SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3549, 8 July 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING.

Tuesday, July 7. Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman, and a Petty Jury.)

AIDING AND ABETTING,

The Crown Prosecutor intimated that he did not intend to offer any evidence in the case of Elizabeth Wills, charged with aiding and abetting in the case against Samuel Wills. The jury, therefore, under direction, found the accused not guilty, and she was liberated.

Wednesday, July 8.

SENTENCES. Lucy Leighton (32), robbery from the person, was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, with hard labor.

John Jenkins was next brought up. Messrs Alexander Morrison, Thomas Douglas, and W. A. Ewing were called to give evidence as to the prisoner’s antecedents. They spoke of him as having been a hard-working and industrious man, and as having borne a good character. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve calender months.

Thomas Conley (26), assault at Cavershrm, addressed the Court, mentioning that he had been ill-treated by the police. His Honor said that there was no evidence whatever that the prisoner received ill-treat-ment at the hands of the police. The officer apprehended the prisoner in the discharge of his duty. The evidence was that the prisoner attempted to get away from legal custody ; and, under the circumstances, it was the officer’s duty to use force to get him away. The attack the prisoner made upon the officer was a most furious and brutal one, and he (the learned Judge) was only sorry the statute did not allow him to give prisoner more than two years’ hard labor. Tha sentence of the Court was that the prisoner be incarcerated and kept to hard labor for two years.

Alex. Gillon (33), forgery, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. J. C. Abernethy (19) was next brought up. Ilia Honor said fcbo offences with which the prisoner had been charged, and to which he bad pleaded guilty, were of a very serious character ; but fortunately for him he (the l iarued Judge) could find no other crime against him on the record. it was a melancholy thing to see a person of the prisoner’s age falling into crime in that way. Two of the four offences were of a very serious character, because they involved a breach of trust. The prisoner had been in respectable employment; and the sentence of the Court was that on the first in dictment he suffer two years’ imprisonment with hard labor ; on the second, one year with hard labor ; on the third (obtaining money under false pretences), six months, with hard labor; each sentence to take effect after the expiration of the former, John Morrison (30) was then placed in the dock.

His Worship said it appeared from the records of the Court that the prisoner had been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on four several occasions. Three of the previous offences were similar to those to which he had recently pleaded guilty. In fact, forgery and uttering seemed to have become almost a trade with the prisoner. In March, 1865, the prisoner was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for assaulting and attempting to commit a rape on a young girl; in September, 1868, for forging and uttering, two indictments, he got three years’ penal servitude; and then one year’s imprisonment, with hard labor, making four years in all. Three months afterwards the prisoner was brought out of gaol upon another charge of forging and uttering, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor, six years in all. The punishment, however, seemed not to have acted as a warning to the prisoner ; and, looking at the character of the offences, it seemed almost wonderful that auy man should have the folly to commit them, they being such as rendered detection absolutely certain within a day or two ; because upon presentment of the cheques, and upon its being declared that they were forgeries, they would of course be put into the hands of the police, who would be set upon the track of the culprit perhaps within twenty-four hours afterwards. Mo, besides the criminality ef the prisoner’s proceedings, there was the great folly, seeing that there was the certainty of almost immediate detection; and it made one almost think that the prisoner had desired to get himself into trouble. The sentence of the Court was that the accused undergo five years’ penal servitude ; on the second indictment, one year’s imprisonment with hard labor ; on the third, one year, with hard labor; and on the fourth, one year, with hard labor; each punishment t<» commence on the expiration of the former sentence.

ALLEGED attempt at murder. Louis Bouisson was charged with an attempt to murder his wife. Mr 15. C. Haggitt and Mr Stout for the Crown; Mr Johnston for the prisoner, j Catherine Buisson, wife of the prisoner, gave evidence similar to that given on the case being heard in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and which was published in our issue of June 9. [Left sitting.]