SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume 4246, Issue 4246, 5 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Thursday, October 5. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) SENTENCE. Frederick William Walters (23) and Charles Burke (26). convicted the previous day of larceny, were brought up for sentence.

Mr E. Cook, who had defended the prisoner, said that, with regard to Walters tv. o witnesses—Air Aloylan, of Moruingtou, and Mr Barnes, of Caversham—had been in attendance during the hearing of the case, but were not present that day. As to Burke, he had to present two tostimonids from former employers as to character. There was another ground —and a somewhat unusual one—on which ho had to address his Honor, the extraordinary occurrence of the previous day, which must ho held in the minds of all reasonable men to have had some effect on the jury, because it took to task the conduct of certain other jurors for being inattentive, and looked very much like a warning to that jury not to tread in the same steps of the of.or jurors. This should be tak- n into consideration by tho Court, seeing that not bring a civil case, ho was unable to move to set aside the verdict or for a now trial.

jj|Tlio Crown Prosecutor handed in to his Honor a previous conviction for larceny on

board ship against prisoner Burke. So far os his learned friend’s statements went, he had only to remark that he was utterly wrong in his law, and that a new trial might he obtained where the verdict was against the evidence. Wife regard to what he (Mr Baggitt) had stated yesterday, he did not for one moment regret what he had said, and if the same canse of complaint occurred again, he should draw the Court’s attention to the inattention of the jury. Mr Cook: It went beyond that—far beyond that. His Honor: Is there anything known against the prisoner Walters by the police ? The Crown Prosecutor: Ko, your Honor.

His Honor did not think the observations made yesterday by the Crown Prosecutor had been intended to prejudice the jury in question against tho prisoner. At the time Mr Haggit was making them it struck him (the learned judge) that tho influence on the jury would be the other way, and he certainly thought the remarks he himself made on the same subject tended in no way to defeat the ends of justice. He was of opinion that the jury had come to a sound conclusion on tne evidence. It was not a case for severe sentence, being merely a charge of simple larceny. Prisoner William Burke, having been previously convicted, would be imprisoned in the common gaol of Dunedin for the term of nine months and be kept to hard, labor. Walters would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. INDECENT ASSAULT. William Marshall, milkman, surrendered to his bail to answer a charge of indecently assaulting Jane Anderson, 11 years and 3 months old, on June 28. The Crown Prosecutor pgpsecHted; Mr Mac.issey, with him Mr M’Keay, appeared for prisoner, who pleaded “ Not guilty.” For the defence fee following witnesses were call®# as to character Messrs K. B. Martin, Michaii Filming, and James M'Callum Jamieson, who deposed that they had known the accused for periods varying from five to fourteen yeirs, and had always found him an honest, sober, and industrious man. The jury retired at 2.30 p.m., and returned into Court after au hour’s deliberation, finding the prisoner guilty of the offence.

There was a second count against the prisoner, charging him with indecently assaulting Surtmnah Brown, eight years and six mouths old, on June 15. The jury who had heard the first indictment were not empannelled in this case. The Jury having been sworn, Mr Macassey suggested that the Crown Prosecutor should offer no evidence on this charge. Ilis Honor had the depositions before him, and would see that the ends of justice were met. After what had transpired in the former case he could not see what would be gained by the prosecution of a second charge. The Crown Prosecutor would be very glad indeed td accept the suggestion of his learned friend, but he would not take upon himself that responsibility. If his Honor would relieve him by making a suggestion to him to that effect, he would only be too glad to accept it, and ask that the jury might be discharged, so that he could enter a nolle pmsequi. The girl’s father was very loth indeed that his children should have to be examined.

His Honor thought the ends of justice would be satisfied by the Crown not proceedisg further with the case. The Crown Prosecutor: Then both sides consent to the jury being discharged, and I will obtain leave to enter a nolle pn sequi. Prisoner, who gave his age as 33, said he had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him. His Honor: Prisoner at the bar, you have been convicted of an offence of a most disgusting character, and the Legislature has provided in cases of this kind in addition to the usual term of penal servitude that it is also discretionary to award the punishment of whipping, but in this case I thall not award that additional punishment. It maflotbe —and I give you the benefit of the douW—that the offence was committed with the girl’s consent. I do not say that such was the case—l should be very sorry to think that it was, but in consideration of the extreme punishment I give you the benefit of that doubt, and I shall not inflict that punishment. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept in penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the term of seven years.