CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4218, 2 September 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Saturday, Sbftembeji 8. (Before J. Logan, Esq., i. Hislop, Esq., and A. C. Begg, Esq., J.P's.) Drunkenness. —William Forest, William Irwin, John Thomas, and James M*Kay were all fined ss, or, in default, twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; Henry Veale, 20s or forty-eight hours. Window Breaking.— Margaret Watson, for wilfully breaking seven panes of glass, of the value of 10s, in the house of Elizabeth Daley, was fined 10s and costs* with the alternative of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.

Indecency. The remanded charges against Jeremiah Borrows were proceeded with. Mr Stewart defended. At the 'conclusion of the case for the prosecution last week, a remand was granted to enable the defence to prove that accused was insane. Drs. Alexander and' Gillies stated that accused was suffering from mental aberration ; Dr. Holme that he was suffering from delusion. —Mr Stewart, addressing the Bench, said that accused would suffer an irreparable wrong if he were sent to gaol, and therefore he (the learned counsel) had put himself to some particular trouble to ace justice done, because he was informed that a number of persons who got into gaol were quite unfit for it, and instead of being sent there should be sent to the Lunatic Asylum. Counsel proceeded to read to the Court medical opinion on insanity, when Mr Logan stated that if counsel were addressing a,juty he would not be allowed to read a medical opinion.—Mr Stewart was not aware that such was the case. He felt at a disadvantage after the remarks made by his Worship, for anything he said would fall upon the Court with very little effect. After reading several 'passages, Mr Stewart submitted that the very conduct of accused contained intrinsic evidence of his state of mind. Had the case been in the Supreme Court, the judge wtodd have inquired into the accused’s insanity before hearing the evidence. Be would ■ not have the responsibility thrown on to his shoulders; and’ although his duty was a painful one 'he was compelled to place Mrs Burrows in the witness-box.—Mrs Burrows stated that her husband had for a considerable time evidenced marked signs of softening of the brain.—This was the case for the defence. Mr Hislop : The Court cannot order the accused to be sent to the Lunatic Asylum, I suppose.—Mr Logan : Thereis not power to do that. There woold be no difficulty in transferring him from the gaol to the Asylum, if he became insane there,— Inspector Mallard explained that there was a certain process. The accused could go from the gaol to the Lunatic Asylum to-day.—Mr Logan pointed out that there was no evidence of insanity at the express dates mentioned in the information.—Mr Stewart replied that he was not required to prove the accused’s state of mind at that particular date. Evidence was only required of his state of mind a few days within the time of the alleged occurrence. —Their Worships retired for a few minutes, and on returning into Court Mr Logan said: We hive given the matter full consideration, , and we do not see the evidence warrants as in coming to the conclusion that the prisoner was irresponsible for his acts on the date mentioned. Of course, as I said before, if the prisoner progresses to such an extent as tO' become insane, there will not be the slightest difficulty in getting him removed from the Gaol to the Lunatic Asylum, so the fears entertained by Mr Stewart cannot have any weight. The sentence is for the 14th ult., the first offence, four calendar months’ imprisonment in the Dunedin Gaol; for the second, the 17th, six calendar months’ imprisonment; and for the third, the 24tb, six months cumulative—or sixteen months altogether, with hard labor. With regard to the remarks by Mr Stewart on a former occasion as to prisoner’s apprehension it was generally known that any private citizen could apprehend a man for an offence of this nature, give him in charge to any folice officer, and take him to the look-np or efore a magistrate.—Mr Stewart submittedthat the ruling by the Court that medical evidence as to insanity was irrelevant, inasmuch as it went for nothing, was against the ruling' laid down in Roscoe.—Mr Hislop pointed out that the Court was sitting merely to administer the law, not as it should be, but as it was. Mr Stewart’s remarks and quotations would be exceedingly valuable in considering a reform of our criminal code as a general principle. A reform was much needed, and it was very necessary that there should be other institutions than a gaol where a number of unfortunates could be sent to.