SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3935, 5 October 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, October 5. (Before bis Honor Mr Justice Williams audja Common Jury.) SENTENCES. .Anno Hardy (57) who pleaded guilty on the previous day to stealing yards of cloth, the propeity of Win. M'Laren was brought up for sentence. I here were fifty-one previous convictions against the prisoner! who was sent to gaol for three years. Andrew Caldwell (28), who had pleaded guilty to two charges of embezzling money, the property of his late employer, James Wilson, was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude on each charge. , Ihomas While (42), an old offender, con* victed y, sterday of being on the ketch Annie without lawful excuse, and stealing therefrom a quantity of wearing apparel, was sentenced to peual servitude for three years. Alfred Goodall (23), who yesterday pleaded guilty to stealing 1.13 from an hotel iu Dunedin, was ordered to be imprisoned for twelve months with hard labor. Michael Golding (3i), convicted on the previous day on two charges of stealing from dwelling-houses, was stutenced to twelvemouths’ imprisonment on each. ABSENTEE JOBOKS, James M'bicod Nicholson, a grand juror, who was yesterday fined L 6 for uot app anng when called on, now offered au explanation for his non-attendance, which was accepted by his Honor, who reduced the due to LI Is. William Attridge, a defaulting common juror, who had been fined L2 2s, had the amouut remitted. BUBQLART, Alfred Hutchinson, alias “Gorman Charlie,” was charged with breaking into the house of George Henry Barnes, London street, and

stealing therefrom a gold watch, valued at LKb and a diamond ring valued at LBO. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr E. Cook, pleaded not guilty. The case was fully imported m our columns when prisoner was tried ui the Police Court. Mr Cook addressed toe jury for the defence at considerable length, and submitted that ■here was not one tittle of evidence to show hat prisoner had stohn the properly or had broken into the In -use. The on ly ot her ground against him was the question of suspicion, and rns was insufficient to war.ant them iu saving that prisoner had broken into the house’ami R olen the goods.

Kis Honor, in summing up, said the first point the jury h*u to determine was whether the house was broken into and whether the articles were stolen by the same person who broke into it. Barnes’s evidence was to the effect that prisoner, during the time he had neon in the house, had acquired sufficient knowledge to know where the ring and watch were placed. Now there could be no doubt that the house had been entered from the outside and the goods removed : neither Barnes, his wife, nor the servant girl had taken them. Ihe evidence was purely | resumptive, and it would be for the jury to consider whether prisoner was guilty. 1 The Foreman; The jury wish to know if, not neiiiß satisfied thut the prisoner broke into the house, they ran convict of receiving the property, knowing it to be stolen ? His Honor: No; you can convict ot simple larceny only.

(he Foreman: Then we are agreed. Wo hnrt the prisoner guilty of simple larceny. Sentence was deferred. ARP AULT WITH INTENT. ..^} chardß r, attic wae c haiged with assaulting w Ilham Pelkingtoa at Dunedin on August 30, with intent to do g.ievous bodily harm. Mr Ji,. Cook defended prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case. Prosecutor is a laborer, and on the date in question was livimr at the York Hotel, G.-orgo street. Prisoner and ho had been drinking together, and some words took place between them. Both letired into the back yard, and a tew minutes afterwards a groom named Porter interfered, blaming prisoner, who was quite sober, for fighting with prosecutor, who was so drunk that he could not stand well. Prisoner pushed Porter aside, and prosecutor aUd i * , S( l ware . d ” at each other. Porter obset vea that prisoner struck prosecutor somewhere about the head, and after the blow prosecutor turned round and round and then fell to the ground on his face. Porter found him insensible, and bleeding from a soveie cut on the top of his head. Prosecutor remained insensible f«T some time, and was examined by Dr Niven, w ho concluded that the wound was inflicted by a Knife or some other sharp iustiument. JNo knife was seen iu the hand of the prisoner, but flora the nature of the wound Dr Niven had £0 hesitation in sweating that the wound must have been caused by a knife or some other sharp instrument. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The Court then adjourned till next day.