SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 31, 6 July 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL BITTINHS. Monday, Jui.v i» [Before liia Honor Mr Jusl ice G reason J The quarterly sittings of tin. Supreme Conrfc in its criminal jurisdiction opened this day at 11 a.m. The following gentlemen wore sworn as THE GRAND JURY, Sir M. LeFleming, Messrs V. Mason, T. J. Maling, F. A. Bishop, F. H. Valpy, M. P. Stoddart, J. Field, Wm. Saunders, R. Holderness, P. B. Boulton, J. Maefarlane, A. Cardale, J. M. Ueywood, Wm Keunaway, J. O. Hawkes, Alex Carrick. Mr M. P. Stoddart was cboscn foremau of the Grand Jury. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. Ilia Honor then delivered the following CHARGE. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—lt appears, from the calendar, that there have been thirteen committals since our last session. Most of the cases pre of the ordinary character. There are only two upon which I think it necessary to trouble you with any Bpecial observations. The first, is a case of manslaughter, -u which the evidence against the prisoner depends almost wholly upon the dying declarations of the deceased. You are probably aware that the reception of such evidence foims one of the exception to the general rule which rejects hearsay evidence. The principle upon which dying declarations are admitted, is that being made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone, every motive to falsehood is silenced, and a situation so solemn, is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath in a Court of Justice. Such declarations though made with a full consciousness of approaching death, are only admissible in evidence where the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge, and the circumstances of the death are the dying declarations. Their admissibility is a question for the judge alone; but, though admissible, as I think in this case it would appear from the depositions that they are. this species of evidence ought always to be received with caution. It cannot be subjected to the valuable test of cross-examination, and it is always liable to be misunderstood or mis-reported, from either misapprehension or infirmity of memory. Gentlemen, you will perceive the relevancy of these observations when the evidence is adduced, and I have no doubt you will give the case your best consideration. The other case to which I consider it necessary to direct your attention is that of a prisoner who has been committed upon several charges for obtaining property by fatee pretences by means of valueless cheques. It appears from the depositions that, in two of the cases, the cheques when given to the prosecutor were post-dated. I presume that the indictment will charge as the pretences, that the order for payment of money was a good and genuine order for the payment of £ , and of the value of £ In such caßeyou will have to consider whether the representation made by the defendant was that he then, at the time of giving the cheque, had an account with his banker, and a right to draw for the amount of the cheque, though he postponed the date of it, for his own convenience only, to a future day. If satisfied that such waß the representation made, and that he had no account with his banker, you will have no difficulty in finding true bills. But if you should arrive at the conclusion that the defendant only meant to represent when tendering the cheque that he would provide funds to meet it when at maturity, I think you had better find no true Bill. Gentlemen, you are aware that under the 2lst section of the Lunatic's Act of 1868, the Judges of the Supreme Court have the power of sending to an asylum for curative treatment, persons who are either confirmed drunkards, or who are from the excessive use of intoxicating liquors wasting their substance and neglecting to Bupport their families. Since the Act haß come into operation and more especially since a seperate establishment for inebriates has been formed at Sunnyside Asylum, several persons have been sent there for curative treatment. The results upon the whole are in my opinion not discouraging; but I believe that the treatment would be found much more effectual if some power were given of compelling the persons under treatment to engage in some occupation suited to their previous habits and ability. It generally happens that they recover in a great measure their mental and bodily health after they have* been kept for a short time from intoxicating drink, and it is felt by Mr Seager, the superintendent, and by others who have an opportunity of obseiving the working of the institution, that the complete idleness in which the inebriates are almost compelled by circumstances to pass their time, operates prejudically, both as regards their own improvement and the discipline of the institution. I do not apprehend that the evil could be effectually remedied without. the aid of the legislature, but such aid might easily be obtained, now that the General Assembly is in session. I avail myself of this opportunity of mentioning the subject, in the hope that some member of the legislature may think it of sufficient