict did not amount to a verdict of guilty, upon the ground, first, that the jury did not find that the letter sent by the defendant threatened to kill and murder Reed ; and, further, that the object of writ- ing the letter as found by the jury amounted to a finding that the appellant had not acted maliciously. It is well established that the Court cannot add to the findings of a special verdict, but that the Court must be satisfied that the jury have found facts which amount to proof of the crime charged in the indictment. Prom this point of view the first question cannot be regarded as free from difficulty, but upon the whole we are of opinion that the jury have found that the letter did contain a threat to murder, that they were of opinion that the appellant did not intend to murder Reed, and that the threat was " bluff" and made in order to call attention to his grievances. In the opinion of the Court the words " the threat " refer to the preceding words " intend to murder," and the verdict does amount to a finding that the letter contained that threat. It was urged before us that the letter was capable of being corn- trued otherwise than as containing a threat to kill and murder, that it only stated that the writer was quite prepared to kill Reed in a oertain state of things, but in our judgment the language of the finding of the jury does not admit of this view. We have now to consider the other point, as to whether or not the finding of the jury negatived malice. As to the Ik--, . mi- 485 NEW Z E A L A N D P O L I C E ; , G A Z E T T E . [ SEPT. 13 meaning of the word " malioious," the learned Judge direoted the jury in the following terms: " There are many things whioh a man may do whioh are malioious if they are done from an improper and indirect motive. I should say that to try and induce a person to do that which he otherwise would not do unless you threatened to murder some one else would be done with an indirect motive. It might he an utterly improper motive. In fact, I can hardly conceive circumstances in which it would be proper to try to get an advantage for one's self by threatening to murder somebody else. The word 1 malicious,-' to my mind ( and you may take this as a direction), implies the doing of that which a person has no legal right to do and their doing it in order to secure some object by means which are improper. If you come to the conclusion that these letters were written in order to make people do, for fear that he would commit a murder, that which they otherwise would not do— if you come to that oonolusion I shall tell you that then he did it malici- ously within the meaning of the word as it is used in the statute." This direction seems to the Court to be correct, and, taking the finding of the jury already quoted, in our opinion it amounts to a finding that the appellant had acted malioi- ously within the meaning of the direction given by Mr. Justice Darling. For these reasons we are of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed and the conviction affirmed, and the sentence will run from the date of the conviction. [ Solicitors— Crawshay and Caldicott; Director of Publio Proseoutions.] •" Times Law Reports," Vol. xxvii, page 575.) [ COURT OP CRIMINAL APPEAL.