Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Invercargill.

The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened jesterday before Mr Justice Williamq who congratulated the Grand Jury on the lightness of the calendar. His charge was mainly devoted to three cases of perjury, in dealing with which he sdd no questions of law were involved, bit the facts were peculiar. It appeared that soma time ago one McAuley laid an information for assault against one Meikle. At the hearing McAuley swore that he bad been assaulted by Meikle ; at the same time Meikle and one Garria swore positively that no assault had taken place. The Magistrate believed McAuley, and Meikle was convicted. McAuley afterwards laid an information for perjury against Meikle and Garrie in swearing that the foimer had not assaulted him, and in consequence they wore committed for trial. Meikle in his turn laid an information against McAuley for perjury for swearing that he had been assaulted, and McAuley was also committed for trial. They had thus throe charges before them. He need hardly point out the absurdity of finding all three guilty. If they believed McAuley swore truly they would find the others guilty, and if they believed Meikle a.id Garrie, they would find McAuley guilty. What he suggested was that before bringing in a bill against either they should hear the evidence in all three cases and then decide, although they could hardly find a true bill against all three ; still it might happen t iat they might think that the evidence was so contiadictoiy that it would be extremely improbable that a patty jury would convict in either case. If they thought so it would be competent for them to ignore all the bills. The Grand Jury then found true bills against William Miller, attempted suicide; Francis Mariaoo, manslaughter; and T. J. Hoare, forgery. In the case of Miller his Honor did not pass sentence, but discharged prisoner on hia own recognisances of LSO. Accused said he had been driven to the act through drink. Frank Marisco, for manslaughter, was discharged, and ordered to come up when called on. T. J. Hoare, for forgery, received two years with hard labor. Charles Sutherland, for cutting and wounding at Queenstown, was discharged, no true bill being returned.

The Grand Jury found erne bills against John Meikle and James Game for perjury, and no bill against McAuley for that offence arising out of the same case.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18841210.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1401, 10 December 1884, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
399

Invercargill. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1401, 10 December 1884, Page 2

Invercargill. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1401, 10 December 1884, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert