SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3393, 6 January 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

•bwMtouw ini'saUia a hv/hwt j .•»« ; (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman,) - -.V r-!iir:j ,'ijtoW »tjjvrS ; ' : Seat ojn the Bench, Airffirimshittiasked ito W (allowed ~co call witnesses t as to the character of the (toy Witioh'flWi the previbde das’ ‘id K’ bhaVge of robnery His Honor said he would BdWillingtdbeAr %“» before heMotencqd «*• lad WpM# wdrhV aod this would cause their detention. j >;• r *rai£ a inconvenience them to be brought'tVxiwkain ifidward Brqjrarthe, said' that he hhd v khbwn'Wtf prisoner for eight months, iy apd ,knj*w, nothing against; htki beyond" this case. 'He had ho^Swsh 1 tfc Weia, the charge, on account ofhia jputh. " Danifer Hughes; c&I sfttfftbhli dealer, 'known theprisoner-eyor Bipqe ( bepp in the Colony, and he had. always found mm io 1 be "straightforward'/ •' He ! had' frequently entrusted nim withinoney,!* j I, u Mr , Branson called.hia Honor’s attention to. a case whibh was'before a 864, 7 in .which the prisoner was a respectable' Jadi’dad/on his father’s: repognis Liso; for hia ,SoU’«t good behaviour,! no sentence 1 was passed? y [ * •His Honor thought this oniiicliftrif6i r f ’» % rt ; • ,Ci> •*,, . 4*.'t j? ■< .Thfi Go.yernOr :of;the (jaol, in/iiply to,tie.Judge, said that the .priqquQr,, then: in;the doctt, .was’.undergoing} a sentenbp v of s weiks'iimpHspument for an offenoe commiiitad in the 1 same place. " j ~ His Honor promised to . consider the oaW befora’lha prisoner was ajguncbroHght ttp tb- 1 morrow. . I h/ic v>%Wl jfi I •»

~ wi'OSawC .fully. p.ulling.;do,wn on sertam .propejfjby ; ol wjiioh he Iff ß^“ a “?'. .M of J M^lycit^il pj Ilexes Act” oE 1567. .Mr Harris defended. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case . (which aroser ofat .pf a civil case heard.--at .the- -Resident Mainstrate’ei Cujirt:on ‘ October '^ y an'd days, which >:as fully imported in Jjhia .paper .^ime)^,. stating, inaji iprlsoner/was . tenant of t a> Mr pewar in, the D.a«iediri"-‘aud East district/ and that/ he had pplljjd down and told 1 all' the P v ’ l the* expressed intention jo£ inJunhg'Mr Pewit. {The; law coflld reach i>?lagfl.4ar as 7 the shed was eonppnftdji the Act'referring toi buildings only.—-After a number of wttjnesses ■hadt.jjeen .examined,[Mr akdressed, £he ,j upy • pn/ &J. p«usK, }, f ’ saying; that, fVWf B anjo^t/ triyipl charge; and that Mr bewpr.’siremedyj ,if he had suffered'' any damage, should rhave been found in' a ■ qivil action.—tAis<Hpnor r ■dnanpinrinrr this charge was brought ;sas a wagd .withi a* now to punishing off property, eithpr hy fine oi* [ imprisonment,v;atr the discretion of the. Court .T/ncr real point which the .case tany4;waf.aqso whether shed was affixed., tp.,tjhe\ freehold in such} a manner as. to come”within the meaning lof. the. Act:» that, was ,tp say, were the potjtS, supporting the building fixed into the|t|und' and render illegal amt wrongfnT’iW'remo'vlal ?h If ff°pi the‘evidence given the jury wW of! I opinion! tbit 1 buch; Mltfc-:thb; cai?their verdict would be against the prison* 'f out, m<|re £ tem, orary erection for a passing! conyenieiicfe l and not affi ed to-the soil, th^-woS fikfr ■' A-werdiot of N;phipuiity, , ( v was, returned. ‘ ! • r-'.'-JlBI{*;<•,•■» ’ Peter, Sherry *was found “Guilty,” ahdj ! sentehciMWoightefei^ = ' iinnim Wii iyjila I n ;