—( LORD ALVERSTONE, O. J., LAWRANCE, PHILLIMORE, PICKFORD, AND HAMILTON, JJ.) — 28TH JULY, 1911.] REX V. BANKS. Criminal Law— Practice— Plea of Not Guilty and autrefois acquit. An accused cannot at the trial set up both a plea of not guilty and a plea of autrefois acquit. THIS was an appeal against a oonviction at the Central Criminal Court before Mr. Justice Darling for manslaughter. The appellant, after pleading not guilty, had set up the plea of autrefois acquit, and the jury, on the direction of the learned Judge, had negatived the plea. Mr. A. S. Carr appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Travers Humphreys for the Crown. The case was argued on 24th July last, and was then adjourned to be argued before five Judges. The appellant had been charged on a ooroner's inquisition with the murder of a newly born male child; and he was also indicted for manslaughter, to both of whioh he pleaded not guilty. Subsequently Mr. Muir, for the Crown, offered no evidence on the charge of murder, and under the direc- tion of the learned Judge, who added that there was another oharge, the jury acquitted him of murder. Mr. Carr, who defended at the request of the Judge, then said that the prisoner desired to add an additional plea of autrefois acquit to his plea of not guilty, and Mr. Justice Darling said, " He pleads not guilty and autrefois acquit. The Clerk of the Court will take that plea," and it was handed in in writing. The Clerk of the Court, Mr. Henry Kemp Avory, was called by Mr. Carr, and formally proved the acquittal above referred to on the charge of murder. Mr. Carr submitted that on the oharge of murder the prisoner had been in peril of conviction of manslaughter, and that when the verdiot of not guilty was given on the charge of murder, that operated as an acquittal of man- slaughter. Mr. Justioe Darling held that there was no evi- dence to go to the jury that the prisoner bad been in peril before, and directed them to find that he had not" been autrefois acquit. The trial for manslaughter then proceeded, and the appellant was convicted, and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour. No decision was given on the question as to whether, there having been no trial in fact of the charge of murder, the appellant had been in peril, and consequently entitled to raise the plea of autrefois acquit. Mr. Justice Phillimore now raised the point that the appellant had no right at the trial to set up both the plea of not guilty and of autrefois acquit. Mr. Carr oited R. v. Drury ( 3 C. and K, 193), and con- tended that it was a matter of discretion for the Judge which in the above case, which was a converse case, had been exercised in ar certain way. Mr. Justice Darling had exercised his discretion in the present case, and had allowed both the pleas to be entered, and the Court ought not to interfere with. it. He referred to Archibald's Criminal Pleadings _( 24th ed., p. 181) and Reg. v. Strahan ( 7 Cox, C. C., 85). The Lord Chief Justioe said that in this case Mr. Carr, who had only defended the appellant at the request of the Judge, had shown a very great knowledge of the criminal law such as few counsel could probably have shown under the oircumstances. At the trial he had indicated that he wished to enter a plea of autrefois acquit on behalf of the accused. The point taken on the plea was one, as Mr. Carr had admitted, of the highest technicality, as was shown by this, that if the prosecution had anticipated any suoh point, they would have proceeded with the indictment for the manslaughter first,' and then have offered no evidence on the murder charge, in which case