SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume 4245, Issue 4245, 4 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS,

Tuesday, October 3. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and

a common jury.)

LARCENY. George Anderson was charged with stealing, at Blueskin, a bag containing clothing, the property of Joseph Holland. Mr Haggit prosecuted; Mr Joyce defended. Prisoner was acquitted, Wednesday, October 4.

' AIDING FORGERY. Robert Dutton Lee was brought up on the second indictment for having, at Oamaru, on September 2nd, aided and abetted John Lewis Horne to forge a cheque for L 7 10s with intent to defraud. - A second count—and on which the jury were asked to found their decision—charged him with being an accessory leiore the fact to the altering of the cheque. Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor challenged the whole of the jury who had served on the first indictment dealt with yesterday, and on which prisoner was acquitted. Having stated the facts of the case the Crown Prosecutor said he was informed that m the case heard yesterday some of the jury acted upon information they had heard from the witnesses outside the Couit, and not from evidence in the Court. Such was the information given me on the oonfesaim of the jurymen themselves. If the jurors had any questions to ask they had better ask them from the witnesses while they were in the box.

Hia Honor (addressing the juiy); You must be clear about this point—you must xorm your opinions from what you hear m this Court and not from what you hear outside. It is highly improper for any person outside to attempt to influence the jury in any way, and it is also equally improper for the jury to permit themselves to be influenced. If any case of this kind is brought before the Court of persons attempting to influence the mind of jurymen I shall know how to deal with it.

The Crown Prosecutor : It was not this jury your Honor.

• ®[°" Qr 5 * am simply warning this jury that they must not follow such an evil example. The case was then proceeded with, and after the prisoner had made his defence—which was to the effect that Mrs Horne was the instigator of the whole of the forgeries, and he tried to prevent their perpetration—the question of what amount of reliability

I iSf ©a Mm Homrt tartlmony Bis Honor cited the" caseKinghgainst Neale and Taylor, where prisoners were indicted for stealing sheep. It appeared the stolen sheep were found in the house of one who admitted king’s evidence, and he gave evidence to show the other prisoners had stolen the sheep. The only other corroboration of this statement was that by the ihan’s wife, and this was held not to be sufficient. The unsupported evidence of an accomplice ' would require corroboration. The Crown Prosecutor pointed out that in this case it was not a question of an accomplice. Home was the principal felon. His Honor replied that there was sufficient evidence to connect prisoner with the uttering, but unless the principal felon’s evidence was corroborated, it would be the dUty'Sf a judge to direct a jury to return a verdict of “Not guilty,” The Crown Prosecutor : Not to advise, but to caution them how to act -on the uncorroborated evidence of a convicted felon. His Honor: The advice usually given almost amounts to a direction. Mr Haggitt submitted that in no principle of law could it be found that because aman was a felon his wife was to be discredited. As the prisoners were indicted separately, Mrs Horne’s testimony was admissible, although it would not have been bWd prf. soner and Horne were indicted together. The evidence, having been admitted, should be accepted. . Mis Honor held that it was merely a&nesrion of direction. It seemed almost V deduction m this case that the wife and an • must be taken as one person. . He should content himself by direcnntr the , jury that a wife would be biassed in favor of her husband, and, if necessary, should reserve the point. The principal witness inthe [ case was the wife of the principal offender, and the fact of her testimony being unsupported should weigh with the jury,’ i The Crown Prosecutor could not see that Mrs Home would effect any good by giving false testimony against prisoner. Her husband had been convicted, and no evidence i she could now give would benefit her husband or herself. For the simple reason that because she had the misfortune to be : the wife of a convicted felon her 1 testimony should not have that weight it would otherwise have, he could see no principle in law or | justice, to uphold. ‘ f . His Honor then charged the jury, tailing , them that if they believed Mrs Home’s testimony they would convict prisoner; if, *on the othei hand, they considered prisoner’s Version to be the true one, they would ace nit . him. , The jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.” The Crown offered no evidence on the other two indictments and the prisoner was accordingly discharged. STEALING IBON. • Frederick W. Walters and Charles Burke were, jointly charged .with having, on May 21, stolen from Deborah Bay, 15Jowt. of iron, the property of Charles Henry Btwet; and with having, within six months thereafter, stolen 25cwt. Mr E. Cook defended both prisoners, and pleaded “ not guilty.” . facts of the case were fully reported in our columns at the hearing of the case in the Port Chalmers Police Court. [Left sitting.] ‘