SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3471, 8 April 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. Wednesday, April 2. (Before His Honor Mr Jdstice Chapman') : The quarterly session of the Supreme Court, for the transaction of criminal business, was opened this morning—His Honor Mr Justice Chapman taking his seat on the! bench at ten o’clock. The undermentioned gentlemen having been sworn of the Grand Jury -A. W Morris (foreman), Wm. Scoular, Jas, Shand! R. Paterson, W. B. Ogilvie, J. R. Mackenzie, J. .Mbbald, R. A. Loughnan, R. il. Leary, L. L. Levi, T. J. Leary, H, Law. M. Joel, J W Jago, b‘. Hudson, Jas. Finch Thos. Culling—his Honor delivered his charge, of which the following were the principal parts : Mb Foreman and Gentlemen op the Grand Jury,— lam sorry to say that the calendar presented at the present quarterly session exhioits a very considerable increase of orime as compared with tbe average of the last two years. There are sixteen prisoners for trial, but as two of these prisoners are charged with two offences each, there will be eighteen indictments presented for your consideration. The number of prisoners committed for trial before the Supreme Court in 1873 amounted to twentyeight, but the Grand Jury threw out two hills— consequently there were only twenty-six tried, lhat was the smallest number ever known here since the population was greatly increased, after the discovery of gold ihe year before that—lß72-the number of prisoners tried was thirty-six. Seven prisoners were tried at the January sittings this year, which would make the average a little over seven and a-half. You will observe therefore that the number of prisoners is rather more than double the average of the quarterly averages for the last two years. Among these there are two or three crimes of a very serious nature. The first is the charge against Patrick Long, for murder. The circumstances of this case may be very briefly stated. The deceased, a man named M‘Donald, was drinking in Long’s public-house, named the Kaikonji Hotel, “at Green Island. W ‘Donald, being a little turbulent, was turned out by Long and had the door shut upon him, which was no doubt a very proper proceeding. While M‘Donald was outside, some quarrel arose with another man That man knocked M'Donald down, kicked him' and retreated into the house, the door being shut upon the retreating man. This appears to have enraged McDonald, who gathered up some stones, and began throwing them at the door of the public-house, whereupon a man was seen to come to the front from the back' of the house, and come close to McDonald. The flash of a pistol was seen, a report heard, and M‘Donald fell; and a wound was inflicted, of which he died. Now the witness who saw and heard the report and flash,, immediately afterwards saw Long, the person charged. He states that he saw Long and has no doubt about his identity. That is the brief story, as told by the principal witness. There are three other witnesses who confirm the statement,; and whatever may be the nature of the defence set up, it must be quite obvious to you that there is a sufficient prma facie case made out, even by one witness, to justify the Grand Jury in finding a bill. Yhe next case to which I shall call your attention is that of Thomas Honey will, for manslaughter. The alleged manslaughter is by improper practice by a medical man. It appears that a woman named Agues Smith was about to 00 confined, Hud this mein Honeywill was called in to treat her. She gave birth to a dead child; and after that he continued to attend her, but she becoming very ill, dissatisfaction was of course felt by the husband, and one or two medical men were called in. The woman died, and the charge is that she died in consequence of the negligent arid erroneous practice of this medical man. Of course, in all these oases, the charge depends entirely upon the opinions of the medical witnesses ; but I may remind yon—no doubt before the petty jury medical witnesses will be brought up as evidence for the defence—that your function is simply to inquire whether, upon the evidence presented to you on behalf - of the Crown, there is a sufficient case of, negligent practice made out to justify you in finding a true bill, leaving all further investigation, any defence which the prisoner may be able to set up, all doubts, to be disposed of by the petty jury. There is a case of perjury, arid the observations which it will be necessary for me to make upon this case are briefly as to the state of the law with regard to because perjury is exceptional with regard tp the number pf witnesses necessary to justify conviction. As you are aware, the general rule of the law of England is that one competent witness believed by the jury -the. jury not having any doubt as to his truthfulness, &c.—is sufficient to convict of any crime. There are, however, two exceptions—one by statute for the crime of high treason ; the other at common law, perjury. • Tho reason is obvious to you. In the eye of the law prima facie one man’s oath is as good as another’s, therefore if the accused party swears to a certain fact and is contradicted by only one witness the jury can never determine that one man’s oath ought to be believed and the other’s not. Therefore, the law requires that there should be two witnesses, or somethipg—some documentary or other confirmatory evidence • for instance admissions or conversations of the prisoner himself; something equivalent to evidence ; something that will turn the scale, which is evenly balanced when it is merely oath against oath. In this case the charge is that the prisoner was sued in the Resident Magistrate’s Court for a small promissory note, and when it was put into his hand, though he seemed to hesitate about it, afterwards denied that he had given it. There was inducement—in order to get rid of the action,- Well, then two persons—the traders who sued hiip, who are traders and brothers—both distinctly swear that they not only know his handwriting, but that they saw him sign the note in question. This is sufficient to justify you in finding a true hill, and probably the

