SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS—THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Johnston )

Evening Post, Issue 19, 1 March 1865, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS— THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Johnston )

His Honor entered the court, which was densely crowded, at ten o'clock, when the names of the gentlemen of the grand jury were called over. Messrs. Barraud and Rhodes' reasons for absence were accepted. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury— W. Lyon, Esq., foreman ; E. Battersbee, W. Bishop, J. Carter, W. Dorsett, G. Hart, W. Hiekson, G. Hunter, A. Ludlam, E. Miller, A. Stua't, D. Riddiford, J. G. Iloldswortii, W. Tu-nbull, N. Levin, Thomas Mason, Robert Pharazyn, and J. Woodward, Esqrs. His Honor addressed the jury, congratulating them on the fact of the removal of the seat of Government, on the ground of advance of justj us t ice ; and touching on the point of the benefit that would inevitably accrue from the presence of the Chief Executive Officers, then commenced his charge. His Honor remarked that the calendar did not indicate an increase of any particular crime, it was a very diversified one. He would not enter at length, or go particularly into the chaotic mass of evidence from Wanganui in the case of embezzlement, but he would explain the law generally on this and every other case. He then, with reference to each case separately made a few remarks, entering at length on the late case of infanticide, and ere he dismissed them requested that they would, as on former occasions, take the easiest cases first. The following is a list of the cases set down for trial : — George Henry Knyvett, horse stealing ; Thomns Abbott, embezzlement; William Frank Montague Warden, false pretence? ; George Angell, arson ; John Kflly, burglary; John Thompson, attempt to set fire to a stable ; John and Lucy Starks, keeping a bawdy house ; Aretopa, feloniously stealing a post letter ; James Richardson, larceny ; Eliza Hamling and Mary Ann Griffiths, child murder ; William Payne, larceny. The grand jury found true bills against all the prisoners on the foregoing list, with the exception of Richardson. A petty jury was sworn for the trial of prisoners. It consisted of Messrs. Pilcher, Chapman, Cooper, Courcy, W. Clark, Richmond, Renner, Simmons, J. Clark, Houghton, Langley, and Martin. John Kelly was charged with breaking into the shop of Mr. Lamont, a tobacconist, at Wanganui. Mr. Izard, on behalf of the Crown, opened the case, calling the owner of the house and the policeman who caught the prisoner with his head inside a window which he had broken. A pipe, also the property of Mr. Lamont, was found on his person. His Honor re-read the evidence to the jury, who returned a verdict of " Guilty.'* He was then sentenced to undergo two years' imprisonment, with hard labor. John Thompson, a private in the 70th regiment, was charged with setting fire to a stable, the property of Mr. Thomas Kells of Wanganui. The Crown Prosecutor called Mr. William Kells, who Btated on oath that he found the prisoner lying down at the stable door, with a box of vestas in his hand, and that some hay and pieces of stick just within the door were smouldering. The jury returned a verdict of " guilty of an attempt to set fire," and the Judge, after some thought, said he woul>l decide on the sentence after reference to Lord Campbell's Act. George Angell was mdie f ed for arson. Mr. Izard prosecuted, and Mr. Borlase defended the prisoner. The first witness examined was the wife of the owner of the house set on fire, Mrs M'Laren, who stated on oath that she was awoke by hearing footsteps outside her bedroom window ; she also saw the glimmer of a light, and by it was the prisoner with a firestick in his hand. Two o. her witnesses deposed to seeing both ends of the house on fire ; and John Tetley swore that the prisonet had said to him and his wife that he would burn the house. The evideuce for the prosecution being concluded, Mr. Borlase spoke of his client's character, and said there was strong evidence to prove animosity on the part of Mrs. M'Laren. His

Honor summoned up at considerable length, pointing out the various points in the evidence, and the jury, after much deliberation, returned a verdict of *' Guilty ;" and hia Honor recorded sentence of death against the prisoner. (The Court was left sitting when we went to prpßq.)