this point oould not have arisen. Therefore the plea had no merits. There was no disoussion before the learned Judge as to the admissibility of the two pleas, and therefore no exercise of his discretion. And the merely technical point might be met with a technical answer, which was that, having pleaded to the indictment, the appellant had no right, at the same time, to enter a plea of autrefois acquit. The appeal must be dismissed. [ Solicitors— Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; Director of Publio Prosecutions.] EXTRACT FROM NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. ( From Gazette, 1911, page 2935.) Inspector of Licensed Premises appointed. Police Department, Wellington, 27th September, 1911. HIS Excellency the Governor has been pleased to appoint Constable CHARLES WILLIAM LOPDELL, of the New Zealand Police Force, to be an Inspector of Licensed Premises in terms of section 218 of the Licensing Act, 1908. JOHN G. FINDLAY, Minister of Justice. 2— P. G. Return of Persons summarily convicted at Magistrates' Courts, but not sent to QaoL N am* of Offender. Waaka Otene Himi Thimaera Drummond, Wilfred Raroa te Tawake .. Higgins, John Wilson, George Alexander Limbrick, Edward Hill Low, Grace Elizabeth Stevens, Richard John Watkins, Ebor Younghusband, Cuthbert well, alias Ford, John Waters, Edward .. Kettel Thaddeus, Doody .. Hunter, Thomas O'Kane. Patrick Sullivan, James Where tried. When. Offanoe. Sentauce. Native of Trade. a E o n ja M ' Z X Com- plexion . Hair. ET « . Noae. ft. in. Mangonui .. 15/ 9/ 11 rogue and vagabond .. to come up if aboriginal labourer and 1891 5 7 copper.. black, curly brown .. flat called on gum- digger Rawene 5/ 9/ 11 receiving stolen property to come up if aboriginal labourer 1895 5 6 copper.. blaok brown . broad called on Waihi 3/ 10/ 11 obscene language fined £ 3 or 1 m /\ r* f Vi N. Zealand labourer 1892 5 7 sallow .. dark blue large Rotorua 3/ 10/ 11 assault fined £ 5 or 2 N. Zealand labourer and 1882 5 lOi fresh .. brown hazel . aquiline .. months miner Rotorua 3/ 10/ 11 theft ( 4 charges) to come up if N. Zealand cadet 1895 5 7 pale fair grey . turned up called on and pay costs Tokaanu 26/ 9/ 11 theft fined £ 1 & oosts N. Zealand labourer 1882 5 81 copper black brown .. flat or 4 days Ohakune 5/ 10/ 11 assault fined £ 2 N. Zealand labourer and 1885 5 11 fair brown brown .. medium bushman Napier 3/ 10/ 11 street- betting fined £ 25 and costs N. Zealand bookmaker 1881 5 8 pale black blue medium Napier 3/ 10/ 11 street- betting fined £ 25 and N. Zealand bookmaker 1881 5 10 sallow .. dark brown blue . medium costs N. Plymouth 5/ 10/ 11 theft ( 2 charges) to come up if N. Zealand domestic .. 1896 4 8 pale fair blue .. medium called on Stratford 6/ 10/ 11 theft senttoBurnliam N. Zealand scnoolboy .. 1901 4 5 freckled brown hazel . medium Indus. School Manaia 20/ 9/ 11 indecent language fined 10s. and Wales labourer 1842 5 3 fresh .. grey blue thiok Wanganui .. 6/ 10/ 11 theft costs to come up if N. Zealand labourer and 1890 6 0 fresh .. brown blue medium called on and hotel hand make restitu- tion Wellington .. 27/ 9/ 11 rogue and vagabond .. to come up if Ireland seaman 1883 5 61 fresh .. brown blue medium called on Wellington .. 