SUPREME COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 101, 6 July 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

- Monday, July 2nd, 1877. .[Before his Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.J • The quarterly sittings of the Supreme Court at Christchurch opened at, 10 a.m. THE JUDGES CHARGE. His Honor then proceeded to deliver his charge to the Grand Jury. He congratulated the Grand Jury upon the lightness of the calendar, which, consideringthe increase of population, was one' upon which they had reason to be congratulated Neither the" number of cases on the calendar, nor the crimes committed, were such as to induce any fears of the prevalence of crime to any extent. His Honor>_ then proceeded to comment on the cases in the calender. In the case of Regina v. Adams, the Crown Prosecutor had determined not to proceed with the bill', and after looking over the evidence he (the Judge) agreed with him, as the evidence would hot be sufficient' to support the chaige. The Crown Prosecutor had also decided not to proceed in the case of Regina v. Craig, for passing a valueless cheque. The Grand Jury then retired. OBTAINING, GOODS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Elizabeth •■ Bryan ' alias O'Brien was indicted for having, on the 9th March, fraudulently obtained certain goods from one T. Kionerly, «i .Akaroa* on the pre

tenco that she had a quantity of-produce for sale. The prisoner,. who was undefended, pleaded " Not Guilty." The case for the Crown -was that the prisoner pretended to the prosecutor'that she had a lot of butter, "eggs, honey, &c, to dispose of, and the prosecutor agreed' to buy the articles at certain prices. On the strength of this'the prosecutor allowed the prisoner to take away a considerable quantity of goods—comprising drapery, &c. On inquiry being made it was found that the prisoner had no butter, eggs, or honey for sale. Mr. Duncan called the prosecutor and Mr. Pawson to support the case. His Honor pointed out that so far as the evidence went there was no proof that the prisoner had not possessed the butter. Besides this there was no evidence that the goods had not been received by the Christchurch firm, of whom Kinnerly was the agent. There was no evidence to show that false pretences had been the means of getting the goods. Mr Duncan said if the evidence of the Christen v rch firm had been taken that would only be proof of non-shipment of goods, and not that prisoner never possessed the alleged produce. His Honor said the pretence has been proved but not falsity. The Crown had to prove that it.was so, and not having done it the Court had no alternative but to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The jury then returned . a verdict of " Not Guilty," under direction of his Honor. NOLLE PROSEQUI. In the case of Regina v. Craig, uttering a valueless cheque and Regina v. Elizabeth Adams, the Crown prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi. ! HEGINA V WOOD. In this case, which was a prosecution for an assault with intent on a child of tender age. His Honor said he had examined the child as to her knowledge of an oath as required by law. He found a truly lament * able state of things. The child, though nine years of age, could not read nor write, nor could her father or mother. They never said any prayers nor did she. She had heard her father speak ot Jesus Christ but did not know who or what he was. The law stated that the requirement was that the proposed witness should have some belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, and on questioning the child on this point she said that she believed that those who weie good would go to God, whilst those who were wicked and told lies would go into,a big fire. Under these cicumstarices he thought her evidence was admissible, and would therefore allow her to go before the Grand Jury. It was certainly a most lamentable state of things to find such utter ignorance prevailing in a country like this, where the facilities for obtaining education were so great. Tuesday, July 3. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.) The criminal sittings were, resumed at 11 o'clock. - "" , ! PERJURY. Margaret Hendereon was,indicted on. a charge of having committed wilful, and corru Akaroa," on'May~4'j''iu>. der circumstances' disclosed in the evidence given below. • - .' ' • Messrs. Harper and J: S. Williams appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded " Not Guilty." The Crown Prosecutor having opened the case to the jnry, proceeded to call the following witnesses :— James Hartley deposed he resided in Akaroa, and was bailiff of the* Resident Magistrate's Court at that place. Mr Justin Aylmer, R.M., and George Scarbrotigh, J.P., presided. There was a case Watkias v. Adams. - The prisoner was called as a witness in that case, and the oath was administered to her in the usual way. By Mr Harper : Mr Scarbrough is Mayor of Akaroa. Justin Aylmer, R.M. for the district of Akaroa, and Justice of the Peace for the Colony, deposed: He was sitting on the Bench at Akaroa on the 4th May last, when there was a" case Henry Green Watkins v. Thomas Adams, which was a summons for the recovery of £40 13s 9£d. [The plaint produced]. Mr Harper objected to the production of the plaint. Argument ensued, Mr Harper contending that the book must be -produced containing particulars of the summons.