petty jury in convicting, unless explanatory circumstances are made out, . . . The other element in the “case is that the offence should be committed wilfully, and should be before a tribunal competent to administer the oath ; and that the oath has been administered and the preliminaries done will no; doubt be proved before you. Wilfulness is ah inference from the whole of the circumstances under which the oath was taken. Of course, every man may in a court of justice be mistaken or erroneously state a fact. A case occurred some tune ago in which in this Court a very respectable practitioner made an affidavit of a certain fact. Someof his friends brought under his notice a.number of circumstances, and he found out his mistake. F ortunately perhaps for himself the next morning he filed another affidavit in * °y r t explaining his mistake and retracting the evidence which he had previously given. If he had not done so he might have been placed in a position of very considerable difficulty, because jt is very difficult to refute the mere presumption of wilfulness, though in point of fact tne erroneous statement was not wilfully made. • • *, Inference may be drawn from the obvious interest a man has'in mis-stating a fact. 1 he next case to which I may call attention is one of burglary. ... The circumstances are of a very simple nature. A woman servant saw that the house was closed, and went to bed. Her master and mistress were out at the time, and when they came home they opened the front door with a key, and went to bed. After that the woman heard a noise at the back of the house, and was first made aware that there was something wrong by seeing a man in her bedroom. She gave the alarm: but before she had tune to do so the man said to her, “Be quiet, or I will shoot you.” However, she screamed out, and the man retreated. This noise alarmed the owner of the houso and his wife, who.seems to have displayed considerable courage, slipped down stairs, there met the man, seized,him, and after a very serious scuffle succeeded in catching him. The neighbors were sent for, and the man secured, and he is ; brought before you. His intention is collected from the circumstance that there was a writingdesk upon the table. It does not appear that anything was actually stolen from the desk, which, however, had been in some manner tampered with—l believe broken open. It was removed, and there is sufficient evidence to show that it was not in the condition in which it was at was at the time the master left the house. There is sufficient to justify the inference that the person who broke into the house intended to commit a felony. ' . . . : . There is also a case jof forgery which is somewhat .peculiar in its circumstances. James M'lntosh is charged with forging a lease, which purports to be made by Graves & M'lntosh-that is, Graves and himselt, who "agents at Oamaru—in favor of one Joseph Miller. Of course, a lease made in favor of one person contains counter clauses of a burdensome.nature; therefore, if an alteration is committed in an instrument of this nature, which would have the effect of defrauding any person, it is clear that constitutes the crime of forgery. In this case it does not appear that the signature had been actually forged, but if the instrument has been al-

tered so as to make it more chargeable that is; what really constitutes forgery. These are the graver cases, the rest of the list is made up of the usual offences against property, so common here—larceny of different descriptions, obtaining goods by false representations, and embezzlement. long’s cash. Mr Barton : In the case of Patrick Bong, in which Mr James Smith and myself are engaged for the defence, there is a great number of witnesses for the defence. It is >ur intention to ask your Honor (though not at present) to fix a day for the trial, but iu the meantime, and until it is done, we should ba glad if our witnesses were allowed to absent themselves from attendance until the trial is fixed. His Honor : I will fix the day now. Mr Barton : Unfortunately we are not ready.' His Honor: I cannot go beyond the session. ■ Mr Barton We don’t ask your Honor to do that. ■ . His Honor : The whole of these cases may go off by Saturday. Mr Haggitt: That is not very likely. Mr Barton : I appear in a number of them, and I can promise your Honor that some of them will he anything but short. His Honor ; Then what day will be convenient to you, Mr Barton ? Mr Barton : bout this day week :we may be through the other cases then. His Honor :■ That is too dong ; I was in hopes of getting into the civil cases by Wednesday. Will it not do to fix the trial for Monday? It was then agreed that the case should be P down for Monday ; to be mentioned again if necessary.'' LARCENY. Henry King was indicted for having at Oamaru, on January 16, stolen a cheque for L 37. He was undefended. The facts shortly stated are these Prisoner was in the service of Mr William Grant, being employed to drive some horses from Canterbury to this Province. On. January 16, Grant and prisoner put up at the Waimat* Hotel, kept by one Slee, the two men sleeping in one room. On that evening Grant received a cheque fer L 37, drawn on the Bank of New Zealand at Timaru, by Manchester Bros, and Goldsmith On going to bed that night, Grant placed the cheque in the pocket of his coat, which he bung over his bed, ‘ A couple of days afterwards he discovered that the cheque had been stolen, and on the Monday following made known his loss to the persons' in his employ, the prisoner included. The latter expressed his sorrow for Grant’s loss, and said he would collect L 3 odd owing to him, and give theamout to Grant, in liquidation of a debt to the former which had existed for some time time, before. At this very time prisoner had in his pocket the greater part, of the proceeds of the stolen cheque, he having got Slee to cash it, the latter deducting L 8 for a watch prisoner had purchased from his (Slee’s) son On the police at Oamaru being acquainted with the robbery, Sergeant Smith interrogated the prisoner, who said ho found the cheque in a room (not the bedroom) at Slee’s hotel,|but he did not think it worth anything or worth inquiring about. When the sergeant mentioned the circumstance of the cashing of the cheque, he made no reply. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of “ Guilty. ” Prisoner, who made no defence whatever, gave his age as twenty. His Honor, in passing sentence, said he did not bebeve prisoner’s story of having picked up the cheque. His offence, though' not amounting to breach of trust, came very