3/ 10/ 11 false pretences to come up if Australia .. labourer 1888 5 7 dark .. black brown . . medium called on, and make restitu- tion Cheviot 29/ 9/ 11 no lawful means of sup- convicted and America .. labourer 1870 5 H fresh .. brown grey .. medium Amberley port discharged 2/ 10/ 11 refusing to quit licensed fined £ 1 & costs N. Zealand labourer 1886 6 0 pale, light brown blue .. medium premises slightly insulting behaviour fined 10s. and freckled costs Lyttelton 11/ 9/ 11 idle and disorderly Army Home for Sootland .. labourer 1856 5 3 fresh .. grey blue medium Lyttelton 3 months 7/ 10/ 11 fraudulent representa- to refund £ 10 Ireland gardener .. 1855 5 4 fresh .. grey hazel .. large Waimate tion 5s., or 3 mos. • 26/ 9/ 11 obscene language fined £ 2 & costs N. Zealand labourer 1879 5 6 dark .. black brown .. medium threatening behaviour oonvioted and discharged 00 Distinguishing Harks, Jcc. Pace covered with pimple- marks. Upper front teeth missing Several moles behind left ear. Left hand has been broken. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 445.) See Police Gazette, 1908, page 458. Soar above right elbow. Star on right wrist ; anchor on left hand. F. P. Slightly round- shouldered : woman's bust on left forearm. See Police Gazette, 1902, page 154. 2 te ts te > tr i> e T C C te Q t> ts te te c a i- 3 CO I Tl Name of Offender. Filewood, Robert .. Douglas, Neil Grace, Ernest Bell, Albert Joseph Kine, John .. Ferrier, Robert Where tried, i When. Return of Persons summarily convicted at Magistrates' Courts, but not sent to Gaol- cuntinued. Nose 1 1 Offence. Seutouce. Native of Trade. e 1 1 « Dunedin Dunedin Dunedin I Dunedin Riverton Riverton 25/ 9/ 11 26/ 9/ 11 29/ 9/ 11 wilful damage wilful damage theft 29/ 9/ 11 begging alms 2/ 10/ 11 2/ 10/ 11 theft theft ja * 3> a Com- pletion. Hair. Ev Distinguishing Marks, Ac fined 10s., to pay damage, or 3 days fined 10s., to pay damage, or 7 days to come up if oalledon with- in 6 months to come up if called on with- in 6 months fined £ 3 and to make restitu- tion to come up if oalled on N. Zealand N. Zealand N. Zealand N. Zealand aboriginal N. Zealand labourer labourer machinist labourer labourer sohoolboy 1883 1859 1895 1882 1870 1899 5 84 5 5 5 9 5 7i 5 5 5 1 fresh .. fair fresh .. reddish dark .. fair fair . grey dark light brown black fair blue grey .. brown .. hazel .. brown .. blue .. medium medium medium medium medium medium Boil- mark on neck. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, page 437.) See Police Gazette, 1908, page 302. 525 ft IS ft > ft > z « o ft H- i o ft Q E> ts ft H3 H3 ft CO RJSTUKN OF PRI8ONEK8 REPORTED AS DISCHARGED FROM GAOLS DtJRINO THE WEEK ENDED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 1911. 3aol, and Name of Prisoner. Where tried. I When. Offence. Sentence. Native of Trade. Auckland Ingram, John, alias Andrews, alias Neville, alias Crofton Betts, William Sgeen, Frederick, alias Skeen Mangan, Patrick, alias Michael, alias Managan Fox, Arthur William .. Nolan, Edward, alias Gallagher Bathurst, Percy Shannaghan, John, alias Shannon, alias O'Con- nor Burgess, William Auckland S. C. Auckland 26/ 7/ 11 MC. Ngaruawahia 12/ 9/ 11 M. C. Auckland 7/ 9/ 11 M. C. Auckland 14/ 9/ 08 S. C. Auckland 11/ 11/ 10 M. C. Morrinsville 21/ 9/ 11 M. C. Auckland 20/ 9/ 11 M. C. .. Otahuhu M. C. 3/ 11/ 10 Braithwaite, Charles, alias . Bycroft, alias Tomason, alias Thomp- son Carwardine, Henry Thomas Costello, John Bunyon, Abner Newbert, Edward Robert White, George Henry, alias Francis Little, Charles John Fitzgerald, Thomas Johnston, Arthur .. Auckland S. C. .. Auckland M. C. .. . A u o k 1 a n d M. C. 15/ 9/ 11 24/ 2/ 