MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 204, 3 February 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, January 3. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and his Worship the Mayor.) THE CAB CASE. Dr, Foster, addressing the Bench, said that with reference to the cab case, the Council had received an intimation from the other side that overtures were being negotiated, and he had said that he would make no objection to the case being adjourned. He would ask that both cases on the sheet might be permitted to stand over. Adjourned until the 10th inst. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Charles Evans, for drunkenness was fined 10s; John Kelly, 20s; and John Williams, os, ASSAULTING A BAILIFF. William Galbraith, Charlotte L. Galbraith, and Isabella Mitchell were charged with assaulting a bailiff in the execution of his duty. Mr Joyut appeared for defendants. James Turnbull stated that between three and four o’clock he had a warrant to execute against a man named Harris, living in defendants’ house. He inquired if Harris was in, and Mrs Harris came to the door and said he (witness) was not coming in. He got in and commenced taking an inventory in the workshop, and afterwards went into the kitchen and took down a watch that was hanging up. Mrs Galbraith then went at him with an axe, and then commenced to jostle him. Galbraith afterwards came in, and said he would give him a warrant, and struck him twice. Harris then ceased, and he (witness) completed the inventory. By Mr Joynt—lt was between three and four o’clock when I went to the house. Both Mrs and Mrs Mitchell tried to obstruct me. I showed the warrant-to them. I was sober at the time. I took the watch down, and was going to enter it, when the woman came at me with an axe. I put it in my pocket, as I consider it a part of my duty to do so. It would be according to how I was dressed whether I put chairs and tables in my pockets. I told them I had a warrant against Joseph Harris’s goods. This jostling was not going on all the time that Mr Galbraith was being sent for, Mrs Harris did not say that her husband had goods in the front portion of the house. I do not know who the house belongs to. I was not supposed to know that the watch was not Harris’s. The defendants did not tell me that all the goods belonged to Galbraith. Mr Galbraith did not speak a word when he came. I told him I had a warrant for Harris’s goods, and he replied, “I’ll warrant and harass you.” He then tried to put me out, and did not say that I was welcome to go over the house. I had never spoken to Galbraith before, though I had seen him about the streets. Both Mrs Mitchell and Galbraith knew who I was. I swear I was perfectly sober at the time, and showed the warrant when I first went to the house. I completed the inventory before I left. I had done a part of the workshop before I was interfered with by the women. When I served Harris with the summons he was working at the bench in the workshop. The watch is not entered, as it was forcibly taken from me. I will swear that the watch is entered on the first inventory, written with a cedar pencil. It was the first entry made in that room. John Lewis was the other bailiff at the house at the time. John Lewis stated that he went with Turnbull, the day, to defendants house. He was left in the carpenter’s shop, and Turnbull went into another room. Mrs Harris called out to Mrs Galbraith that a man was taking her husband’s watch. She came in and said, “ Now put that watch back.” Turnbull said it was all right. She then said, “You have not shown me the warrant,” and he (Turnbull) took it out and half opened it, and said, that is my authority. Mrs Galbraith said, “Now don’t you touch anything until my husband comes,” and she then sent for her husband. Saw Mrs Harris with an axe in her hand holding it up, and saying, “ Now you put that watch back.” The women jostled Turnbull about, and then he (Turnbull) sent witness to the front of the house, and told him to watch that none of the things were taken out by the front. After Galbraith came, Turnbull went away with his face blefding, and said that Galbraith had struck him. By Mr Joyut—The woman asked Turnbull to show her the warrant after he had put the watch into his pocket. I saw the women jostle him, and saw Mrs Galbraith flourishing the axe. I do not know that she was cutting wood before this. Mrs Harris said that all that had belonged to her was the bedstead, and that she had sold it to Galbraith for rent she owed him. Turnbull gave me the warrant when he was going away. When Mrs Galbraith was flourishing the axe, she had a piece of wood in the other hand. When I went in first Mrs Galbraith had not the axe in her hand; she took it up

afterwards. After I was left in the house, another man came in and assaulted me. Robert McKnight, bailiff, stated that between three and four o’clock he sent Turnbull to defendant’s place, and when he returned afterwards he bore the appearance of having been assaulted. Mr Malet, clerk to the Court, said he had an opportunity of seeing Turnbull constantly the previous day. He had brought him documents to sign during the day, and he was perfectly sober. He also saw him when he returned from defendant’s house, and he was sober at the time.

