SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Session.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 441, 9 June 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Session.

FRIDAY, JUNE 9th. (Before Ilia Honor Sir George Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.)

The criminal sittings of the Circuit Court were resumed this morning. His Honor took hi 3 seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock.

Pehjury.— William Percival, tried the previous day for tlu3 offence, was again brought up. The jury had been locked up all night, having been unable to arrive at a verdict before the Court adjourned on Thursday evening.—The Registrar having called over the names, asked the Foreman whether they had been able to aijree.—The Foreman then announced that they had come 1o im asreement, and found the prisoner guilty, but they had also agreed upon an addendum to be submitted for the consideration of his Honor the Judge. The Foreman read the following :—

"But the jury are of opinion that tho prisoner is- deserving of mercy, on acccount of

the non-compliance on tiie part of the Bank of New Zealand, ■when requpsled to produce the cheque in question ; especially taking into consideration the length of time that elapsed from the date of the cheque b ing drawn tind the date of proceeilinfis in the Resident Magistrate's Court against the bank.—Signed on behalf of the jury. James Borley-(fore-man.") —The prisoner was challenged in the usual way, and asked what he had to say why the judgment of the Court should not be passed upon him.—The prisoner snid that he did not wilfully swear a falsehood.—His Honor said there were no objections that could now be taken, except objections to what must appear in the record. Advantages could be taken of anything that might appear by writ of error. There was therefore no reason why there should be any delay in passing upon the prisoner the sentence of the Court. (Addressing the prisoner.) " William Percival, you have been found guilty of the offence laid to your charge, after the most anxious deliberation on the part of the jury, and after giving proof of a most conscientious desire to arrive at the truth, they have found themselves constrained to find you guilty. I entirely agree with that verdict. Ido not see how, consistently with the evidence before them, they could have arrived at a different conclusion. Although the sentence which the Court feck it to ba its duty to pass, will not bo for any long duration of time, yet we know that the punishment by imprisonment and hard labor does fall much moro heavily and painfully on particular individuals. This may in some ca»es be considered. But the olfcnco of which you have been found guilty though perhaps of frequent occurrence, is yet one for which prosecutions arc extremely rare. It is however an offence which'pollutes the very fountains of justice. It is upon witnesses that courts of justice, in all its branches of judicature, must depend, not merely for the testimony to the truth, but for the protection of the property and sometimes even the lives of individuals. There are circumstances in this particular case which make it impossible for ire to pass" upon you a very lenient sentence, notwithstanding the position : you may have previously occupied. Formerly | it was thought sufficient to punish tho offence \ with the infliction of fine and imprisonment,' but in modern time the law has been altered and the punishment is now made to include imprisonment and hard labor. There are indeed, certain ,: classes of offences particularly mean and insidious in their nature. Tor my part Ido believe that if you had forged a bill of exchange, and so endeavoured to obtain this money, your offenca would not have been of a more aggravated kind than thut of which you now stand there convicted. Knowing that you had no clsim to this money against the Bank of New Zealand—you did not in a moment of embarrassment not merely sign a cheque in the hope by that means of relieving 3 our immediate necessities,—but you sat down and deliberated upon the endeavour to make a court of justice the instrument by which you carried into practical effect your intention. Under these circumstances, seeing that it .is upon deliberation that the gravamen, of an offence de-* pends, the Court feels bound to pass a sentence of some severity : tho sentonce of the Courfc, therefore, upon you ia that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for the term of twelve calendar months."—The result was scarcely expected after' tho division in the jury announced by the foreman the previous evening. The prisoner appeared not less surprised than others. He bowed his head two or three times, and was then re moved by the gaolers.

Public .Business.—His Honor said he felt bound to discharge the jury for a short time to refresh themselves: The case of Muirhead was fixed for hearing that day. He had some dpubt whether ho could qbtnin a separate jury for. that case, which, from the nature and imv portauce of it, must last some time. It mighty therefore, be, for the convenience of the Crown, and for all parties, if Muirhead's: trial should bo postponed until Monday. The trial for the murder at Eangiawhia was, therefore, fixed for Monday morning, and the Court adjourned to one o'clock.

Breach of Aems ' Act.—Charles Barley was arraigned upon,an indictment charging him with a breach of the Arms Act, 1860, the Arms Act Continuance Act, 1861, and the Arms Act Amendment Act, 1869, by selling arms to natives at Katikati, on the 25th of December last, two pounds of gunpowder, three pounds of shot, one box of percussion caps, and twenty rounds of rifle ammunition. —Mr. Brookfield conducted the prosecution for the Crown. Mr. MacCoi'miek defended the prisoner.—Erom the statement of the counsel for the prosecution, it appeared that the prisoner resided at Katikati about Christmas last. It came to tho knowledge of tho authorities that arms were fre* quently sold to the natives. Ifc was found upon inquiry that the prisoner had sold a quantity of gunpowder, shot, percussion caps, and rifle cartridge to a native named Tupara. The quantities are set out in the indictment and stated above. Jt turned out that this Tupara was a Hauhau native, thut he was in the immediate employment of the Maori king, as king's messenger, and that had been in opposition to the colonial authorities.—Mr. Brook-' field said he had considered ■ seriously whether the -evidence would not sustain a much more weighty charge, for the Act provided that a person who sold warlike stores to persons in arms against the Queen were guilty of a capital felony. He -thought it possible that the prisoner might not have known the character of the persons to whom ho sold these articles, and refrained from drawing up an indictment which would, if he wore convicted under it, render him liable to the heaviest punishment. Ho would produce evidence of the guiltyknowledge of prisoner in the possession of these warlike stores, for they were found by the detective department of the Armed Con stabulary concealed in different parts of his house. Various articles were found, some of them concealed in a cask of maize or corn. The native who would give evidence lived at Wakatnarama, a day's journey from Katikati.— The first witness called was Tupara,who said that he arrived, with some other pensons (native), at the prisoner's house. Asked him if he had some powder. He said he had some powder, and sold him some. Witness identified tho articles produced, and^aid that he gave the prisoner £'3* for them. WiLness said he was a King native. In cross-examination by Mr. MacCormick, ho wa3 particularly outspoken. Ho said he was a Hauhau, that he would fight the pakeha, that he wa3 in the fight at Whakamarama. .After the fighfc he went to Tokangamutu, where he lived for three years. He admitted they sometime had' conversation of Todd's murder. Witness came in a boat. Prisoner kept a pub-lic-house and store at Katikati. Witness and companions did not drink anything. They came to his house by boat. (Left sitting.)