SECOND EDITION. SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3788, 15 April 1875, Page 3

SECOND EDITION. SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Wednesday, April 14. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Frendergast.) INFANTICIDE. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution. Mr Taylor, in addressing the jury, pointed out that it was competent for them to bring in a verdict of manslaughter or of concealment of birth. He severely commented upon the oonduct of those who failed to communicate their suspicions of the prisoner’s pregnancy to her employers or herself. If the jury came to the conclusion that she had broken the law, they should recommend her to mercy. The British law did not recognise degrees of murder, as in America, and therefore, if found guilty of the crime charged against her, the prisoner would receive the same sentence as if she 'were a coldblooded assassin. The seducer, who had been part and parcel of her wrong doing, went entirely tree, while the whole burden of conviction fell upon the unhappy prisoner’s head. After half-an-nour’s consultation, the jury returned into Court, and the foreman (Mr J ewitt) said; "We find the prisoner not gmlty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, with a recommendation to mercy.” His Honor: Strictly speaking, gentlemen, this recommendation to mercy really comes where sentence of death is to be passed. Recommendations of mercy generally go to the Governor, I understand exactly wnat you mean. Of course I have all the facts fully before me as much as you have. Thubsday, April 15. On Margaret Collins (21) being placed in the dock for sentence, Mrs Goodall was requested to step forward, and, in answer to questions by his Honor, she said that the prisoner during the time she had been in her employ had behaved quietly and very well She (Mrs Goodall) never saw any friends visit her: and she did not believe she had father or motner or friends in the Colony. In answer to other questions, Mr Caldwell, the gaoler, said he could make provision for keeping the prisoner separate] from other female prisoners. His Honor Margaret Collins, lam going to pass a very lenient sentence upon you, in consequence of the recommendation of the jury and also on account of the facts of the case. There is the farther probability that, notwithstanding your incarceration in gaol, you may show good conduct there and afterwards regain your position. That depends entirely upon yourself. There is no doubt that the jury would have been perfectly justified, because they had sufficient evidence before them to do so, in finding you guilty murder, and without speculating as to what might have resulted had such been the case, you see your position was a serious one. lam going to give effect not only to the recommendation of the jury, but also to their verdict. I understood the jury to say that you did not wilfully inflict the wound which caused your child’s death, and that being so, I feel bound to pass a mild sentence. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in Dunedin gaol for two calendar months, without hard labor. When the prisoner had left the dock, his Honor said he hoped some persons would take an interest in her. Probably the visiting justices, or some of the ladies who took an interest in prisoners, would see that some sort of care was taken of her when she came out of gaol and that some provision might be made for getting her a situation.

KUBDEB. ■ John Walters was charged with the wilful murder of James Amos Holmes, at the Northeast Valley on January 24 of the present year. ,?Mr W. D. Stewart and Mr Taylor defended The Crown Prosecutor stated the facts of the case, which were fully reported at the time of the inquest on the body of deceased. Deceased wai a pig dealer, about 25 years old, and resided in the North-east Valley, where prisoner lived with and assisted him. On January 23 deceased went away from the place for a few hours and instructed prisoner not to let his pigs stray into the oats of a Mr Curran, whose land adjoined. The pigs, however, were allowed to stray there, and Mr Curran went to deceased’s house and complained of it. Prisoner, who was present, used abusive language to Mr Curran, and deceased ordered him (prisoner) to leave the room. The next morning at half-past five o’clock prisoner and deceased got up and commenced killing pigs. The circumstances of the previous day came up in the course of conversation between them, and prisoner appears to have again given offence to deceased, for the latter knocked off the prisoner’s hat (according to deceased’s account—prisoner says that in addition to his hat being knocked off, his head was pushed by deceased into a tub of water.) Prisoner then struck deceased so violent a blow with the knife he was using (a butcher’s knifej having a blade about five inches long) that it penetrated into his body right up to the handle, breaking a rib in its course. Deceased ran into the house, and a doctor and the police being sent for, the wound was attended to and deceased’s depositions taken. The bleeding from the wound was all internal, and deceased lingered till the following (Sunday) night, when he died. Mr Haggitt said the prisoner had more than once admitted that he struck the blow, and the jury would have to decide whether deceased had given prisoner provocation sufficient to justify his using the deadly weapon he at the time held in his hand. [A discussion here ensued between his Honor and Mr Haggitt, the learned Judge stating that the law was as follows:—If one of two persons conducts himself towards the other in such a manner as to cause ungovernable passion in him, and he, having an instrument (whether deadly or otherwise) in his hand at the time, strike the first-named a fatal blow while under the influence of ungovernable passion, the crime is not murder; for, from his temper being at the time ungovernable, the striker could not be responsible for his actions. It would not matter whether the instrument used was a deadly weapon or not; but it would be a different matter if the man that struck the blow first went away and searched for a deadly weapon of which to make use. The question in a case of this sort was, therefore, whether the conduct of the one party was such as reasonably to cause ungovernable passion in the other; if so, the latter was not responsible, and the crime was not murder.] Jessie Hunt, housekeeper to deceased, was examined at great length by Mr Haggitt, and gave similar evidence to that given by her at the inquest. In cross-examination by Mr Stewart witness said deceased was irritable times, and always ready to lift his hand. On the day previous to the stabbing, deceased went into town twice, and when he returned it was evident he had been drinking very much. He brought with him four dozen of ale and porter fora man named "Wallace who lived at the same place, and whom witness had never seen sober. On the same night Wallace and deceased sat up drinking very late, and in the morning there were four or five empty ale bottles on the table. Deceased had two glasses of beer after getting up. Ile-examined: Deceased was in a good temper the morning he was stabbed, and was not drunk. John B. Outran, wool merchant and tanner at the North-east Valley, said he was a neighbor of deceased, and on hearing that the latter was went to his house and saw him lying on the floor with a large stab in his side. Deceased said, “I am a dead man; I can feel the blood running round my heart.” He also called prisoner a villain, and asked witness to put him out of the room. Prisoner told witness that deceased had struck him on the head, and that he (urisoner) took the knife from deceased’s hand. Prisoner was continuing to explain when he was interrupted by some one, and that was all witness heard from him. Other witnesses were examined, and the case had not concluded when we went to press.