SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2395, 5 December 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tills Dav. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) His Honor took his seat on the Bench at ten o’clock. The Grazid Jury was composed of the following gentlemen:—Messrs E. T. Collinson (foreman), M'Neil, T. Redmayne, A. Peymau, E. Menlove, W. 0. Ball, J. T. Chaplin, Gibson, J. T. Wright, C. R. Howden, W. Guthrie, G. Matthews, Forrester, W. Scoular, and E/Smith. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury, said : Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—On the two former occasions I was enabled to congratulate the Grand Jury and the country at large upon the very smad amount of crime presented for trial before the Supreme Court. I am sorry to say that on this occasion I cannot repeat the same congratulation. The prison l rs for trial during the last two sessions numbered only seventeen in all- eight on one occasion and nine on the second. I believe altogether there are sixteen or seventeen indictments preferred before you on this occasion. I am sorry to say also that the increase consists for the most part of crimes either of violence or of a grievous character—crimes of the ordinary kind against property being about the same as on the last occasion. There is one charge of rape. The prisoner is charged with committing a rape upon the person of a girl 13 years of ago. I need hardly remind you that the evidence of the victim is sufficient to justify the finding of a true bill by the Grand Jury and a verdict by the petty jury. There is one circumstance connected with this case I think I ought to notice. If the girl’s evidence is believed it is ample to find the prisoner guilty, and to justify you in returning a true bill. Generally on them occasions one of the tests of veracity is whether the victinj. made any communication soon after the alleged offence, In the case of a grown-up women, if there is a concealment of the matter for a week or more, it is always a circumstance left to the jury to say whether they believe the witness or not. In this ease no communication w’as made by the girl to her parents for something like a fori night. I think you will agree with me, in the ease, of a child of tender years, the same rigid rule which is usually submitted to petty juries ought net to prevail in this case. It seems that the child was threatened by the prisoner, with a pistol in his hind, that, if she told, he would murder her. That alone wquld lie quite sufficient to operate upon her mind so as to prevent her making the communication immediately. However, at last she did make a communication. I think there is quits sufficient in her testimony to justify you in finding a true bill, and pro-

bably sufficient to justify a petty jury in convicting. The next case to which I shall call your attention is one of manslaughter. This indictment is framed, 1 believe, upon a coroner’s inquisition— upon the finding of the corn or’s jury. The coivuor’s jury appended to the r finding their opinion that the prisoner had no intention to kill the deceased. I think that is pretty evident. It occurred at an ordinary fight—what some of the witnesses call a fair stand up tight. The men had some dispute arising out of money matters, and turned out to fLht; one stripped, the other taking off his coat. After fighting for a sh >rt time, the deceased fell, and it seems that, from some peculiar com lit ion in his constitution, the fall was fatal to him. It may turn out to be not a vgry grievous offence; nevertheless the law must be vindicated. The rule of law in these cases is that when death ensues in the prosecution of an unlawful act, the person charged with that unlawful act is guilty of manslaughter. I need hardly tell you that fighting is an unlawful act; if death ensues in the quarrel, even in what the vulgar call a fair fight, in the eyes of the law it is manslaughter. When the circumstances comedo a petty jury, this circumstance may justify a very lenient punishment. That, however, 1 cannot anticipate at present. Still, so far as you are concerned, if you believe the witne-scs, and that death resulted from the quarrel, it will be your duty to find a true bill. There is also a charge against a Chinaman for wounding another Chinaman with what is called a chopper or axe. It seems these two men had quarrelled about money matters —one seized the chopper, and gave the other very severe wound?. It turned out that these wound* wore not ultimately of a serious character. But you will have the surgeon before you, and he will tell you from the nature of the wounds—one having fallen on the shoulder—that had that blow fallen ou the head the result would have been fatal. However, fortunately both for the victim and the prisoner, it has not turned out fatal. Therefore the charge of wounding comprises various intents, probably intent to do grievous bodily harm amongst the rest. There is a case of attempting to commit an unnatural offence, but of it you will hear quite enough, as will we in Court; I shall, therefore, make no emment upon it. The prisoner was watched by a policeman, and it is upon his testimony that he is charged here to-day. The next case to which I shall call your attention is that of Airs Boulton. It is certainly one of the most extraordinary cases I ever heard of ; I have no recollection of any* thing at all like it. She is charged with the common law misdemeanor of disinterring a dead body. The circumstances are peculiar. A neighbor was called in to see Mrs Boulton by her husband. The husband stated to the neighbor or woman that his wife was very bad. When the woman went in she saw Mrs Boulton lying on her bed—apparently suffering—complaing at all events, and on the floor lay the body of the child. The body of the child had a black and discolored appearance, and the woman soon ascertained that it was dead; it was quite naked, and she took a towel and wrapped up the body in it. The woman said she had recently been delivered of the child. Another woman better acquainted, or who had seen Mrs Boulton more frequently, gave evidence that she for her part does not believe that Mrs Boulton was ever iu the family way, This occured on the Saturday, and on the following Monday Mrs Boulton was examined by a surgeon. That surgeon will swear that she did not give birth to a child. The child had been slipped into a box and put into a hole. There was some suspicion about this, and the child was taken out of the hole, and delivered into the charge of the police. It turned out that it was in a state of decomposition and had been dead for some time. Now the surgeon recognised the bo iy of the child as that of a child upon which an inquest had been hu Id some seven or eight weeks before. A post mortem examination had been ordered, and this witness had thc'conduct of the examination. He recognised the wound he had then made in the child’s throat, and the stitches made in sewing it up. When the grave was searched it was found that the child was gone. These arc the circumstances—wnat motive the woman could have had for this it is impossible for us to dive into. These are the circumstances upon which you are asked to find a bill, and upon which a petty jury will be asked to convict. The question here arises—the child was found in her possession —how does the child get into her possession? The grave is found violated : who violated