Mr Joynt hardly saw the necessity for the Court to produce a witness on a question that he might have asked a witness. His Worship could not help what Mr Joynt saw. An imputation had been made against an officer of the Court, and it was necessary in the interest of the public that it should be positively known that the conduct of that Court would not permit any one engaged in its working to do its business while in a state of intoxication.

Mr Joynt called Mrs Harris, who said that she had lived in lodgings at Mr Galbraith’s place. All the furniture belonged to Galbraith, and the bedstead, which had been hers, was sold to him for rent she owed him. When Turnbull came into the house the previous day, he commenced to remove a table, and was told that the furniture did not belong to Galbraith. Heard Mrs Galbraith ask him to see the warrant, and he then called the old man and asked him for the warrant, and said, “ This is my authority.” Was sure he was not jostled, and before he showed the warrant he took down the watch and put it into his pocket. Cross-examined by Plaintiff—l did not see Mrs Galbraith with an axe in her hand. The carpenter’stools belong to Galbraith. Ibelieve he brought them from England. My husband made the bedstead, and did the turnery in the house for Galbraith.

By the Court —The warrant was not shown until after Turnbull had taken the watch down and placed it in his pocket. When asked for the warrant, he called the old man and asked him for it, and then said, ‘ ‘ This is my authority.” Mr Joynt submitted that, in the interests of justice, the charge might be dismissed against Mrs Mitchell, as there was no evidence to show that she had taken any part in the assault. As she was present the whole of the time, he thought it would forward the justice of the case if he was allowed to do this. His Worship consented to this course, and dismissed the case against Mrs Mitchell. Mrs Mitchell stated that she was present, and repeated the substance of the evidence given by Mrs Harris. She did not see Turnbull jostled, but heard Mrs Galbraith tell Turnbull to put back the watch. In cross-examination, the witness stated that she did not see Mrs Galbraith flourish an axe, as she went outside, nor did she see Mr Galbraith strike him.

By the Bench —I had not an opportunity of seeing what state Turnbull was in. I could not tell whether he was excited or not,

Mr Joynt desired to submit that from his knowledge of bailiffs, it would not be a very serious thing for a bailiff to be drunk. He had seen instances of it hundreds of times, and he did not think the public would care very much whether Turnbull was drunk or not. It|was only from the manner in which Turnbull had acted that he (Mr Joynt) supposed he must have been intoxicated at the time. Mr Joynt then reviewed the evidence at the time, and submitted that the whole affair had been caused through a misunderstanding, caused by the bailiff in not first stating who he was, as, by the evidence, when it became known that he was a bailiff, Galbraith expressed his readiness to show him everything in his house. The Bench said they were content to give Mrs Galbraith the benefit of the doubt created by the evidence of Mrs Mitchell, and would dismiss the charge against her. There was also a small doubt existing about Galbraith not knowing who the bailiff was, and, small as that doubt was, he would receive the full benefit of it. He would be fined 40s, ASSAULT. Harriet Stoddart was summoned for assaulting her husband, William Stoddart. Mr Thomson appeared for the complainant. This was a misunderstanding between husband and wife, and after the evidence had been heard his Worship advised the complainant to endeavour to come to amicable terms to effect a separation, and with that view adjourned the case for a week. LYTTELTON. Tuesday, February. 2. (Before W. Donald, Esq, E.M., and J. T, Rouse, and H. Allwright, Esqs, J.P’s.) VAGRANCY. Samuel Parks, an old offender, was sentenced to two months for this offence. Prisoner was arrested by Sergeant Maguire. CONTEMPT OP COURT. Charles William McEwan, for making a disturbance in court during the case against John Mercer, was sentenced to four days’ imprisonment with hard labor, the Bench remarking they could not pass over such a gross case as this, the prisoner having come drunk into Court, and then making a great disturbance. MURDER. John Mercer was charged with the murder of Isabella Thompson. Mr J. S. Duncan conducted the prosecution, and Mr H. O’Neill appeared for the accused. . Dr Llewellyn Powell, duly sworn, said—l am a duly registered medical practitioner. I received from Sergeant-Major O’Grady last month certain clothing—a coat, trousers, comforter, and pockethandkerchief. (Clothes produced.) I identify the coat. I examined j it, and found the wrists of the two sleeves stained with blood. The blood was especially on the internal side of the left sleeve, but on the external side of both. 1 identify the comforter. There were also blood stains on that. I identify this handkerchief. That was also stained with Wood. In my opinion the stains of blood were recent when I saw them, apparently about two or three days old, but that is a matter of opinion. 1 cannot tell the exact date I received them from the sergeant-major. The blood was that of a mammal, but I can give no further opinion.

