SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2051, 1 December 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

This Day. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o’clock. defaulting jurymen. Mr J. M‘Kerr as, not appearing as a Grand juror was fined L 5, unless cause be shown. Messrs L. Thoneman, and R. A. Lawson, were not present when the jury panel was called ; but, subsequently, they put in an appearance, and were fined respectively 20s and 10s. William H. Pay, a petit juror, was fined 20s (unless cause be shown) for non-attendance. Thomas Kerr, another petit juror, was fined 10s. The Grand Jury, of which Mr George M'Lean was chosen foreman, having been sworn, his Honor delivered the following CHARGE. Mr Foreman, and gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—Before commenting on the cases to be brought before you to-day, I cannot but advert to the great change that has taken place in the of the Colony since the opening of the Court in December last, when I first addressed a Dunedin grand jury. The darkest cloud that ever shadowed the prosperity of New Zealand was then lowering over the North Island. From day to day tidings reached us of massacre and murder; of the abandonment of mile after mile of settled and cultivated districts to the havoc and ravage of the Maori foe. And owing to the success of the insurgent chiefs, a general rising of the Natives under the banner of the King was anticipated, to be accompanied by a simultaneous attack on all unprotected settlements ; coupled with this came an enormous war expenditure, and an unprecedented depreciation in the Home price of the great staple expo it of wool. And though, except in respect of the last two items, the material prosperity of Otago was not atfccted, ib any great degree ; there can be no doubt that it was a period or severe depression for the Colony at large—of utter ruin, for the time, to many districts. How stand matters now ? The tide of war has rolled back from every British settlement, the settlers are re-occu-pying their homesteads and re-stocking their farms, while the chiefs of the rebellion have fled before the Colonial troops, and many of their followers, convicted of high treason, are now working as prisoners on the roads of Dunedin. The successful visit of the Native Minister to the chiefs of Waikato gives a fairer omen of permanent peace than any occurrence since the commencement of the Waitara war. Moreover, the Thames gold mines will soon drive a wedge to the heart of Waikato ; and no more certain method can be devised for binding the Maori chiefs over to keep the peace than the payment to them of heavy rents for their land. Lastly, the depreciation in the price of wool has turned a large amount of capital and labor into now channels, and the result has been, during the past twelve months, an extraordinary development of the trade in New Zealand flax. In the North a large proportion of this trade will be carried on by Maoris, who are already purchasing flaxdressing machines ; and we shall find that the profitable industry thus initiated amongst them, will prove our best security against future disaffection. Altogether we may fairly hope that the Native difficulties, which have so long retarded the progress of the Colony, may soon be happily ended, and that a day of peace and prosperity may shortly dawn on both races. As the wealthiest Province in New Zealand, Otago, although she has not suffered the most, has contributed the most to the expenses of the war, and has therefore good reason to rejoice at its approaching termination, and every New Zealand colonist may well join in thanksgiving to the Almighty for the preservation of the Colony amid the perils of the past, and in prayer that under His guidance those now at the helm may steer the ship of State safely through the dangers that yet remain. Turning now to the business of the day, I am happy to inform you that there are comparatively few cases to come before you, and that none of them are of the highest importance. That which requires most legal comment is a case of perjury alleged to have been committed by one Robert Henderson, in the Warden’s Court of the Dunstan district. Perjury is defined to be a wilful false oath by one, who being lawfully required to depose the truth in any proceeding in a court of justice, swears absolutely in a matter of some consequence to the point in question, whether he believes it or not. The most important requisites appear to be these : the false oath must be taken in a judical proceeding before a competent jurisdiction, and it must be material to the question depending. In the present case it is alleged that the accused, Robert Henderson, at the trial of a cause in the Warden’s Court aforesaid, in which he was defendant, and one Daniel Moore, plaintiff gave evidence on his own

behalf, and in the course of his testimony swore that a certain dredge (which appears to have been the subject matter of the whole action) did not belong to him either wholly or in part. Iu this denial of ownership perjury is assigned. From the evidence to be laid before you, there will be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the oath was taken in the words, and before the Court alleged in the indictment ; the testimony of a single witness being sufficient to prove these allegations. But proof of the falsity of the oath must be shewn either by two direct witnesses, or by one witness supported by corroborative evidence of the strongest description ; and unless such proof be given, it will be your duty to ignore the bill. The remaining cases .are of the simplest description, and require but slight comment. There are two cases of larceny, Regina v. Thomson, and Regina v. Falser, in each of which the evidence