it 7 I jig presumption is itgau vno pcrbuii ju possession the body is fourd It is competent for her, however, to rebut it by other evidence, but the law calls upon her to explain it. There is also a case of perjury, in which the evidence, though long, appears to me to be simple in its character. The prisoner is one Schmoll, a German. It appears he had been engaged building a null at Otepopo, and had entered into money transactions with two men residing in the neighborhood. One of these men had sold him up, and he charged these two men, Graham a d Cooper hy name, before the magistrate with having instigated him to hum down tho mill for the sake of defrauding an Insurance Company, and he is now charged upon their evidence with perjury in having stated upon oath what he had and they allege that they never instigated dim. The only point f think it necessary to mention is this. In a case of perjury an oath is not to convict. As a general rule, in ordinary cases it is, hut the law considers in a case of perjury oath against oath does not entitle a jury to decide ; therefore the law says there shall he some other convincing evidence—documentary or otherwise which shall turn the balance against the accused : that is to say there must be something more than oath against oath. In this case there is the evidence of the two men, and some other circumstances which will ho brought before you. I believe there will be no doubt in your minds upon the propriety of finding a true bill; whether the evidence is sufficient to justify conviction before a petty jury is, another matter. I need haidly remind you your function is simply to enquire whether there is a sufficient case to call upon the accused to answer ; and if you find t-iere be, of course a bill must be found. The other nine prisoners, avainst whom there are indictments, are charged with offieuces against property. There is one case which appears to be an extensive case of sheep stealing. Tv oof the persons charged were watched driving the sheep ; the evidence against the rest will turn upon finding upon their prem ses or in their possession a great number of sheep-skins, which will bo identified not only by the marks upon the skin, but by some ear-marks. Another suspicions circumstance connected with the case is that mutton was found concealed under one of their beds. Of course to find mutton

upon a digger’s premises prima facie leads to no inference against him if the mutton is hanging up in the ordinary way ; but in this case the mutton is found wrapped up in a towel under abed.—(llis Honor then proceeded to explain the remaining cas“B.) MANSLAUGHTER. John Burke was indicted for having, on the 16th October last, killed one John Milward. The facts of the care are shortly the e. On Saturday, the loth October, the deceased and the prisoner, who were mates, were krinking together-at a public house at Dooley’s Creek, twenty miles from Cromwell, kept by a man named Edwards. They had a dispute about some gold, which had been previously sold by the deceased. The latter said the prisoner had not acted rightly by him, and afterwards accused him of having robbed him. Nothing further took place that day—they slept at the same place that night, but the next morning quarrelled again about the gold. One of them—it was not clear which—.said ho would punch the other’s nose. However, immediately on this being said, prisoner began to strip to his skin. The deceased went into the house, where the other challenged him to go out and fight. Deceased went out, taking otf his coat. After fighting for about 10 minutes — iu apparently a perfectly fair manner —no advantage being taken on either side—in fact, on the contrary, the prisoner had the worst of it—prisoner and deceased fell together. the latter being underneath. Prisoner's knee being up, deceased fell upon itand hurt himself. Deceased on getting up, made for the store, and in passing it told one of the witnesses he was hurt. He took to his heel, and shortly afterwards requested to be taken to an hospital He was then taken to Franktown, where he arrived on the Monday, and lingered until the following Thursday, when he died. Death resulted from rupture of the bladder, caused by his fall during the fight. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. RAPE. James Muir was found guilty of indecent assault, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment* CUTTING AND WOUNDING. Ah Sing was found guilty of this oflenco, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The Crand Jury found no true hill against William Dnnsford for horse-stealing James M‘Donald pleaded guilty to utter- • ing a forged cheque. Remanded for sentence.