SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3083, 6 January 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION.

This Day. {Before M r Justice Chapman.)

The quarterly session of tfce Supreme Court, for the despatch of criminal business, was opened this morning at ten o’clock. The following gentlemen were sworn the Grand jury:— Messrs G, Turnbull (foreman), C Ziele, P. Barker, S. Collinson, Jas Curie, T Dick, G. Herbert, J. W. Hutchison, F. IT. Irwin, T. W. Kompthorno, H. Law, I*. A. Low H. M‘Neill, R. Oliver, R. Paterson, A. FT. Shury, 0. Stewart, J. T. Tame, an 1 James Wilkie, senr. His Honor addressed the Grand Jury as follows : . Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jur/,- I have often, I am happy to say, had occasion to commence addressing the Grand Jury with apparently the common-place sentence, which, however, I shall never be tired of repeating, and I am sore you will never he tired of listening to, “ I congratulate the Grand Jury, and through them the country, on the moderate amount of crime in proportion to the population.” There are only live cases set down for trial this session, which is about the general average for the last year. I think, during the last year, there have been thirty-three or thirtyfour cases tried at Dunedin. There were a few cases tried by the District Court Judge; but we commence the new year with only five cases, I think it a good commencement for the new year. Most of those cases are of the ordinary nature. There is, however, one case which I am always sorry to see on the calendar —an assault on a female child of very tender years —a child of nine or ten years of ago. .Some of you may, perhaps, recollect that, about eighteen months or two years ago—l do not exactly remember the time—l mentioned to the then Grand Jury, ami probably some of you were on it, that, for crimes of that desorption, my own opinion w,as in favor of the punishment of hogging. Other measures have been tried without effect: but flogging has been tried in England, and the consequence lias been to nearly put an end to this class of offences. The men who are guilty of attacks on ymmg children, and such like crimes, are not amenable to the principle of shame; they do not feel the offence to be an offence. 'They are taken to gaol and they are fed at the pubHc expense. But they aie amenable to the feeling of pain upon their persona, and I have no doubt, if the Legislature would allow the infliction of a certain number of lashes for crimes of this character, persons of this class would be deterred from committing such crimes. I thought it my duty, some time after bringing it before the Grand Jury, to bring the matter before the Government, and they expressed themselves favorable to the suggestion. I hoped a bill would have bqen brought in to that effect. This charge before you to-day reminds me that I ought to renew my representations. I believe it would put a stop to this class of crime- not altogether, of course, for oases will always take

pl aC e_but they would be seldom committed. The case requires no comment from me. You will, I believe, find the evidence sufficient to find a true bill. There is a case against one Peter Macdonald, for attempting to. set fire to a building. Upon that case, however, the evidence is extremely slight. _ It appears that a man named Brown was sleeping in a blink in the building in question, and Macdonald had assigned to him another bunk in the same building. 0 This occurred near or at Palmerston. Brown went to his bed in the evening, and had a candlo burning, which he put out, and went to sleep. ■lt that time the accused was in the house, and appeared to have retired to his bod. He was, however, half tipsy. Some time afterwards some persons outside found a portion of the wood-work was on fire. Brown, who was sleeping, was roused, and it was discovered that Macdonald was not on the premises, but was wandering at a distance. That is the whole of the evidence. The absence of Macdonald raises some slight suspicion, but no combustibles were found on him, and no assignable motive can bo alleged. He was on friendly terms with Brown It remains for you to say whether it will he necessary to send the case to a petty jury. Hie whole case is so slight as to amount hardly to even suspicion. If yon think there is not sufficient evidence to call upon tfie prisoner to answer tnc charge before a petty jury, it will lie your duty to ignore the bill. If, however, evidence should be laid before you, of which I know nothing, and you feel it necessary to send it to a petty jury, it will be your duty to do so. The other cases require no comment. There are two indictments against Hubert Littlecot. He was employed to' collect certain sums of money, which he received His employer will come before you and say he made no entry of the receipt of them in the books, and never handed the amount to him ; and so far as the evidence of tfie witnesses before tfie (drand.Tury isconcenicd, there will be sufficient to justify you in finding a bill. There is one other case, that of John Peter Beck, charged with assaulting and wounding his wife. You are aware that, as a general rule, a wife cannot give evidence against her husband, nor a husband against a wife ; but there is a broad exception to that rule, when violence has been used. It will, therefore, be perfectly legal for you to hear the evidence of the wife in this case, and on that evidence to find a true bill. The remaining case is a charge against a person of stealing ten pounds from a dwelling house. It needs no comment from me, I think there is ample evidence to justify vou in finding a bill. The Grand Jury then retired, and in the courm of a few minutes brought in a true bill against I"chert Littlecott, and after a time, true bills in all the other cases, excepting that of Peter M‘Donald, for arson.

EMBEZZLEMENT.