10 28/ 8/ 11 30/ 6/ 11 30/ 8/ 11 26/ 9/ 11 25/ 9/ 11 21/ 11/ 10 breaking, entering, and theft ( 2 charges) incorrigible rogue theft obscene language theft from a dwelling attempted arson incorrigible rogue breaking and entering.. rogue and vagabond .. breach of a prohibition order breaking, entering, and theft theft ( 7 charges) default of maintenance theft theft cruelty to his wife default of maintenance indeoent assault Thames- Hunter, John, Baker Dufty, Byron .. alias Thames M. C. .. Thames M. C. 2/ 8/ 11 theft 3/ 7/ 11 default of maintenance 14/ 9/ 11 theft 29/ 9/ 11 theft 12 mo's on each 2 months 14 days fine or 7 days 4 years 4 years 12 months committed for sentence remanded fine or 7 days 2 years 2 years Australia .. cook Wales .. labourer Norway .. labourer Ireland .. seaman N. Zealand labourer N. Zealand labourer N. Zealand baker N. Zealand labourer N. Zealand labourer Ireland .. joiner arrears or 1 England .. gardener month 3 months .. N. Zealand , labourer 1 month remanded remanded 12 months aboriginal labourer America .. dealer N. Zealand seaman N, Zealand bushman 2 months .. Ireland .. seaman arrears or 1 Tasmania.. fisherman month 14 days .. N. Zealand labourer fine or 1 month Norfolk Is. [ labourer tf ' 3 « Com- plexion. Hair. Byes. Nose. When dis- charged. Remarks, and PreviouB Convictions. IF. P. indicates that fmger- impretsione hale been taken.) 1880 1850 1867 1876 1872 1850 1886 1869 1881 1874 1865 1856 1863 1859 1872 1872 1877 1858 ft. in. 5 6 4| 5 5J 5 10 5 7J 5 94 5 84 fresh .. fresh .. fresh .. fresh .. dark .. swarthy pale .. brown dark brown blaok dark brown blaok dark brown brown grey .. brown .. grey .. medium long large fresh .. dark brown brown .. medium grey .. long It. grey medium hazel .. medium brown .. large 25/ 9/ 11 5 p. c. F. P. Photographed at Auckland, 8/ 7/ 07. ( See Police Gazette, 1909, page 266.) 25/ 9/ 11 Numerous p. e. F. P. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 296.) 25/ 9/ 111 p. c. F. P. Photographed at Auokland, 24/ 1/ 10. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, page 100.) 25/ 9/ 11 1 p. c. Arrested 19/ 9/ 11. ( See Police Gazette, 1903, page 198.) 26/ 9/ 1111 p. c. F. P. Photographed 15/ 8/ 11. ( See Police Gazette, 1906, page 50.) 21 p. c. F. P. ( See Police Gazette, 1909, page 382.) 5 3f fresh .. dark brown grey .. small 5 10J fresh .. dark brown hazel .. medium 26/ 9/ 11 26/ 9/ 11 Scar on left little finger. Bailed. 27/ 9/ 11 5 p. c. F. P. Photographed at Wanganui, 13/ 6/ 01. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, page 21.) 27/ 9/ 11 i p. c. F. P. Arrested 21/ 9/ 11. ( See Police Gazette, 1906, page 404.) 27/ 9/ 11 4 p. c. F. P. Photographed at Auckland, 26/ 7/ 09. ( See Police Gazette, 1909, page 340.) 5 5J 5 54 5 9| fresh .. | light brown, turning grey fresh .. grey copper., black grey . grey .. brown 5 8 fresh .. black, turn- hazel ing grey 5 5J dark .. black .. grey medium large flat medium medium 28/ 9/ 11 29/ 9/ 11 29/ 9/ 11 29/ 9/ 11 29/ 9/ 11 Small growth on back. F. P. Arrested 29/ 8/ 11. 2 p. o. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, page 419.) Scar on bulb of left thumb and on right hand. F. P. Right thumb contracted ; mole on left forearm. 5 10 fresh .. dark brown, turning grey grey .. long 5 5 dark 5 7J fresh dark brown brown grey blue medium ' medium 18815 9| copper., black 1891 6 0 copper.. black, curly brown .. medium brown .. medium Woman on left forearm ; bracelet on left wrist; British and American coat of arms on right forearm. 