SUPREME COURT. — Criminal Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 282, 5 December 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. — Criminal Sittings.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5,

[Before His Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.]

The quarterly session of the Circuit Court, for gaol delivery, commenced to-day.—The following gentlemen were called to serve on the Grand Jury :—Reader Gilson Wood (foreman)i Thomas Henderson, William Thorne Buckland, James Farmer, Andrew Wardrop, William Crush Daldy, Joseph MeMullen Dargaville, William Baker, Allan Kerr Taylor,. Robert Wynyard, James Bpke . Charles Roskridge, James Walmsley, Thomas Paton, Walter Graham, John Langster Maofurlane, Albert Betham, James Dilworth, Robert Scott Maturin, GeorgeMannerMitford, Josiah Clifton Firth, Benry Gilfillan, and Richard Field Porter. THE CHAKGE. His Honor in addressing the Grand Jury stated that the list of cases was not num. rous, nor of a serious character. This was the more gratifying, considering "the state o' general depression botli commercial and agri cultural. It was also to be observed ihat many of the crimes were committed, not by those who might be regarded as settlers in the country, but what would be styled in England the criminal classes, to whom, by firm administra'ion of the la*,' the place miuht he made n most undesirable residence. If, as he believed, both grand and petty juries v ill faithful y perform the functions of their several offices, conviction would follow the commission of crime with such an amount of certainty as to check such offenders in their career. There were in the calendar two charges of embezzlement, one of which would require, from the Grand Jury, more attention than ordinary. He referred to a charge against an officer of the Government, for embezzling proceeds of stores. The evidence to be submitted showed receipt of the money, non-accounting for certain sums when asked regarding them, and false statement of account, <o establishing a clear prima facie case. The other was against a man named Johnston, and did not I appear to rest on so convincing evidence. ) There did not appear to have been any false I accounting from employed to employer, nor I any statement of the eircimstanees under ' which the accused had left his employment. IHe had been in the employment of Messrs. Banks, as their traveller, and had been re-c-iving money for goods supplied by that firm. He received moneys from various customers for which he did not account. The mere non-uccounting for money received in the service of another did not justify a true bill being returned for embezzlement ; but it might appear that the failure to account and its frequent recurrence was surround 'd by such circumstances that it arose from his desiring simply to appropriate to his own use. In such case a true bill should be left to the Oourt to deal with the details of evidence. The accused appeared to have received from one customer various amounts, and to have paiu over certain portions of tlie money, but not the whole amount on any occasion. It was for the jury to say if this was a wilful and fraudulent retention of his employer's money, [fa man receved £20 for his employer and paid over only £13, retaining £7, it w>is for the jury to lind whether that was an appropriation to his own use. If this should be the complexion of the case, the jury would not have much difficulty, anc would return a true bill against prisoner. Of course, if not satisfied that there "was a fraudulent appropriation, they must ignore the bil!. There wasii charge against oneCoffey for breaking and entering and stealing from a warehouse. Entry had been effected through a side and inner door ; but that would be a sufficient '• breaking and entering" to sustain the indictment. Of offences against the person there was a charge against, apparently, a Spaniard, of si abb ng one Williams. He would probably bo indicted tor the intent to do grievous bodily harm. . No great injury had been done. It was sometimes the duty of a jury lo find a true bill, when no serious bo iiy harm bad actually been effected. The facts of this case were plain. There was a charge of " forcible entry." Th"cc persons were charged with violently taking possession of premises in possession of unoiher, by force, and without lawful authori y. No mun could assert his right by force, not even a landlord, but theju'-y must be satisfied ih»fc on that some uiiusuhl appliance had been used. If the evidence was irue, such a degree of violence was used as would satisfy the charge of forcible entry. Time persons had c~>me to the pace ; two of them proceeded with a piece of wood to break open the door, and one gave order? ; and ihe wife of prosecutor was turned out of the house. Such acts veoiil i supply grounds for their finding ati ue biil. The party taking no part in the proceedings but issuing orders was an actual purticipator in tlieir doings. The case was »he first of the kind brought before the Grand Jury. There was another case requiring consideration —a charge of manslaughter against a man for causing the death of an infant by his loaded dray. His Honor, at some length, detailed ihe law constituting manslaughter. The questions for the jury were — first, what was the cause of death ; second, was the prisoner the person driving ? It would be well to consider also wa3 the prisoner demeaning himself so that his negligence showed him guilty of the crime. Medical evidence would show that the dray could hardly have gane over the body of tho child, but may have crushed it into one of the numerous ruts in the place. After briefly commenting on a few other cases, His Honor requested the jnry to retire and consider the bills.

(Left sitting.)