SUPREME COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 440, 8 October 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

The Criminal Sessions of tho Supreme Court opened at Christohurcli on Monday last, before Iris Honor Mr • Justice- Joltnaton. His Honor, in delivering' Ins charge to the Grand Jury, said lie did not think there wna, either in the calendar, or indeed out of the calen':iajy anything that would suggest to him the propriety o£ making any general observations on this occasion. He was glad to say the cases were inconsiderable in number, and none of them of any special importance-

lie believed there were some 16 charges all of a tolerably ordinary character, and hardly one requiring more care than the ordinary attention at the hands of the Grand Jury. There was no question of law likely to arise on which it would be necessary for litn to address them. His Honor briefly referred to the several cases in the calendar.

Francis Haynes pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a number of articles from Mr William Brice, his employer, in the month of June.

His Honor severely commented upon the ingratitude and wickedness of the prisoner, and sentenced him to imprisonment with hard labor for two years.

Charles Batchelor pleaded " Not Guilty' to a charge of receiving stolen property from Francis Haynes.

Mr Stringer appeared for the defence

This case completely broke down, the Crown Prosecutor failing to prove the larceny by Haynes, and relying upon the admission by the latter that he had stolen

the goods,

His Honor said all that Brice proved was that he had lost goods ; but, as Mr Duncan knew well, the admission of a third party was no evidence against the prisoner. The indictment was> not drawn up in a safe way, as pointed out by several cases in the books. The law was that the admission of a principal who pleaded guilty was not evidence against a person charged as receiver. Mr Duncan miißt.have previously proved the larceny.

:■ Mr Duncan said that, under tho circumstances, he would withdraw the case.

Mr Stringer said that, lie had ample evidence to prove that the goods cam 6 quite.innocently to Batchelor, and also of continued good character.

His Honor directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, which was done, and tho prisoner discharged.

Edward Addison pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault He was sentenced to two months fiinprisonnient with hard labor.

John Leishman was charged with robbery with violence. He was undefended. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the

Crown,

After a considerable amount of evidence the jury found the prisoner not guilty.

His Honor said that the prisoner ha \ escaped through a thorough misconception as to the manner in which the prosecution had brought tho case into Court. Had the prosecution framed a count for receiving there was no doubt whatever that, the prisoner would lmvebeen convicted.

William Henry Lyons 1100 pleaded guilty to charges 'of forgery and uUering two promissory notes for dL'uJ and £30

respectively

Evidence of good char.icter was given, and Ilia Honor sentenced prisoner to imprison merit with hard labor for two years upon the two indictments concurrently.

James McDonald pleaded not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to rob.

The jury without retiring found a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.

Samuel Dobhinson was charged wit! unlawfully wounding his wife on July 11 1880.

He said he had bepn under the influence of drink, and could not say whether lie

was guilty or not

The jury found a verdict of guilty.

Sub-Inspector O'Donnell informed the Court that prisoner had three times been convicted of assault, also once for

larceny

Sergeant Wilson gave prisoner a bac character as a thorough drunkard.

His Honor expressed regret that the prisoner had not been charged with felony He was a perfect bruto, to be looked down upon with contempt by ail right feeling persons. The sentence would be penal servitude for three years. Archibald Wilson pleaded not guilty to a charge of embezzlement. lie said he had lost the money: lie did not know how or by whom it bad been taken. Mr Spademan defended him. Prisoner was in the employ of the Public Works Department, and the money which he was charged with embezzling had been entrusted, to him for the purpose of paying wages. Ho had got "on the spree," and into the company of some loose women, and the inonpy had disappeared. It had since been replaced. The jury found a verdict of guilty with a recommendation to mercy on account of previous good character. His Honor sentenced prisoner to imprisonment with hard labour for twelve calendar months. In the '" Echo " libel case, Mr Lo'jghrey applied on the part of the defendants that their recognisances might be discharged, the prosecution having been abandoned on an apology being given and accepted. His Honor directed that the recognisances of the defendants should be discharged. The Deputy Registrar was directed to see this carried out. NO BILLS. The Grand Jmy returned no bill in the casen of Ilegina v Isabella Craig Pany, attempt to commit suicide ; Regina v FC. Harrington, larceny from a dwelling ; Eegina v John Harhand, indecent assult. On Tuesday, W. P. Eyan pleaded guilty to ci charge of horse stealing. Prisoner had hitherto borne a good character, and His Honor sentenced him to imprisonment with hui;d iabor, for 12 calendar months. Regarding the case of Archibald Wilson convicted on the previous day of em-