29/ 9/ 11 Scar on right hand ; C. L. on left upper arm ; M. E. B. on left forearm ; birth- mark on left shoulder. F. P. Photographed at Auckland, 15/ 8/ 11. 30/ 9/ 11 2 p. o. F. P. Photographed at Auckland, 2/ 8/ 11. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 363.) 30/ 9/ 11 2 p. c. F. P. Arrested 2/ 9/ 11. ( See Police Gazette, 1905, page 412.) 27/ 9/ 11 6 p. c. F. P. Photographed at Napier, 16/ 3/ 04. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 425.1 30/ 9/ 11 Heart ( faint) on left forearm ; scar on left eye- brow and near right eyebrow. F. P. Portion of fine paid. RETURN OF PRISONERS REPORTED A8 DISCHARGED FROM GAOLS DURING THE WEEK ENDED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 1911 - continued. Gaol, and Name of Prisoner. Where tried. Waiotapu— Bell, John Oscar, alias West, Ernest John Lloyd, Thomas Joseph Wellington S. C. Opotiki— Hairuba Gisborne— Hames, John .. Opotiki M. C. Gisborne S. C. Napier Metford, Herbert, alias Wilson, alias Mathews, John Sweeney, Harry, alias Walker, alias Williams Devlin, William Taylor, alias Develline New Plymouth— Tauri, alias Hori Wiri- hana, alias Teko Apa- rama, alias Tauri Poonga Wellington- Kelly, Edward Wilford Driscoll, Alexander Johnson, John Napier M. C. Gisborne M. C. Napier M. C. W a n g a n u i S. C. Wellington S. C. Wellington S. C. Wellington M. C. Sweetlove, Samuel Mathieson, Roderick Speight, John David .. Wellington M. C. .. Wellington M. C. Cain, Annie, alias Davis Moor, Peter, alias Wil- liamson, alias Mercer, alias De Marrmoor, Peter Burnside, Robert Acheson When. Offence. Sentence. Native of Trade. Born a M ' 2 tfi Com- plexion. Hair. Eyee. Nose. CO When dis- charged. 16/ 4/ 10 false pretences ( 3 ch'gs) 15/ 8/ 10 breaking, entering, and theft 26/ 9/ 11 21/ 9/ 11 assault perjury 26/ 6/ 11 theft 28/ 6/ 11 29/ 8/ 11 8/ 6/ 09 9/ 5/ 10 9/ 5/ 10 19/ 4/ 11 6/ 9/ 11 28/ 8/ 11 28/ 6/ 11 29/ 6/ 11 30/ 5/ 11 30/ 6/ 11 16/ 9/ 11 breach of a prohibition order drunkenness .. idle and disorderly drunkenness breach of a prohibition order breaking, entering, and theft theft ( 2 charges) assault with intent to rob assault with intent to rob rogue and vagabond .. indecent act .. drunkenness .. theft ( 2 charges) idle and disorderly rogue and vagabond theft obscene language 2 years on eaoh 18 months fine or 1 month 14 days and fined £ 10 convicted and discharged fine or 3 mo's fine or 24 hours 3 months fine or 14 days fine or 14 days 3 years 3 years on eaoh 21 months 21 months 6 months fine or 21 days 1 month N. Zealand Australia .. aboriginal aboriginal England .. N. Zealand Scotland .. aboriginal N. Zealand N. Zealand nurseryman labourer labourer labourer labourer and storekeeper cooper labourer labourer hairdresser labourer Sootland .. seaman England Scotland 3 mo's on eaoh Ireland 3 months .. England 3 months .. Ireland 3 months cook seaman labourer prostitute labourer fine or 14 days Ireland .. labourer 1880 1878 1890 1877 1872 1881 1870 1881 1883 1878 1873 1865 1876 1859 1853 1887 1845 ft. in. 5 8J 5 64 1 94 5 7J 5 7 5 3 5 5 34 5 9J 5 9 5 8J 5 8£ 5 3 5 7J fresh fair .. i brown copper.. copper.. fair fair sallow .. copper.. | black dark, freckled dark .. dark sallow.. | iron- grey dark . .1 brown fresh .. ruddy .. dark .. sallow .. black black light brown fair dark brown black dark brown dark grey dark brown black grey blue- gr'y medium 28/ 9/ 11 grey .. medium 28/ 9/ 11 brown .. very flat .. 