SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3006, 17 February 1917, Page 14

SUPREME COURT

GUILTY Oil NOT GUILTY?

"A CURIOUS .VERDICT"

The criminal sessions of tlie Supreme Court .were concluded yesterday. 11l the case of Charles Henderson, who was re-tried 011 three counts alleging that lie assaulted "William Fitzgerald, the jury, after a three hours' retirement, brought iu the following verdict:— "We unanimously find the apcused not guilty on the first and second counts, but we do find him guilty ,on the third count, that of common assault. We aro also unanimously of opinion that Charles Henderson did find Constable Fitzgerald in the act of committing adultery with his wife, such, act beinf? sufficient provo-' cation for the assault." His Honour discharged the jury, and then remarked: That may raise a question for the Court of Appeal. Mr. Meredith (Crown Prosecutor): I take it the finding of the jury is tantamount'to this, that the accused is guilty on the third count. His Honour: And the jury express their own opinion as to provocation. Mr. Meredith: Their opinion that the act was committed under' those circumstances, which would be circumstances that Your Honour ■would take into consideration in the question of -punishment. His Honour: I don't know thnt it would be quite satisfactory to deal with it now, as I may have to Tefer, to the Court of Appeal. It seems to, me that it is a verdict of guilty on the third count, subject to that expression of opinion. I don't know whether you have anything to say, Mr. Jackson. Mr! Jackson (counsel for prisoner): I haven't very much to say, Your Honour. TTis Honour: That is the verdict I have told the jury I thought ensued from Henderson's own version of the case. Mr. Jackson: It really appears to me a verdict of not guilty. ■ His Honour: But the jury say it is a verdict of guilty; and they express their opinion; , „ Mr. Jackson: "Such an act. in onr opinion, being sufficient provocation for the assault." His Honour: "Provocation," but not "justification." Mr. Jackson: It is a curious verdict, Your Honour. His Honour deferred sentence, stating his intention to consider whether it was necessary to refer to the Court of Appeal. Henderson released on bail, and ordered to appear before the Court 011 February 2G.

s CIVIL SITTINGS. CASES FOR HEARING. In the Supreme Coui't yesterday His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman fixed the civil list as under. Unless it is otherwise stated, the eases v/il bo heard before a Judge alone. Saturday, February 17 (before a com T moil jury ot 12).—William James Huston v. James Mouutsteplien, cltim for .£5Ol, damages for injuries. Monday, February 19.—Hamilton Gilmer v. Public Trustee, dissolution of partuershii) and accounts. Tuesday, February . 20.—William _ Edward Tin'.iiiings v. Eva Catherine Ivey, specific performance. Wednesday, February 21 (before a common jury of 12). —In divorce, Harry James Sivrgo v. Minuio Spargo and Thomas Walker, dissolution of marriage. Thursday, February 22 (before a corn? m'on jury of 12).-rllichard Wright v - N:Z. Shipping Co., claim for/J!501, damages for injuries. Friday, February 23.—1n divorce, lloracs liupert Maybury ■v. Annette Maud Maybury, dissolution of marriage. ,Saturday, February 2-1 (before a common jury).—ln divorce, John Henry Pearson v. Dorothy Puarson an<l Harry Wiggins, dissolution of marriage. Monday, February 2(l.—Benjamin lewis v. P. Ilayinan and Co., claim for oiMJOO for alleged breach of contract; counterclaim for J2(i2 for moneys allegedly received. . ' Tuesday, February 27 —Eliwibeth Mary Fuller v. John Henry Hooper, claim for possession, etc. Wednesday, February 2S.—Arthur Cyrus Mason v. George Greville Bridges and another, declaration, etc. Thursday,' March I.—Undefended divorce cases as under: —Jane Neville Toy v. Alfred Toy, dissolution; Let i tin Lindsay Coulson v. Wilfrwl Coulson, dissolution; Joseph Boucher v. xHorerce Boucher and Artinir Stephen Durling, dissolution; Edith MacTiier-son v. Jolir, MncPherson, dissolution; >Uice Thomson v. John Bain Thomson, dissolution; Violet Marshall v. Geo.s'e Horace . Marshall, dissolution: Constance J T eletm Kendal Wilton v. Clarence Arthur Wilton, disso'uh'on; Ethel Whitfield v." Angus William Creo Whitfield, dissolution; Augusta Daisy Brian v. Leo Augustus Brian, dissolution; Elizabeth Jlutoliii'son v. Joseph Pickering, nullity; Charles Ausustus Lloyd v. ,Tnn» Lloyd and A. Lynn, dissolution; Willi-im 0-car Cochrane v. Maud May Cochrane, nullity.