SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3474, 11 April 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. Saturday, April 11. (Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Common Jury.) burglary. The case against John Fearon was continued this morning, witnesses being called to character. Among these were Mr A. T Smyth, and Mr Blair, C. E. One of the witnesses said that he had seen prisoner out with the servant girl one evening previous to the alleged committal of the offence, and another that prisoner once said that he had a sweetheart in service up High street. . Mr Bart, T made a telling speech to the jury, to the effect that it was evident prisoner had not gone to the house with a

burglarious intent, but rather for an immoral purpose. This of coarse was reprehensible in a man who was married and had a family, but prisoner was not being tried for immorality, but for burglary. It was not a likely thing for a man to do who was in a good situation and earning L 4 10s a week ; on the contrary, he had clearly gone to see the girl Ann Gollanders, who was proved to have been intimate with him.

The Crown Prosecutor replied at some length, saying that there was an overbearing case against the prisoner and one that could not be answered.

Honor, in summing up, said the jury would have to decide whether prisoner got mo he honse by force. The witnesses for ? 6 prosecution said the doors and windows Tt Zf £ U BeCU r,® when thvy went to bed, and if such were the case prisoner could not have !l h ? ut a sufficient breaking in the JLnra 0 L was not necessary that ha £* been smashed in or fasteni Dga ., r° kk e n off ™*d°ws to constitute a to^nnrn 17 ' P®* Ca “ e fche T nestion as to his purpose when inside: whether larceny was his intention, or as the defence had put it, T - he feottle and pieces of candle in bis possession went to show, to a certain extent, that larceny was intended ; as the candles cou d not be required for any other purpose than searching about, and his tagging the bottlep yyjfcten , captured added

force to and justified the idea. As to the brown knife found in prisoner’s track, his brother had sworn that prisoner only had a white-handled knife ; but still it was possible for him to have had another without his brother’s knowledge. Could it have been placed where it was found, by another party 7 Anyway it was not identified as belonging to prisoner, id is Honor continued at great length, going minutely into every portion of the evidence. The jury r< tired, and eventually brought in a verdict of guilty, on the second count, of being unlawfully en the premises. Sentence deferred.