SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2769, 2 January 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) The Criminal Session of the Supreme Court opened this morning at ten o’clock before His Honor Judge Chapman. The names of the Grand Jury are:— Messrs Cuttcn (foreman), L. 0. Beal, R. B. Martin, Alfred Jacks on, Charles Stewart, J. L. Butterworth, Charles Nichols, John Davie, Pierce Power, W. A. Tolmie, E. C. Quick, J. A. Walcott, Edmund Smith, Charles Reid, William Hepburn, John B. Anderson, William Moody, George Miller, John M, Ritchie, The Grand Jury having been sworn, His Honor said, I am sorry to say that the congratulations which I was enabled to offer you during the last three criminal sittings of this Court I cannot now repeat; for there has been a considerable increase of crime since the last sitting. I find in March there were three prisoners, in June four, in September six ; making altogether thirteen for three-quarters of a year, whereas there are for trial now eighteen prisoners, and against one there are three indictments, making twenty oases to be presented to you. It must be recollected, however, that an additional month has been added to the present quarter, owing to . a change in the arrangements for the present year. There was no sitting in December, and therefore the calendar represents the crime for four months instead of three. A great number of the cases, so far as difficulty is concerned, are of a trifling nature, supported by the evidence of only a few witnesses, such as forgeries of small consequence, so that the sitting will not be of so protracted a character as the last, in which one trial for arson occupied eight days, and, on the jury not being able to agree, required six days afterwards. During this session, nothing of that sort can occur. Among the 'prisoners, there are six cases for offences of different kinds against the person, and the remaining fourteen are cases against property. The first case is that of John Ewing. It appears that near to where the prisoner was working on a mining claim, there was a Chinaman named Ah Chung, who was what is commonly called “fossicking” in mining Jpar'auce, or in town language “loafing” about the place under circumstances of considerable suspicion, leading the owners of the claim to believe he was bent on stealing wash dirt. He was seen to go towards a tub containing washdirt, and was, I believe, afterwards convicted by the magistrate for stealing. That, however, does not justify a man taking the law into his own hands. The mate of the prisoner caught the Chinaman, and tied him in the first instance ; but ho managed to get loose from the cords and run away, whereupon the prisoner took hia gun aud shot him, inflicting very severe wounds, which might have been dangerous, but he recovered from them. Ewing is charged with intent to do grievous bodily harm ; aud if the facts are as I have n .w stated, you will have little difficulty in finding a bill. '1 lie fact of evil intention on the part of the Gnjnaman is po excuse whatever. A man may defend hjs property, but only to the extent that is necessary for defence. Even defence of the person is not to be carried to an unjustifiable extent. If a man raises his cane to strike me, I am justified in giving him a beating to a greater extent than he beats me, but I am not justified in shooting him. The next case is that of Maria Webb, charged with bigamy. She is charged with having been married at the Roman Catholic Church, her former husband being alive. If these facts are proved, there will be no difficulty in finding a bill. I shall now have to call your attention to three cases of a nature which I am sorry to say has not unfrequently been brought before this Comt. William A. M'Leod is charged with criminally assault ing a female child of tender years—k little girl seven years old. The morning of the day on which the offence is alleged to have been, committed, the prism er was lying on Jiis bed in the school-room, when tbe little girl went to the school before school hours to fetch a book, whereupon ; the man pulled her on to the bed, committed the indecent assault, and hurt her very considerably, Wlion ahp returned home, seeing her distress, her mother questioned her. Now the statements made immediately after an offence, although not evidence, are important in the case of adults, as showing that they make a communication immediately afterwards. It is of less importance in the case of children—they may be animated by fear of punishment by their parents to withhold a statement, or by a feeling of shame ; but in this case, immediately op the mother’s questioning the child, she made the statement, Her mother sent for a medical man, aiid I believe her evidence will corroborate the child’s story. There are two bases of unnatural crime—a man named Troode is charged with this offence. I shall not go into details, as yon will heap quite enough of it. Another man nsmed M'MilJan is charged with attempting to commit an offence with a mare. The culy observation I shall make on these cases is, that, although dictated by motives of great humanity, the Legislature at home has gone too far in abolishing the punishment of whipping for certain offences. Formerly it was disgustingly common and severe. Whipping at the cart’s tail was the punishment fur perjury. It was degrading to the individual arid brutalising in its effects on the community. I think, however, the Legislature has gone too for in regard to whipping, for there is a tendency to go back again, as it has been found that whipping has proved deterrent of crimes that cannot be prevented by other punishment. Y.qu will recollect during the early part of her Majesty’s reign, various attempts were made oil her life—nojfc perijapg wjtli intent to kill. There were the cases pf Oxford, and Francis, the latter a youth of nineteen or twenty years of age, who, from mere motives of vanity, and ill regulated minds, made such attempts. It was proved in one case that there was no ball in the pistol, and in the other no hall was found. Her Majesty is so firmly seated in the throne, for she is the most constitutional monarch that has ever in Great Britain, that she can afford to treat the'crime of treason with contempt. Those .attempts' were with contempt. A Bi}l was brought ipto BaVliflimeftt, and-an Act was passed to prevpnt wliat is called Treason-felony, the punishment for wbiph is whipping : and it undoubtedly stopped it. Lord JolmKussell,in bringing the bill forward said, the punishment was degrading to a mau and to such degraded wen, degrading punish-