Dr Rouse, duly sworn, said—l am a legally qualified medical practitioner, residing in Lyttelton. Last month I was called in to examine the prisoner on Monday, 11th January; he was then at the police station in custody. I observed a scratch on bis nose. It was a recent one. I examined his legs and hands. On his legs were a number of marks, such as would be made by thorns and prickles. These

were about his knees. He accounted for them by stating he was subject to pimples. I extracted a number of minute thorns from his legs, about the knees, both above and below, and from his hands and fingers. I compared them with others through the microscope, and found them to be the ends of prickles of goree. I saw no blood on the clothes he then had on. He had not on the clothes produced. I assisted Dr McDonald in making a post mortem examination on the body of Isabella Thompson. On viewing the body externally there were a great number of scratches—in fact, the body was scratched all over. The hair was matted with dry gorse prickles. I compared the thorns obtained from the body of the prisoner with those obtained from the body of deceased, and also with some from the spot where the murder was committed, and found them identical. A large and gaping wound was on the left side of the neck, dividing the structure down to the base of the skull. Such a wound might be caused by a knife neither very sharp nor very blunt—[knife produced]—it might be inflicted by a knife such as that I see before me. That wound was the cause of death, as the common carotid artery was divided. Death must have followed very quickly from loss of blood. There was a bruise on the forehead of deceased, and on both arms, and on the outer side of the right knee, and just above the right hip, there were scratches such as might be caused by finger nails. There were bruises on the outer part of the legs, but not on the inner. I only remember one scratch on prisoner’s face. There was one on his hand. I was present when a quantity of the child’s hair was cut off. I identify the hair shown.

By Bench—l first saw the body at the bottom of Mr Pember’s orchard. The limbs were cold but the body warm. I expressed an opinion that she had not been dead much more than an hour. I did not notice marks of any great struggle. The dry gorse was thick all round, and appeared to have been disturbed.

Dr Hugh McDonald, duly sworn, said—l am a legally qualified medical practioner, residing in Lyttelton. I, with Dr Rouse, made a post mortem examination on the body of Isabella Thompson at the morgue on Monday, January 11th. I consider the girl was about twelve years of age. The body was well nourished. I corroborate the evidence given by Dr Rouse in every particular. There was no trace of any organic disease existing. Her sexual organs were uninjured. By Bench—The wound in the throat waa the cause of death.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill —When I speak of corroborating Dr Rouse’s evidence I allude to the appearance of the body and the cause of death. I did not see the body till it was in the morgue. By Bench—l think such a wound as that in deceased’s throat may have been inflicted by the knife produced. John Blair Thompson, on affirmation, said —I live in Dampier’sßay, Lyttelton, and am the father of the deceased Isabella Thompson, I last saw her alive on the 9th January, at a quarter before sin the afternoon. She was then in good health and high spirits, full of life. I last saw her opposite Mr Hamilton’s garden in Dampier’s Bay. She was going to the Colonists’ Hall. She had a hat on. I identify the clothes produced as heis ; she had them on when I last saw her. I next saw her at the Police Station that same afternoon. She was then dead, but I identified her as my daughter Isabella: She would have been twelve years of age on the 23rd January. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill—The distance from Dampier’s Bay to the police station is a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes’ walk.