26/ 9/ 11 dark br. inclined to right 30/ 9/ 11 blue medium 25/ 9/ 11 blue .. medium 27/ 9/ 11 dk. blue bent 30/ 9/ 11 brown .. broad 26/ 9/ 11 brown .. blue large, hooked large 25/ 9/ 11 25/ 9/ 11 brown . medium 25/ 9/ 11 blue- gr'y large 26/ 9/ 11 blue medium 27/ 9/ 11 light br, broken .. 28/ 9/ 11 It. blue broken .. 28/ 9/ 11 dark br. medium 29/ 9/ 11 hazel, large hooked .. 29/ 9/ 11 Remarks, and Previous Convictions. ( F. P. indicates that finger- impressian « have been taken.) 1 p. c. Scar on chin, both wrists, and left fore- finger. F. P. Photographed at Waipa, 12/ 4/ 11. ( See Police Gazette, 1905, page 265.) White mark on pupil of right eye ; deep scar on left forearm ; large deep scar on inside of left thigh. F. P. Photographed at Waiotapu, 11/ 4/ 11. Fine paid. Rose, sunflower, and scar on right arm ; large scar on left wrist and between left thumb and index finger. F. P. 10 p. c. F. P. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 281.) 4 p. c. F. P. Photographed at Auckland, 2/ 8/ 10. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, page 398.) 10 p. c. Arrested 4/ 9/ 11. Sentences cumulative. ( See Police Gazette, 1908, page 448.) 2 p. c. F. P. Photographed at Napier, 19/ 3/ 06. ( See Police Gazette, 1906, page 125.) 3 p. c. Thick dark eyebrows. F. P. ( See Police Gazette, 1906, page 257.) 7 p. c. Scar on head and left hand. F. P. Photographed at New Plymouth, 21/ 10/ 07. ( See Police Gazette, 1907, page 448.) 3 p. c. Bust of sailor and girl on right forearm ; heart on left middle finger; soar on left shoulder- blade. F. P. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 188.) Two scars on forehead; large soar on right shin. F. P. 2 p. c. Deep scar over right eyebrow ; scar on nose and left cheek. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 397.) 16 p. c. Scar on right eyebrow and left middle finger. F. P. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page281.) Several p. c. Several scars on forehead and cheeks. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 251.) 7 p. c. Scar on right cheek and forearm. F. P. Photographed at Waiotapu, 1/ 9/ 10. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, page 542.) Artificial teeth ; arms freckled ; right eye nearly blind. F. P. ft N ft > ft > « O ft i— i o ft Q P> CS3 ft H ft 00 « o KETURN OP PRISONERS REPORTED AS DISCHARGED FROM GAOLS DURING THE WEEK ENDED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 1911— continued. CJaol, end Natne of Prisoner. Where tried. When. Offance. 60 << e e o B Wellington— continued. .. ' 1 sheep- stealing Baker, John Wellington 23/ 9/ 11 M. C. Waters, Edward Wellington 22/ 9/ 11 rogue and vagabond .. M. C. Westport— McDermott, John Greymou t h 21/ 8/ 11 disobeying order of Court M. C. Marratt, John Westport M. C. 15/ 9/ 11 obscene language 19/ 9/ 11 drunkenness.. Dimick, Frank Westport M. C. 20/ 9/ 11 theft Richards, Edgar WestportM. C. 27/ 9/ 11 drunkenness Lyttelton— Cameron, Colin Christchurch 26/ 6/ 11 theft M. C. Kelly, Herbert Quirke .. Christchurch 22/ 9/ 11 wife- desertion M. C. McPherson, William Christchurch 20/ 9/ 11 theft Ross M. C. Sterling, John Cecil Christchurch 20/ 9/ 11 theft M. C. Argle, John Lyttelton 29/ 8/ 11 drunkenness M. C. theft ( 2 charges) Gilray, Francis Lewis .. Lyttelton 28/ 9/ 11 indecent assault on a M. C. male ( 2 charges) Rondeau, Richard Lyttelton 28/ 9/ 11 indecent assault on a M. C. male ( 2 