Robert LiUbcott, a r spectably dressed young man. was bid oted lor having, in September and October last, embezzled mraes belonging to Thomas HTood Brown of Oamaru. Mr Haggitt prosecuted on behalf of the Crown ; the prisoner was undpf nded. —T. H. Brown said that on the 10th 1 ctober ast he had occasion to go out of town, and went, leaving the prisoner, who was then offic atiug as clerk for him, in charge. He returned at an early hour, and found his premises closed, and afterwards received a letter from prisoner, stating that circumstances necessitated bis leaving Oamaru at once. Witness thinking that something was not right, made inquiries, aM found that certain monies paid to pikoner on his behalf, by Messrs M‘Kenzie and Rushbatch, hid not been accounted for. He then communicated with the p dice. —Moses Rushbatch said, in '-'eptember he owed some money to Mr Brown, and paid 1 3 to prisoner on Mr Brown’s beha f, ns shown by the i*eceipt produced. MTCenzie said that, on the 16th of October, he paid the prisoner L 4 7s 9d belonging to Mr T. IT. Brown.— Sergeant said lie arrested the prisoner on board the Heather Bell, at Oamaru, some time before she sailed for Newcastle, New South Wales. The prisoner was concealed in a locker at the time.--The prisoner denied the charge, rating that he bad paid over the monies mentioped ip the indictments to the prosecutor in the htar and Garter Hotel, that he was in the habit of paying over monies to Mr Brown in ad sorts of places and under different circumstances, which were not accounted for in the books by the’ prosecutor for some time after the dates of payment, and that therefore the evidence of prosecutor should be taken for w hat it was worth.— 1 be jury then retired, and in the course of a few minutes returned with a verdict of guilty, and a recommendation to m rcy on account of the very small salary received by the prisoner. —Sentence was deferred.

FELONIOUSLY WOUNDING.

John Peter Beck pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having, on the 27th December last, wounded Jane Beck, his wife, with intent to do her grevious bodily harm. The prisoner was not defended.—Jane Beck said she was married to pri'oner two years last November, and resided with him at Coal Creek. On the 26th of December last she went with her husband to the races. They started to return from the course about dusk. A man named ' elson, and another named Fitzgerald, returned with them. After they had got a little way her husband went into the bush and lav down, i'he went to him and asked him to come home, wdieu he called her a name and attempted to kick her. She then went on her way home, Nelson accompanying her. Fitzgerald remained with her husband, She got down to the bank of the river, aud remained a couple of hours waiting for her husband. He did not come, and she proceeded home with the men mentioned. She asked them to remain and protect her. Botu stayed until about twelve o’clock, when K tzgerald went away, and Nelson stayed on. Her husband was intoxicated when she left him. I'he went to the store and got a bottle of liquor; Nelson and her had some, and she then said she would go to bed, and Nelson replied that he would go outside and walk about until daylight. Nelson went out. She locked the door and lay down in her clothes. At daylight she heard a knock at the door, and on opening it her husband came in. He her what the bottle ou the table m n ant. Sh* replied she got it last night. He then seized a small axe, and pressed her on the bed She put up her arm to save herself, and he struck her on the wrist. He was striking at her again, when she crie out “Murder! God have mercy on me,” Nelson rushed in, and she escaped to Hayden’s public-house. The axe was lying n-ar the table when he came in. He struck her with the side of it. -"he gave him no provocation wbat< ver on this occasion. About a fortnight before this he said “ be would do for hep, and give her a blow that would prevent her going out again.” He had struck her three times before. He was quite sober when he came home. During the day she went to the doctor, and had her hand done up, and also to the police, and lodged an information. She returned home and found the sergeant of police and her husband in the house. Cros -examined : She said on one occasion that if he struck her, she would strike back again. She did not deny that Nelson was in the hj use. —Andrew Nelson, a packer, said lie was with prisoner and his w fe at the Teviob on the 26th December list, and started to return with them about six o’clock in the evening. After Mrs Brck went to her bedroom, he lay down in the kitchen and went to sleep. He was woke up by a noise outside. Beck then entered, and soon after he heard her crying out “murder,” and rushed into the room. Prisoner had his wife pressed on the bed, and was in the act of striking her. He seized upon prisoner, and a seufile ensued. Re received a wound on the head from the prisoner. Mrs Beck, meanwhile, got away from the house. Prisoner went outside taking the axe with him, and remained there some time. He was perfectly sober when he c me home, and Mrs Beck w r as apparently sober when she went to bed. Witness remained in the house a little time after the seufile, and was ultima ely chased away by the prisoner with a stick. He did not see anything more of prisoner.— Tames aly, •'ergeant of Police at Teviot, said Mrs Beck came to the camp on the morning of the 2?th December. Bhe was: sober at the time. She made a statement, and soon after he proceeded to prisoner’s ■

house and arrested him. On entering the house he took up the axe, aud prisoner asked him if his wife had said that ho struck ner with it. He replied in the affirmative, and immediately Mrs Beck came in, and said her life was in danger, lie then arrested prisoner. The prisoner made the following statenv nt at the enquiry before the Magistrate : “I feel sorry I did it, but it cannot be helped now. If I had not seen the bottle on the table and ndrew Nelson in the house, I would not have done it ” The prisoner said he did not intend to do his wifo any harm ; ho only wanted to frighten her. He was excited by seeing the bottle and Nelson in the house, and hj viim taken drink freely during the previous clay, was not altogether himself. After half an-hour’s deliberation, the jury found the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wounding. The prisoner was then sentenced to imprisonment for three months. FELONIOUSLY STEALING FROM A DWELLING. Peter Hobinson was charged with having on the 3rd of June last stolen from the residence <>f Handtz Brandt, at Kyeburn, LIO in money, the property of said Handtz Brandt. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was not defended. A verdict of guilty was returned. His Honor, in pissing sentence, said, “ Prisoner, six months ago you were convicted of stealing a watch at Alexandra, aud, taking all the circumstances of your th n ca e into consideration, I passed a light sentence on you. The crime now preferred against you was committed before that time, but it was not until after your imprisonment you were identified with this crime. You will now be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor, to commence at the expiration of the sentence you are now undergoing ; and, if you again come before me on a similar charge, you will be more severely dealt with.”

Tho Court then adjourned until ten o’clock to-morrow.