- . Mr Duncan replied, and said if the wit.ness would stand down he would produce the plaint. • The last witness was then re-called, and in answer to Mr "Duncan, said that he had not got the plaint with him. The Court, addressing Mr. Harper, said it'was quite possible for him to withdraw any legal objection if he wished to do so. If not, he (the Judge) would feel it his duty to adjourn the Court, for he could hot allow what might be a gross miscarriage of justice. _ Mr Harper said that he considered it his duty to strain every point, His Honor said that the legal responsibility of "the case rested on Mr. Justin Aylmer. It was a most extraordinary thing to bind him over—a Magistrate. He had never heard of such a thing befere. Mr. Harper said that, for the present, he, would withdraw his objection. r .. -' i The case was then proceeded^witfi. Mr. Justin Aylmer continued:" He produced a copy of the jamiinons. It was the only docump»*"fbat came into the Court. • .. ' . His Honor: Did you give notice to produce the original ? • . - Witness : No. ...... Mr Duncan: They are both original, both being signed by the Clerk, and both being exactlythe same.. > The Court: Both original. Hand >c up the Statue Book Mr Malet. I will/look for myself. (After examining the in question.) There is'no such thing as two orijrinals, and no authority to, issue them. It is contarary to the laws ,of evidence to produce a copy before notice has been given to produce the,,onginal. The case came on for hearing,? . Witness. Yes, your Honor. The Court: What document did you proceed upon? Witnets: The copy of the summons returned by the clerk and the bill of particulars attached. The Court: How can a clerk return a summons upon himself.? Mr Harper: A great- deal'of this case tarns upon the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate of Akaroa, '

Witness: I have no othsr documents than those I have referred to. Tlie plaintbook is at Akaroa. The judgment is entered into that as well as the plaint, His Honor: It is a most extraordinary thing that the only documents of any value are left behind. I am not aware whether the Executive have a propei view as to the duties of Crown prosecutors,' and whether they do not think their duties go far beyond the mere conducting of cases in court. The 'Court; The question is—is there to be allowed a gross miscarriage of justice ? I am not saying one word as to the merits of the case, let it be understood. How soon could the book in question be here ? Witness: By four o'clock to-morrow ■ afternoon. »' His Honor : Is there a seal to your . Court ? Witness : No your Honor. Mr Harper : In former, perjury cases of the kind that have come to this Court, the plaint books have always been produced. His Honor : Mr Harper, I really cannot allow the case to break down in this way' for want of not having been, propely got up, as it were. I mustadjourneit.- (Looking at the copy of the plaint). What becomes of the affidavit service ? Witness; It is made on the back of the summons when the parties do nqt appear. ... ' His Honor: That may be convenient, but the question is whether it is legal. Who filled this up ? Witness: The Clerk.. The Court: Then you can't prove that this is a copy. . Witness : No your Honor. The Court: And I suppose you did not compare it with the plaints. Witness: No your Honor. His Honor : Then you ask for an adjournment, Mr Duncan. . Mr Duncan: If you . please your Honor. The Court: I wish I could make someone's pocket feel. In the meantime, it is only the public who will suffer. The same jury must of course come again. Mr Harper, intimated that he had w-hat he considered would be one : dr.:two fatal objection to take to the indictment when the whole of the evidenc was given. The case wae then proceedes with. Witness continued: The claim was, chiefly for drapery said to be supplied to Thomas Adams, of whom she (prisoner) was reputed to be the adopted daughter. She gave evidence for the plaintifE. In the course of that evidence. «he said she had never bought anything at Mr Watkins' store for herself or Mr or Mrs Adams ; that she was 21; that if Mr Watkins and son had sworn she had purchased gobds, drapery, or jewellery at Mr Watkins' store, it was false. She said she never bought any French merino or any other description of goods at Mr Watkins' store for anyone else. If she hail any of Messrs Watkins' goods, Brown and Montgomery had. brought them to her. She (witness) had - no note whatever about a petticoat. There was a black petticoat sued for. Mr Duncan : Was the prisoner's evidence .material to tlie' decision ? ■"/ The Court: That will be for me to tell the jury, Mr Aylmer." ' By Mr Harper.