close to it, Sentence—two years’ imprisonment. George Crossby was indicted for having at Alexandra, on February 9, stolen the sum of 7s. He was undefended. The facts are theseOn the day named in the indictment the prosecutor, W. B. Martin, a watchmaker at Alexandra, was sitting at break fast, in a room at the back of his shop, and hearing a noise in front, ran into the shop and found the prisoner behind the counter with his hand m the till. He also saw him in the act of taking some silver. A constable was called in, and, on prisoner being arrested the sum of shillings was found o i P‘' ,JVed th at over L2 were left in the till, but only 9s found there after prisoner s visit to it; and that the latter was without) means before his arrest. Prisoner s plea was that.he had been suffering from delirium tremens, and therefore was not accountable for his actions. He called

Dr Thomson, who denied that prisoner suffered from delirium tremens when hu saw him.

Inspector Moore said the lock-up keeper stated prisoner* was' suffering from‘‘drink slightly.—Prisoner, addressing the jury, said

he had. at the timebeendrinkihg\heßTily and consequently kiew nothing of what his conduct had been. A man who had suffered from delirium tremmt for seven consecutive days could scarcely be answerable for his actions. There was bad feeling in the prosecution ; it was not for the sake of justice that he was accused of this crime. His Honor said he had very little to bring before the notice of the jury, for the evidence of the prosecutor was so clear and distinct tnat if they thought he was the witness of truth they could only come to one conclusion ■ s to the plea of drink, that could be no defence for the drinking was a voluntary act on the part of the prisoner. The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of “Guilty.” His Honor said he found by the records that prisoner had beeh convicted twentyfour times previously of various offences, including larceny, embezzlement, vagrancy, disorderly conduct,- using obscene language, and drunkenness. Two of the convictions were for exactly the same offence as the present one—robbing a till. It was evident there was no hope for a change unlefcsprisoner suffered a long incarceration, and he would therefore be sentenced to five years’ penal servitude.

PLEAS OP GUILTY. j’ Joseph Lundon, charged with larceny at Cromwell, and John Biair, charged with larceny as a Government servant atDunedln, both pleaded guilty, and were remanded till to-morrow for sentence. In Blair’s case it was intimated that Mr Stewart* his counsel, would call witnesses to character.

ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON. Jane Glass was charged with having stoleh from the person of Edwin Belcher, on the Ist April, a purse containing L 76. Prisoner was undefended. The facts of this case were fully stated in our issue of the 2nd inst. The •jorv brought in a verdict of “Not guilty,” and prisoner was discharged.

, OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES. On bay, (35) was charged with having, on the l/th January, obtained from Messrs Herbert, 3ay tics, and Co., a quantity of goods- by means of false, pretences. Prisoner, . who had nothing to say, was found guilty, and, as he had three previous convictions against him, he was sentenced to four years’penal servitude. TRUE BILLS. Triie bills were found in all the oases subnutted to the Grand Jury, except in that of Jonfes, for horse stealing. The Grand Jury were discharged at 4 p m. * The trial of Richard Todd, for gold-steal-ing at Tinkers, was proceeding at 4 p.m. *