MAYOR’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2625, 17 July 1871, Page 2

MAYOR’S COURT.

This Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor and the Hon, Dr. Buchanan, J.P.) THE AII.SON CASE., On F. W. Rcichelt’s case being called on, the prisoner was duly cautioned and said he was not guilty of the charge. His Worship then gave the judgment of the Court as follows :—ln this case the Bench had deemed it to be their duty to give it the most careful consideration, both from the importance of the ease itself, from the ultimate issue to the prisoner-, and also for protection of the public. Counsel for the prosecution on Saturday had thought lit to make some remarks to the Bench as to the necessity or otherwise of weighing the evidence. Now, it appeared to the Bench—and in stating so, he was entirely supported by his friend who sat with him—that it was essential to weigh the evidence, because if they did not weigh it, he could not see how it was possible that they were to arrive at a determination whether there was sufficient evidence to send the ease before a jury or not. Without they weighed the evidence on both sides, it seemed to him to be almost impossible for the Bench to determine whether a case had been made out by the prosecution which had not been entiivly upset by the evidence adduced for the defence. In taking this view, lie thought he was fairly supported by the remarks of of Air Justice Johnston, who in one of the clauses of his work, referring to this particular matter, said : “ Nevertheless, if the evidence in support of the charge should be contradictory in itself, or should be very seriously shaken in crossexamination, and should appear to the Jus tices quite unworthy of credit—or if the evidence on behalf of the accused very ch arly, and beyond doubt, outweighed the evidence for the prosecution, the Justices would act very properly in dismissing tilt charge.” Therefore, he said, that passage alone would justify him in saying that it was the duty of the Bench to carefully weigh the evidence on both sides, in order to sc< whether it was of such magnitude as to b( sent before a jury. The evidence in the case being of such a contradictory nature, a j well as very voluminous, the Bench had been induced to defer their decision until to-day, to enable them to go through the evidence ; at that time they had a doubt on their minds as to whether the evidence was sufficient!) clear to commit the prisoner for trial. There could be no doubt that the evidence through out had been of au exceedingly contradictory nature. He did not think ic the duty of the Bench to comment upon it any length ; and he would only 7 refer briefly' to one portion—viz., to the evidence given by Messrs Marl and Boyes, who had valued the stock upon the prisoner’s premises, and that in tin Detective Office. It appeared to him that the evidence of those gentlemen was totally unworthy of any consideration. It appeared to him that for any person to state that he could value the stock ou the prisoner’s premise j as it was before the lire by what it appeared afterwards, such statement was incredible. He could not see how any person could do so. Then, again, he thought, from the time given to the examination of the stock, it was impossible to make a proper examination in such a short duration of time. That fact alone would pre vent any consi deration being given to evidence, the effect of which would be to place a man on the roads. The evidence in regard to the stock in the Detective Office was still more unfavorable. They found that one of those gentlemen valued that stock at a certain ahiouut, and placed upon it Ll2O as importing charges. By the evidence for the defence it was proved most conclusively that instead of the importing charges amounting to LI2O, they c mid not possibly .amount to more than LI;S. Apart from the skilled evidence on the point ho (the Mayor), as a business man, know it was totally impossible they could have, cost more than that. But when they found tho-e gentlemen giving their evidence in a case, where a fellow-creature’s liberty was at stake, with such an utter disregard to facts, he said that not the slightest reliance could be placed ou their evidence. Then was the other fact that one of those gentle men, when making bis valuation, had given him the list which had been made by tin first gentleman who valued—which was a very improper thing. He should not com meut any further, but simply say that tin Bench were of opinion that a prihia fach case, however slight, had been made out; and therefore they deemed it to be their duty to refer it to a higher court for furthei examination. The prisoner would therefore be committed to take his trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court. M r Barton asked that the prisoner should be admitted to bail on his own recognisance, or that a low bail should be taicen, because it was quite ruairfest he could never bo convicted. e did not believe the grand jun would stud it for trial, and certainly a com mon jury would make very short work of it. The prismer would not be fool enough not to s and his trial, and seeing from bis Worship’s remarks that the Bench, in committing

had considerable doubt whether th should do so or not—that they did so pi •bably owing to the magnitude of the_ ca :and the quantity of evidence taken in it, thought they should give his client t moral benefit of low bail. It would be moral advantage, more especially after t manner in which he bad been treated by tl Press—of which he (Mr Barton) complain very much indeed. By the Press he mea the Daily Times; he did not wish to s< anything against the Evening Star, whic with its limited space, had dealt pretty fair with the case; but the conduct of the Dai Times had been simply disgraceful rig through. Mr Smith reminded the Bench that tl amount of bail was never fixed on the prob bility of conviction, but in reference to tl gravity of the offence on which a pr son stood committed. This was : undoubted one of the gravest offences; consequent! he submit.ed the rule, which required goo and substantial bail proportional to tl gravity of the offence, should not be departs from. The Bench decided to admit the prison* to bail—in his own surety of 1,400, and tw sureties of L2OO each. 'As before, Messr Doring and London became bondsmen. DRUNKENNESS. George Pdllock and Aim Bowling were dii charged with a caution. Charles Turner wa fined 40s. John LangmuirSmith,fordiunkeii ness and habitual drunkenness, was sentence to fourteen days’ imprisonment on the first and three mouths’hard labor on the secon charge ; and Bridget Kane to similar term of imprisonment for similar offences. VAGRANCY., Thomas Parker, who, on Friday, pleadei guilty to a charge of endeavoring to obtaii goods by means of a false pretence, wa brought up for sentence. It was stated tha enquiries instituted by the police led to th< discovery of the fact that the prisoner was i recent arrival from i anterbury, and that h< had made three previous attem ts in Dun din to obtain money by false pretences. H< was sentenced to three months’ hard labor. OFFENCES AGAINST THE BVE-LAWS. Alonzo Grennan pleaded guilty to a breach of the Sabbath delegation ordinance, by conveying furniture in his, express wagon on Sunday. The case was dismissed with a caution, as were those against Patk. Lee, for having no name on his dray, and Thos. Farrell, fo driving across the footpath in Princes street, Alex. Steele was lined 10s. and costs for furious riding; Jaa. Frazer, lOs and costs for crossing a footpath with a dray; and Annie M’Dbnald, 40s and costs for neglecting to keep her premises clean.