charges) Stanborough, Millicent, Christchurch 17/ 8/ 10 rogue and vagabond .. alias Stanboro, alias M. C. Stanley, alias Stanbury Dunedin— Sutton, Annie, alias Dunedin M. C. 31/ 8/ 11 breach of a prohibition Moodie order Burgess, Robert, alias Dunedin S. C. 25/ 5/ 09 assault and robbery Walsh, alias Miles Invercargill— Stephen, George Peter, Otautau M. C. 19/ 9/ 11 assault alias George Pert Griffiths, John Wellington 14/ 11/ 10 breaking, entering, and S. C. theft ' 1 Sentence. Native of Trade i Horn. jHeig'ut. Com- plexion. Hair. Eyes. Nose. When dis- charged. • ft. in. 1 ! remanded England .. farmer 1863 5 8 fresh .. light brown blue medium 26/ 9/ 11 remanded Ireland rigger 1880 5 5i fresh .. dark brown blue .. medium 27/ 9/ 11 fine or 14 days N. Zealand labourer 1864 5 7i fair dark brown grey •• medium 28/ 9/ 11; Inebriates France sailmaker .. 1875 5 3 dark .. dark brown grey .. pug 26/ 9/ 11 Home for 12 months fine or 7 days fine or 7 days England .. miner 1875 5 8 dark .. dark brown grey • • medium 27/ 9/ 11 fine or 48 hours N. Zealand miner 1884 5 6 fresh .. fair grey .. medium 29/ 9/ 11 3 months N. Zealand carpenter .. 1883 5 9i fresh .. brown blue large 25/ 9/ 11 remanded N. Zealand clerk 1884 5 5 dark .. dark, ourly.. blue .. sharp 26/ 9/ 11 remanded N. Zealand bootmaker .. 1893 5 7t fresh .. dark brown blue .. medium 27/ 9/ 11 remanded N. Zealand clerk 1891 5 7 fresh .. fair blue .. sharp 27/ 9/ 11 fine or 24 hours Australia .. fireman 1887 5 54 lresh .. sandy grey .. large 28/ 9/ 11 fine or 1 month on each com'd for trial N. Zealand labourer 1888 5 8 fresh .. light brown grey .. sharp 29/ 9/ 11 com'd for trial England .. labourer 1873 5 dark .. dark dark br. medium 29/ 9/ 11 12 months Ireland prostitute .. 1840 5 1 sallow .. grey blue medium 30/ 9/ 11 7 days N. Zealand prostitute .. 1865 5 2 sallow .. dark brown blue .. thiok 23/ 9/ 11 3 years N. Zealand labourer 1882 5 IS fresh .. dark brown brown .. medium 29/ 9/ 11 remanded Scotland .. seaman and 1875 5 5 dark .. dark brown brown .. medium 25/ 9/ 11 saiimaker 12 months N. Zealand bricklayer .. 1889 5 4$ fair light brown hazel .. sharp 29/ 9/ 11 1 Remarks, nnd Previous Convictions. iF. P. indicate!; that fingiar^ impreisLon* harp been taken.) il p. c. Small scar on forehead. P. P. Bailed. pointed star on right forearm ; anchor on right hand ; two anchors and tree on left fore- arm ; faint anchor and E. W. on left hand. ( See summary convictions, this issue.) 339.) Inclined to he bald. 1 p. c. for drunkenness. 3 p. c. Photographed at Lyttelton, 16/ 6/ 08. ( See Police Gazette, 1911, page 319.) Scar on upper lip. Scar under chin. Scar over left eje and on left arm and shin. 1 p. c. for drunkenness. P. P. Photographed at Lyttelton, 25/ 9/ 11. Small white dots on both ears. Bailed. Right foot off; scar on back of head. Bailed. p. c. Arrested 1/ 10/ 10. ( See Police Gazette, 1903, page 137.) head; upper teeth artificial. ( See Police Gazette, 1909, page 177.) ' irst joint off left thumb. P. P. Photographed at Lyttelton, 16/ 10/ 02. ( See Police Gazette, 1909, page 160.) ' ull- rigged ship on breast; five dots on left hand ; TRUE LOVE, heart, and star on right forearm ; scar on tip of left thumb and side of right eyebrow. P. P. p. c. Clasped hands, wreath, and star on right arm; eyes turned. P. P. An ex- Burnham boy. Photographed at Lyttelton, 11/ 6/ 10. ( See Police Gazette, 1910, page 272.) M N > > t? O r i— i Q teJ Q > tSJ K H t- 3 H O Q