SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4013, 6 January 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. Wednesday, January 5. , (Before Mr Justice Williams.) FORGERY. Charles Brodie Cooper (31) was indicted for having, on the 6th December, 1875, forged a certain cheque, with intent to defraud, and having uttering the same, knowing it to be forged. The prisoner was found “ Guiltv ” on both counts. His Honor said that he found there were no less than six previous convictions recorded against the prisoner, and the sentence of the Court was five years’ penal servitude. Thursday, January 6. SENTENCE. Henry Vezey (50), convicted the previous day of burglary, was brought up for sentence. His Honor remarked that prisoner had apparently only entered the premises for the purpose of stealing drink, for which he had a very great craving. Taking everything into consideration, the ends of justice would be satisfied if he sent prisoner to gaol for six months, with hard labor. During that timo ho would bo out of all temptation to drink, and it was to be hoped that when he came out he would mead hu ways. ,

THE ARSON CASE. 1 Mr Hocken, in answer to his Honor, explained the reason why the depositions in the George street arson case had not been forwarded to the Supreme Court before the opening of the criminal sessions. . The investigation did not close till Thursday night, and Friday, Saturday, and Monday following were Court holidays. His Honor : The Court was open on Monday, which was not a holiday,'and the sittings then adjourned till next day. 1 sat in the Court on Tuesday. They should have come on Tuesday morning. There is no reason at all why you should not have sent them that day. The Coroner: I can only repeat that I am sorry for not having sent them on that day, I believed Monday was a close holiday.

His Honor: I don’t see the witness’s recognisances attached to the depositions. The Coroner; The explanation of that is this—the inquisition commenced at two o’clock on the Thursday, and some of the witnesses had left by the time the jury had returned their verdict, and I was unable to get them then. The warrant for the commitment of the prisoner was made out in proper form that same night. His Honor had no doubt that it was an entirely unintentional omission on the part of the Coroner, and he would accept Dr Hocken’s statement ■without saying anything further except this—that it was most important the law should be strictly obeyed by officers of the inferior Court, so as to admit of the due administration of justice in this Court. The object in having the depositions sent to the Supreme Court at or before the opening of the session was that the Judge might be enabled to read them over and direct the Grand Jury accordingly, and that the Crown might he able to prefer a bill of indictment before the Grand Jury so that the accused might be arraigned as well on indictment as on deposition, so that if there was any flaw in the inquisition there might not on that account be any failure of justice. In the present case if the Coroner had sent in the depositions on the Tuesday morning he (the learned judge) would have directed a bill of indictment to be preferred before the Grand Jury, but the latter were discharged on Tuesday afternoon, and as the depositions were not received till yesterday the charge would have to stand over, or else the extraordinary action of summoning a fresh Grand Jury taken, for the purpose of presenting a bill of indictment in this particular case. If accused were put on his trial at the present sittings and there was any flaw in the Coroner’s inquisition a failure of justice would ensue, as it would not be possible to arraign him subsequently by indictment. If the Crown did not think proper to arraign accused on the Coroner’s inquisition at the present sittings —and they could not compel the prosecutor to do so—then prisoner must remain in gaol for three months, until the next session. The Coroner would therefore see how a non-com-pliance with the terms of the statute tended to hinder and obstruct the administration of justice. The Coroner, having expressed his regret for the omission, the Court was quite willing to accept that as an apology, but he (his Honor) would wish to call the Coroner’s attention to the necessity for the future of a strict observance of the terms of the law. With those remarks, the Coroner might go. Mr Haggitt, in reply to his Honor, said he could not proceed with the case in the absence of any indictment. He looked at the papers connected with the inquisition last night, but there were several defects. He could not be compelled to proceed this session, since the papers came in too late for presentation to the grand jury, and it was solely on the grounds that the inquisition was so defective as would be likely to defeat the ends of justice that be declined to proceed.

Mr Chapman maintained that the Crown Prosecutor had made an admission which would entitle the prisoner to be released immediately. He moved for the release on two Sounds — Firstly, he moved for a nUe to be rected to James Caldwell, gaoler of the common prison of Dunedin, to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue to bring up prisoner William Jenkins, and also to show cause why Jenkins should not b- discharged. He moved that the rule be made returnable to-morrow, it being a matter affecting the liberty of the subject it should be gone into immediately. The other rule might be made returnable later—it was to call on the Crown to show cause why the inquisition and all proceedings connected therewith, should not be quashed. The grounds for both rules were similar. Regarding that to Mr Caldwell he moved that, as owing to the inquisition and depositions not being returned in time to admit of the case being heard at the present sittings of the Court, and inasmuch as prisoner. had been committed for trial at the present sittings, and inasmuch as he will not be then be tried, that prisoner is no longer lawfully detained. The third ground was that no specific property is alleged on the face of the inquisition to have been destroyed. The inquisition merely stated that “ William Jenkins maliciously and wilfully set fire to said premises in George street, with intent then and there to defraud the National Insurance Company,” It was not said that the premises were destroyed, and consequently the inquisition treated of a matter over which the Coroner had no jurisdiction. So far as the rule to the Coroner was concerned, it appeared that the object of the inquiry was to a&certain whether prisoner had set fire to his place in order to defraud the National Insurance Company; and the Coroner being a shareholder company, and consequently an interested party, the proceedings had become vitiated by Ins action. His Honor had some doubt as to whether the Coroner was prevented from investigating a matter in which he was concerned Eke the present. Certainly no judge of juryman could have done so. Mr Chapman replied that when the Coroner found out the object of the inquiry, he should have washed his hands of the whole matter. His Honor said that he would like to have the point fully argued, and eventually it was decided that both matters should stand over till Saturday. CIVIL SITTINGS. Monday, January 10. The following are the cases set down for hearing by common jury : Jenkins v. Jenkins and* another.—For plaintiff, J. Mouat; for defendant, Wesley Turton ; Bathgate and Buchanan, agents. Shaw v. MTherson.—For plaintiff, J. Mouat; for defendant, W. D. Stewart. Smart v. Brogden and others.—For plaintiff, G. E. Barton ; for defendant, T. M. Olivier ; Smith, Anderson, and Co., agents. Blakely v. Holland.—For plaintiff, J. H. Sanders ; for defendant, J. Anderson. Hughes v. Shand.—For plaintiff, J. Anderson ; for defendant, G. E. Barton. i Monday, January 17. SPECIAL JSRY CASK. Webb v. the National Bank of New Zealand (Limited). —For plaintiff, J. Mouat; for defendant, J. Anderson.