SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3792, 20 April 1875, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, Apbil 19. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Prenclergast.) BADE. John Hartey was charged with intent to commit a rape upon Ann Siberson, a married woman, on January 9. A second count charged prisoner with assault with intent. For the defence the following witnesses were called:—Elizabeth Porter (wife of Francis Porter, hotel-keeper, of Caversham), who gave some very important evidence, none of which had been tendered in the lower Court, and was to the effect that on the evening of the assault prosecutrix came to witness’s house and told her that accused had put his arms round her waist, made dishonorable proposals to her, to which she promised to accede when they got farther along the road, but she did this in the hope that she would be able to escape from him. Dr Ferguson, who examined the prosecutrix, said he expected from her statement, of having been thrown on to the ground and having had her shoulder blade hurt, to find certain injuries, but he did not. Thomas Howorth, Charles Sampson, and Francis J. Eagerty, of Green Island, had known the accused for a considerable number of years, and gave him an excellent character. Mr Stout contended that several statements of the prosecutrix were contradictory, and therefore, being unsupported, could not be relied upon. The Jury, after an absence of forty minutes, brought in a verdict of “Guilty on the second count.” Tuesday, Apbil 20. SENTENCE. John Hartey, who said his age was about 40 or 42, was brought up for sentence. In answer to the usual questiou, he said he was quite innocent of the charge; that he had a wife himself with whom ho lived honestly ; and that he never thought such things as this would ever come across him. His Honor; Prisoner; there is no doubt your character is good, but at the same time we know that persons of good character sometimes; commit offences <f this kind and of almost every kind.- I am not at all impressed by what you say; nor am lat all impressed by the nature of the defence set up yesterday, though it ■is not ray duty to take notice of that. So far as I can seo you are not the • sort of person who would under ordinary circumstances commit a gross attack upon a woman, therefore I do not consider the' case one in which the punishment recently authorised by the Legislature to be inflicted for. such offences as. this should be given you. i : feel bound, therefore, to pass a. not very severe sentence upon you, though the Legislatuie has during the past twelve months greatly in-‘ creased the punishment for this class"of offence. The sentence of the Court will be tbat.you be imprisoned in her Majesty’s Gaol, at Dunedin, for 18 months’ with hard labor.

LARCENY. Mary Fleming was charged, under two indictments, with stealing a large quantity of dress materials, lace, and other goods, the property of her employer, Daniel Haynes, trading under the style of Herbert, Haynes, and Co. Prisoner (who appeared.very ill, as has always been the case when she has had to appear in Court) pleaded hot guilty, and was defended by Mr F. R. Chapman. The Crown Prosecutor said prisoner was employed by Mr Haynes as domestic servant at his drapery establishment, and as such had to , ou t>. the dressmaking and other rooms On December 26 last year a box was found under prisoner’s bed containing a quantity of goods belonging to Mr Haynes, and prisoner admitted having stolen them, and said those were all the articles she had taken. She was discharged, and it was afterwards discovered that she bad also sent quantities of goods to different people in the country. The articles were easily identifiable as Mr Haynes’s property- they bearing he shop mark on them. The following witnesses gave evidence, which was substantially the same as that given on the occasions of prisoner’s being before the Resident Magistrate s Court:—Miss Hands, manager of the dress-making department at Mr Haynes 5 John Allen, clerk. The Court adjourned at 2.30 p.m , and on resuming at 3.15 p.m. one of the jurymen complained of illness, on which the Court adjourned for another hour to enable medical assistance to be obtained.