SECOND EDITION. SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
Tuesday, April 20. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergaat. 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 not guilty, and was defended by Mr F. R. Chapman. The only witness called for the defence was Dr Garland, who gave testimony as to kleptomania.
Mr Chapman contended that the prisoner had been under the impression that she had reasonably concluded the transaction with Mr Haynes after paying the Lls, and therefore it was not fair to find her guilty of steeling the goods included in this, the first indictment. He argued that, from the prosperous position of the prisoner, and her careless actions, she must have been suffering from kleptomania when appropriating the goods. The jury returned a verdict of “ guilty,” with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of the prisoner’s previous good character, and her delicate state of health. Wednesday, April 21. SENTENCE. , Mary Fleming (29) who was yesterday convicted of stealing goods from the shop of Messrs Herbert, Haynes, and Co., was brought up for sentence. His Honor observed that the prisoner’s offence was by no means a slight one. The quantity of goods she had stolen was very considerable, and her manner of taking them secret, which did not at all indicate anything like aberration of mind. She would be sen tenoed to six calendar months’ imprisonment, with hard labor; but if her state of body wan such that she could not be occupied in gaol, she would be sent to the hospital. If she was not fit to undergo hard labor, she was not to bear it.
The Crown Prosecutor here intimated that he did not intend to proceed with the second eharge against the prisoner, who had, after being sentenced, to be carried out of Court.
MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas Bissett was indicted for having, on December 29 last, feloniously killed one George Aldridge. Prisoner, who was not defended, pleaded Not guilty.” On the Crown Prosecutor commencing to open the case to the jury. His Honor said he thought Mr Joyce was going to defend the prisoner. It was a very pave charge, and the prisoner being undefended had taken him (the learned Judge) by surprise.
The Crown Prosecutor pointed out that the Grand Jury had reduced the bill to manslaughter. His Honor : There is no one here whom I can ask to go on with the case. The facts of the case, which were reported at length when it was being investigated before the Coroner and Resident Magistrate at Port Chalmers, are simply these :—The two manprisoner and the' deceased—were mates sand lived down the harbor, near the Heads. For three months previous to this occurrence they hac been drinking almost continuously, and on the day in question, in the course of a quarrel Bissett threw a tumbler at Arledge, and it striking him on the head caused the injuries from which he subsequently died. The jury retired at four o’clock, and after an ?. ®«° c e°f six minutes brought in a verdict of Not Guilty.” The Court adjourned till ten a.m. to-morrow.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18750421.2.15
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3793, 21 April 1875, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
560SECOND EDITION. SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3793, 21 April 1875, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.