importance to bring before Parliament. I do not mean that the inebriates should be subjected to •' hard labor." But, as the legislature has thought fit to deprive them temporarily of their liberty, that it should impose a further obligation calculated to promote their cure, by compelling them to engage in such occupations as might be suited to theii health and antecedents. The Lunatics Act, 1868, requires amendment in other respects. There is greater reason therefore for endeavoring to make it more effective for the removal of an evil that is doing more than anything else to retard the progress of the colony physically, as well as morally. Gentlemen, I need not detain you longer. If you will be good" enough to retire to your room, the bills will be brought before you. The Grand Jury then returned to their room. TRUE BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned into Court with true bills in the following cases ; Regina v William Noon —Forgery and uttering and three previous convictions; Regina v John Henderson—Housebreaking and larceny ; Regina v William ThompsonHorse stealing; Regina v W. E. Tenby, larceny from a dwelling house. NO BILL. In the case of Robert Quick alias Patrick Quinn, for manslaughter. The Grand Jury returned no bill. SENTENCE. John Wilmshurst, convicted at the last session of the Supreme Court for having

fraudulently appropriated certain medical comforts in his capacity as surgeon-superin-tendent of the ship Isles of the South, was brought up for sentence. It will be recollected ih;ii the prisoner's counsel raised some points of law in hit; favor which were submit ted to the Court of Appeal at its last session, ami that Hie full Court affirmed the conviction. His honor now scutmeed the prisoner to eighteen months' imprisonment w'ith hard labor, computed from Stir April last. The prisoner was then removed. FORGERY AND UTTERING. William Noon was indicted for having on the 21st March, 1874, forged a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for £B. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded "Guilty." Tire prisoner also pleaded guilty to throe previous convictions before the Supreme Court. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for five years within the colony. HOUSEBREAKING AND LARCENY. John Henderson, a youth of some twelve or thirteen years of age, was indicted for ha\ing on the Lsth May last broken into the house of one James Lever at Springston, and stolen therefrom the sum of £SO. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr Joynt appeared to defend the prisoner. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty," and Mr D. McGuinness was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case as disclosed by the evidence, were as follows :—The prisoner was in charge of the house of the prosecutor, who had left the house for same days. In a room in the house, the door of which was locked, the prosecutor had left a box containing £SO in notes. On the return of the prosecutor he discovered that the window had been broken open and the contents of the box stolen. From information received the prisoner was arrested by Detective Sergeant Feast, on the 16th of May last, who took him to the shop of Mr Hermann, jeweller, by whom the prisoner was identified as having changed two £lO notes there, in purcharing some jewellery. After leaving the jeweller's shop the prisoner was taken to the office of Sergeant Feast, where he told the prosecutor that all he had taken was under his bed at Springston. A search was made under the the bed pointed out aa the prisoner's without result, and the prisoner then took the detectives about ten chains down a paddock, and, from a hole in a rod under the gorse fence, pulled out a purse and and a watch, there being about £1 Is in the former. The prisoner afterwards searched under the house, and pulled out a gold chain, a signet ring, and a scarf ring, remarking to the detectives that they hadgottheb y lot. Shortly after this the prisoner wentj to the back of an outhouse, and pulled out a pipe and case from under the thatch. The prisoner stated that the articles were what he had bought with the two £lO notes which was all he had taken, and that he had paid £l9 10s for the articles. He further told the detectives that he had changed one £lO note at Lincoln, and that he had lost the rest of the money. In the course of the prosecutor's evidence, he stated that he had told the boy that if he would confess what he had done with the money, nothing more would be said. Mr Joynt then applied that all the evidence given by Detective Feast, as to the statements made by the prisoner to him, should be struck out, as the prosecutor's evidence disclosed that these statements had been made under a promise that nothing should come of it. His Honor allowed the objection, and erased the evidence as requested. Neither the Crown Prosecutor nor Mr Joynt addressed the jury. His Honor summed up the case to the jury. The jury, without leaving the box, retdrned a verdict of "Guilty," adding a recommendation to mercy on the ground of his youth. His Honor said he would not pass sentence that day, but would desire to consider the case.