consists of proof of felony having been committed, and of the goods stolen having been found shortly afterwards in the possession of the accused. Upon this proof the general rule will attach, that whereas the property of the man, which has been taken from him without his knowledge is found upon another, it is incumbent upon that other to prove how he came by it, otherwise the presumption is that he obtained it feloniously. In a third case of the same description, Regina v. Judge, the evidence shows the accused to have improperly entered a room where certain property was kept and to have been been found a short time afterwards with the greater part of the property in his possession. There is one case—and only one, I am happy to say—of obtaining goods by false pretences ; a simpler one than usual. The prisoner, M‘Kay, is alleged to have watched two men making purchases in a draper’s shop, and shortly afterwards to have entered the shop, and obtained the purchases in question by stating falsely that he had been sent to fetch them by the purchasers—a statement which of course constitutes a false pretence within the statute. The last case to which I need draw your attention is one of horse-stealing. It appears from the depositions in this case the accused, Sutton, was entrusted by a Mr Gillies with a horse to deliver to a third person; that he sold the horse, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use. This, under our Act, constitutes the offence of larceny by a bailee. These are all the cases to which it is necessary to draw your attention ; and I congratulate you on the consequent lightness of your duties. The jury then retired, and shortly afterwards returned into Court with some “ true bills.” They found “ true bills ” on all the indictments placed before them, except the one charging James Sutton with horsestealing. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. PERJURY. Robert Henderson was indicted for having at Clyde, on the 31st August last, wilfully oommitted perjury. Mr Barton appeared for him and asked that indulgence might be granted him, as he had only just received his instructions from the country. His Honor agreed to postpone the case, and it will be taken to-morrow morning. ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON. David Hay, alias Thomson, was indicted for having at Dunedin, on the 10th September last, stolen from the person of o. e John Duncan, the sum of Ll6 10s. He was undefended, and pleaded Not Guilty. The facts of the case are shortly these : The prosecutor, a farmer residing at Green Island, came into town on the day above mentioned. He went to the Bank of Australia, and cashed a cheque for Ll6 10s, and amongst the notes he received as change was a L 5 note, which he noticed at the time had some ink spots over the signature, and a large blot over the number. Shortly afterwards he went to the Commercial sale yards, and there met the prisoner, who was introduced to him by a clerk at the yards. Accompanied by the prisoner, he went to Mr Jago’s yard, Stuart street, to see an acquaintance named Russell. The latter, prisoner, and prosecutor, went to the Auld Scotland Hotel, where they had somo drink. At this time prosecutor had this money in a common tin match box. When the three got back to Jago’s yard, Russell, noticing that the prosecutor was not sober offered to take charge of his money, but the latter refused to do so. Prosecutor, in prisoner’s presence took L 3 out of the box, and the remainder of the money in it. Russell then tied up the box with a piece of string and sewed it up in prosecutor’s waistcoat pocket. Prisoner and prosecutar then left Russell, and went back to the Commercial yards, and from thence to the Provincial yards. While at the latter place prosecutor felt that his money was safe ; he subsequently got completely drunk, and recollected nothing until he discovered that he had lost his money, and that the prisoner was gone. was given to the police, and on the following day, Detective Farrell found the prisoner in the act of changing a L 5 note at the London Tavern, Walker street. This L 5 note was positively sworn to by the prosecutor as being part of the money he had lost. The jury, after a short retirement, found the prisoner Not Guilty, and he was discharged. OBTAINING GOODS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Dugald Mackay was indicted for having at Waipori, on the sth October, obtained goods under false pretences. He was undefended. The case was an exceedingly simple. On the sth October last, two miners, named Ready and Nalen, went to the store of Mr Joseph Cox, Waipori, and purchased some goods, amongst which were a couple of shirts, a hat, and a cap. The prisoner, who had also been making purchases at the store, was present at the time. Ready and Nalen left their purchases with the storekeeper, promising either to send or call for them. Accompanied by the storekeeper, and the prisoner who they had not previously seen, went across to the hotel opposite. In the evening of the same day, the prisoner again went to the store and asked for the goods which Ready and Nalen had purchased. He told Mr Cox that he had been sent for them by Ready and Nalen. On being further questioned he said that the latter were at the hotel opposite and were going home, and that they had sent him for their parcel. On this assurance Mr Cox gave him the parcel. It subsequently transpired that he had never been sent by either Ready or Nalen. He afterwards sold the cap, which coat 5s for Is 6d, and the hat, which cost 12s, for 3s 6d. The prisoner was found guilty. The Crown-Prosecutor stated that there were 23 previous convictions against him. The Judge, in passing sentence, observed, that if it had been the prisoner’s first offeiiQe