bezzleinent, Mr Spackman informed his Honor that in the matter of this case ho was prepared with an affidavit which would, he believed, induce his Honor either to grant a new trial—

His Honor said he had no authority to grant a new trial. His Excellency the Governor alone could do that. Was Mr Spackman going, to impeach the verdict of the jury ?

Mr Spackinan had an affidavit from one of the jurymen, stating that whereas the verdict purported to have been given unanimously, in fact he (the juryman) had not consenled.

His Honor said the juryman had placed himself in a false position bp silence yesterday. It would be exempli pessimi to receive any such effilavit now. Mr Spackman submitted that the verdict had not been in accordance with the law. A long argument ensued between Counsel and His Honor, the latter asking if Mr Spackinan could produce any precedent for the course he was asking the Judge to take. He said the juryman who now made the affidavit should have had the pluck to speak at the time in open court. Mr Spademan said, the. juryman swore that he had expressed his opinion to three of lho jurymen near him. In spite of that, the foreman had given the verdict His Honor asked if the affidavit slated that the juryman had told the foreman. Mr Spackman replied in the negative. His Honor considered that the affidavit then was of no effect. Hβ could not receive it. John Murphy pleaded Not Guilty to a.charge of forgery and uttering. Mr Stringer appeared for the prosecution. , s Mr Loughrey appeared for the defence. When the jury were being called, Mr Stringer ordered one to stand aside. Mr Lotighrey called his Honor's attention (o Suction 123 of the new Act, which said that the Grown could challenge only on causo shown. : His Honor said that the Crown could order jurymen called to stand aside till the panel should be exhausted. Then if the Crown still challenge, it must be for cause shown. The new Act made no alteration of what had been the practice at common law confirmed by| statute. His Honor quoted Koscoe, showing the practice from the time of Edward I, to bo as he had just stated. The witnesses were ordered out of Court, at the request of Mr Loughrej. The evidence was very lengthy. The prosecutor, a Mr George llodcion, a farmer, had had dealings with prisoner who is <i money lender. The forgery charged was the alteration of a certain agreement after it had been signed by prosecutor by the insertion of words making the irrain of which it was the subject deliverable in Chrislchurch instead of Oxford.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at twenty minutes to three o'clock. At two minutes past throe they returned into Court with n verdict of " G-uiliy."

His Honor: Officer, don't .allow Michael Murphy or Watt, the witness, to go out of Court. There has been a deliberate conspiracy to procure evidence to get the prisoner acquitted. I am going , to consider whether I shall direct that Michael Murphy and Watt shall be taken into custody and prosecuted for perjury. After some evidence aa to character had been given, His Honor saiii that though this was a first conviction he must make it an exemplary case. He would sentence the prisoner to four years penal servitude. Mr Stringer applied for the Co3ts of the prosecution as against the prisoner. He quoted 7 Geo. IV. Ch 64, sect 22. His Honor said that the Convicts Forfeiture Act dealt with the question. After reading the clause his Honor mado an order for payment out of convict's estate of the taxed costs of prosecution. With regard to the witnesses Murphy and Watt, his Honor left the prosecution for perjury to the public prosecutor.

In a further charge of perjury againsl the same prisoner, no evidence was led and a verdict of Not Guilty was re-

turned

This concluded the business of the session and the Court rose. ,