ment only was fitting. Now in the case of unnatural offences, I think the legislature would do well to inflict a limited number of lashes. Whipping used to be carried to the extent of inflicting one hundred, five hundred or a thousand lashes, which was equal to sentence of death. I do net know whether ray conviction will bo shared in by others, but 1 think a limited number of lashes would be so effectual in suppressing those crimes, that in all probability courts of justice would not, at least for a nivat number of years, have such cases brought before them. There is a case of wounding which arose out of a foolish quarrel about a meerschaum pipe. I may say that in this case, as in many other cases, drink was at the bottom of the matter. About the offences against property, I need not detain you. There are cases of larceny of a higher kind —one for horse-stealing, but I need not comment on them. There are only two principles I need mention in cases of larceny. When property is found in possession of another —if stolen property he must be able to account for it. Of course a petty jury must see to this —it is what is called rebnttant evidence, as it refers to circumstances which may be i xplained. There is another charge against a bailee on which I may comment a moment. Forme-ly a bailee could not be charged with stealing an article because it - was delivered to him : the element of stealing being that he takes the articles by force, without the consent of the owner. In this case the chattels were delivered to the bailee. That law is altered by statute, and taking that chattel with intent to steal is sufficient to charge the bailee with larceny. There are tluvo cases against a person for obtaining money under false pretences. I need only make one observation. A mere broken promise is not a false pretence, If a man obtains goods by saying “ I will pay on Satiuday ’’ it is not a false pretence. False pretence means a false statement of existing facts, by which a person is induced to part with property. He may say, “I am working for so-and-so on the Port Chal: era Railway,” and a shopkeeper trusts him in consequence, If the statement is untrue, it is a false pretence, for it is a false statement of an existing fact. That is the distinction between falsified promises and false pretences. Now, in all the thiee cases I think you will find false pretences have been put forward. There is one complicated case, which, as the witnesses arc few, will not keep the Court long. It a charge of setting fire to a building. A bouse with some Outbuildings attached, belonging to a flaxdresser or preparer, was discovered to be on fire. Some persons getting np early—between four and five o’clock —to walk to town, discovered it, and rushing to it endeavored to stamp it out. They then fetched the owner, and all those persons will have to be examined. The question to be decided is, was the fire the work of an incendiary at all, and did the prisoner set it on fire ? The evidence to connect the prisoner with the lire was first of all he had been heard beforehand to use threats or something that bad the color of threats. He bad a spite against Quayle, and used the expression—“l shall be glad to see his house burned down over his head some day.” Again, it appears to be a favorite mode of punishing those he dislikes, for, on another occasion, he said he should not mind setting fire to so and so’s tent in mid-day. That is sufficient to cause suspicion. Now, to bring the charge home to him. He was fund on the spot at the very time of the fire—that is while this was going on, he was seen cr ssiug a bridge in a state of partial intoxication, and lie was heard to use little expressions which tend to connect hup with the offence. Again, when lie was taken by the constable, he used expressions, which, coupled with other circumstances, may be sufficient for the jury to convict him. However, the question is whether in this case the evidence is sufficient to call upon the prisoner to answer the charge. There are two forgery oases of so inartificial—l may say clumsy—a character that I need make no comment upon them. A forged cheque was tendered to a man, living almost opposite to the bank, so that in that case the wife of the innkeeper asked to change it, after first sending to a neighbor to get the money, and failing to do so, sent it over to the bank. We do not know the answer of the manager or clerk, but he comes to give evidence that the cheque was a forgery, and that the person purporting to be the drawer had no account with the bank. The other case is pretty much the same character, such as required no invention at all. These are all the observations 1 think it necessary -to make. The Grand Jury retired, and shortly returned true bills against Frederick Hooke and Edward Troode. STEALING FROM A DWELLING. Fredtrick Hooke was charged with stealing from the dwelling-hou- i e of Mary Jackson seven pounds in money, a gold locket, a gold chain, and other trinke's. Mr Haggitt, the Crown prosecutor, stated the case, the short facts of which are, that the prosecutrix keeps a shpp for the sale of fruit and groceries in Sjtafloyd street: that she went out one night leaving the place locked, and leaving the money and jewellery in her box in bpr hedroQm.'but not taking care to fasten the window : that on her return she found her box had been broken open with a poker, which was lying there, although tbe window was closed, and in other respects there was no appearance of any one having entered the house. Suspecting the prisoner, she gave iu f ormatiaai» the police, who searched bis boxes and Ibund the articles in his possession. After short'retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty. UNNATURAL OFFFNCK. Edward Troode was charged with an attempt to commit an unnatural offence. After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict of not g.uilty, The prisoner was discharged. ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON. Charles H. 0. Robertson was indicted for having at Dunedin, on June 20, stolen a quantity pf jewellery from the person of one Win.’ Rough, miney. He was found guilty. Sentence was deferred. ‘ The Court, at half-past two, adjourned till 10 a. m. to-morrow.