CHRISTCHURCH CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 205, 5 July 1878, Page 2

CHRISTCHURCH CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court in Christchchureh commenced on iMonday, before his Honor Mr Justice ; Johnston. There were thirteen prisoners Ifor trial. ' .

I In charging the Grand Jury. His Honor Jsaid that he did not think there was any 'cause to apprehend that there had been iany serious influx of criminals from other countries, but, taking the whole district, including the southern, portion of it, the amount of crime was, in his opinion, disproportionate to the numbers of the population. The cases in ."the calendar not crimes committed from want,- but rather from • temptations -arising from causes which will exist in ,every community, notwithstanding the , endeavors, which may be made to remove them. . John Crowley, alias Hinks, pleaded guiity to a change ,of larceny, and also to a previous conviction. The police gave prisoner a very bad character,! and he was j sentenced to .three years' penal servitude. Einile HuskisHuif. alias liasinussen, and Arthur, Frederick Wilson were convicted !of robbery witii violence. They had been drinking with the prosecutor, Michael Leary, had observed that he had some money about him, had followed, garotted, and robbed him. Huskisson, who was an old gaol-bird, .was sentenced to fourteen years' penal servitude, and Wilson to twelve months.

J. P. Casey pleaded, guilty to escaping or endeavoring to escape from custody, and was remanded for sentence.

James Woodforcl, a schoolmaster, 58 years of age, was charged with committing a rape upon a-yonnggirl. The jury, after considerable deliberation, found the prisoner guilty, and he was. sentenced to ten years' penal servitude. Sarah Steele was charged with the murderof her son, William Steele. The theory of the prosecution was that prisoner had caused the death of deceased by means of a blow"from" a pqker. i The tnedical evidence ,of Pr Frankish, however, was to the effect , tbait prisoner could not possibly have used the force necessary to drive the iron into the boy's head, and by direction of-Hia .the jury acquitted ,the prison'eV 1 ' ■''■'■"'■•• - . -■■ .-i -'■'

0; J. '"Carter, for making a false declaration ( tp a Kegistrar of Births, was.sentenced to ten'days'imprisonment.

'William Stewart, charged with ;commit-

ting an - uimatural crime,- was acquitted, the learned Judge stating that if he had been indicted for theattempt (a* lie ought to have been) he would no doubt have been convicted.

< * *Jotin Brbivk'k.wak etfarseid with stealing from a dwelling; The defence was that the articles were not stolen, but were given prisoner as a present by prosecutor's wife. Prisoner was acquitted and discharged, His Honor, amidst (he - laughter of the Court, cautioning him against .receiving presents from other men's wives. .. Samuel Badh.um" was charged with stabbing Sergeant Hughes. In this case 'the facts were not disputed, and have, been recently reported. The weak point iri the case for' the "prosecution was that the Sergeant had gone to house and insisted on arresting him without-having a warrant in his possession. , trie offence charged (wife desertion) being only a misdemeanor, and? moreover prisoner at the timejhad returned to his wife, and was living with ; her.. Addressing the* jury, His Honor said that it was a very unwise and imprudent thing even if the law had been a great deal clearer than , it was, for the constable to' go away arid bounce these people. It'was not) worth while: to. enquire particularly into the constable's reasons ; it might have been from all 1 exalted motive of .duty. , not wigh. tp say anythjng harjsh; abquft tl|e! \>ps if -waaWery necessary that r ,cqn.stab.ies should know their legal' -and'liabilities, and that knowledge was one of the first things to be told, a constable, especially a" sergeant of police. , - fldhfe sergeantKvas.in that house a trespasser as much,as any other stranger in going tbire' to interfere with a man and his wife. An act of force was used against the prisoner; . He was assaulted, and the man had a perfect right to resist and put .the constable.out. He did not.eucceedm putting him out. A struggle took place, and then prisoner with a knife, probably which he did not go much out of his way to .fetch,, buji having this knife handy he used it against the trespasser. Now it was the question whether .they saw their

way in coming to the conclusion that this" was an excessive act—Hβ would not call it of retaliation, but of resistance under the circumstances—or whether, considering the relative powers of each man, it they , thought he could not have thrown 'hie knife away and put the constable "out without using it, they would consider his act an excess of resistance. Was the excess so clear that it waa the mere pretence for an illegal act ? The jury, after consulting for a few moments without leaving the dock, returned a verdict of " Not Guilty," and the prisoner was discharged. William Hatch, charged with having stolen property iv his possession, was acquitted. ••