* I had £50 jurisdiction! It is £100 howj Mr George. fcScarbrotigh is Mayor of Akaroa. . that'of both ;of; ~m:' Mr Scafurqugh; concurred with the 'judgment.;-" The plaintiff - and defendant were' both?" represented;-by' counsel. Tlie class of- goods" supplied tothe Adams were draperies. We did riot consider these were necessaries, and therefore decided that the husband was not bound to pay for- them. There was" an-' other .reason for our judgment. The^goods had been elandesiinely. Mrs . Adams had a private arrangement with Mr Watkins to keep a separate account. Maggie Henderson was examined by the plaintiff's solicitor. The piauimffihad two ( solicitors —at oil events oneAs-aVfor the plaintifE and the other appeared'to Watch the case for |a person who resided in ■ Christchurch. \ There was only a single plaintiff and ij single defendant. The , counsel who appeared ato watch the / case" examiner}the prisoner. ,\ The Court: tyhat locos standi would' he have? J . / . Mr Harper : He appears to me to have examined her simply for the sa,fce of badgering her. ? , > / The Court: tllow came it that- you allowed a person who bad /So locus standi to examine witnesses in y<Sur Court ? ' , Witness:. He represented some ...one whose name - brptight up, and I allowed him td cross-examine 1 Maggie Henderson, as tliere was w objection op' the other side. 4 believe I asked her some questions myaelfJ I did not take the chief part in her examination. Witness here produced a portion of his notes,, among which appeared the following :—" I never gaye anything to [Mr J. Delamain. I sent lrini'a lock of my'Jhair. His age is 22. I . wks engaged, to>him. He wrote.love letters .to me." v oilid not be sure these answers were given i'u answer to--him (wit- . ness).. Could not say. to whom they were ' jjnsweted. Did not know if they were, given in answer to questions, put by Mr Inwooil or Mr Nalder. 1 The! Court: Don't you put down ,by whom; questions are asked ? I always/do. Wicness : J?o, your Honor, .1 did not upon'that occasion- ; J CVoss-examination continued: f. can't say that tlie prisoner was treated as 1 ' a hostile witness from the first. She-was called on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr Nalder was for the plamtirt, Mr Williams for the defendant, and "Mr Inwood represented Mr Montgomery. I don't know/ that the prisoner was cautioned, or /told that her evidence was going to be discredited.' * Mr ' Harper: Will you" charge, your memory and look at your-notes, and fell me whether Margaret Henderson was ever asked the question, whether she bought a petticoat for Mrs Adams ? .' '' Witness: Xcan't answer the question. I have no note-isf it.. __ ".- I think Watkins was the only .rone whq . said she. had bought this petticoat, I dqn't ; think her attentiou was directed to? 'tnia- - petticoat. The item on the bill of partitiu- t ? lars is—?' black satin petticoat, 45b.V Mr Watkins admitted in his evidence that h&~' kept Mrs Adams' account private so that > the husband "should not know. That was. the conclusion the Bench arrived at) when they gave a verdict for the defendant. ' Henry Green Watkina'deposed he a storekeeper at Akarpa* . On -May '4 last he had a casein, thftßesident, Magistrate's Court af that place, against Mr Thomas Adams J Among-the articles sued for was a black satm .petticoat, which was delivered • to the prisoner on July 12, 1876.' It was bought by her for her m,a.. ShS. came to the, stoic on that day and asked witness if

he had sold the satin petticoat that her ma had taken home with her. Witness replied in the negative when the prisoner said, " Then ma wants it." ' He then gave it to her. The price had been previously asked by Mrs Adams. Cross-examined by Mr. Harper: The bill produced is not in my handwriting, but is the writing of one of my sons —the same one. .My son assists me in the store, and has access to my books. He is about 18 years old. His Honor here pointed out that whereas the witness had sworn that the petticoat was sold in July, 1876, it was shown in the bill of particulars to have been sold in 1875.' Elizabeth Maria Watkins, wife of the last witness, deposed: She remembered July 12,1876. On that day the prisoner went to her husband's store. She said to Mr Watkins, "Ma wants to know if you have'sold the black satin petticoat she had to look at before." The article was not sold, and Mr. Watkins gave it to her, and she took it away with some other goods. Mr Duncan : This is the case. The Court: Do you mean to say you don't intend to ask for an adjournment. Mr. Harper : 1 shall oppose an adjoum**ment. The Court: Ido think that perjury is so grave an offence that I should not be doing my duty to the public or vindicating public justice if I did not grant the adjournment. The case was then adjourned till 10 o'clock on Thursday, the prisoner being liberated on the same bail as before. ASSAULT WITH INTENT. George Woods was charged with having attempted to commit a capital offence upon a little girl named Petra Peterson, aged nine years, at Akaroa on April 8 last. In this case the little girl and the prisoner lived close to each other at Le Bon's Bay, near Akaroa. A number of witnesses were examined, and left very little doubt of the prisoner's guilt. In his defence, the prisoner called God to witness that he had never injured the child. After a brief deliberation the Jury found the prisoner " Guilty." After commenting on the enormity of the offence, the Court sentenced him to 12 calendar months' imprisonment. *• , fWe learn by telegram that the hearing of the case of the Queen v. Margaret Henderson, for perjury, was continued th|s morning at 10 a.m. The evidence was concluded at eleven. The jury then retired, and after an absence of half an hour, brought in a verdict of ■ Not Guilty." The Judge administered a severe caution to the prisoner, and then dismissed her.]