James Allen, duly sworn, said—l am a seaman. I remember the night of 9th January last. I know prisoner, his name is 'John Mercer. I was at that time mate of the Canterbury schooner. The prison r came on shore in a boat with me from that vessel at 11 a.m. that day, he landed with me at Lyttelton. 1 next saw him at 12 o’clock, at the Albion corner. I next saw him at Captain Bussell’s house, this was before I o’clock. I next saw him .at Mrs Webb’s corner, opposite the Albion, this was the third time I met him. I gave him a £l-note. Captain Bussell was then with me, after that I went on board. I came ashore again about i p.m. I was getting water for the ship, and he came down to the wharf and asked for the boat, which I refused to give him. I next saw him with a little girl at the corner by the Albion Hotel. Captain Bussell was with me. It was about ten minutes past five. He was coming up Canterbury street from the Mitre towards the Albion when I first saw him. The girl and accused were in company. Accused spoke to Captain Bussell, and then went straight up Canterbury street towards Scott’s publichouse. I did not see them go higher than past the Albion’s skittle ground. The girl was with him. I saw a body in the morgue when in company with Detective Feast on the 11th about 2.30 p.m. I recognised her as the same girl I saw with John Mercer. By Bench —I am sure it was the same girl. By Mr Duncan —The girl was clean and tidy when I saw her with accused. I have known Mercer since November 25th last, when he joined the schooner Canterbury as as cook and steward. I have seen him with a knife on board similar to the one produced. There was no blood on his clothes when I saw him with the little girl. There was no mark of any kind on his face then. By Bench—During the six weeks he was on board no animal was killed. I identify the clothing produced as those worn by the prisoner. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill—The child when I saw her at the morgue had a light dress on, and a hat like the one produced, trimmed with dark ribbon. I cannot swear the knife shown me was the prisoner’s, but he had one like it, I looked particularly at prisoner’s clothes when I saw him with the girl. I can swear his clothes were clean when he came on shore that morning with me in the boat. He pulled the forward oar and I stood up and pushed, By Bench—When I saw deceased at the morgue I paid more attention to her features than her dress.

John Russell, sworn, said—Last January I was master of the schooner Canterbury. I know accused. His name is John Mercer. He was cook and, steward from the 25th of November. I paid him off on the 9th of January last, between 11 and 12 in the morning: I saw him that afternoon when in company with James Allan at the Albion corner. He spoke to me. There was a little girl with him. It was about 5 o’clock in the afternoon. He came up Canterbury street. I did not see the little girl come up Canterbury street. After he had spoken to me he continued up Canterbury street past

tbe Albion. Hie was six or seven yards from the little girl when I saw him. The little girl ran up the street and he ran after her. I did not see him overtake her. I saw him no more that day. After he left me I did not take any notice afterwards. I saw the dead body of a girl at the morgue on Monday, 11th Januarv, and believe it was the body of the same child I saw with the prisoner. The child's clothes, when I saw her with prisoner, did not appear to be torn. I did not notice any blood on accused’s clothes or on his hands or face. Whilst prisoner was cook and steward on board the Canterbury, no aniro-’i was killed on board, the meat was all broi ght on board slaughtered. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill —I did not pay any particular attention to the clothes she had on. I did not look for any particular marks on his hands and face when I paid him off or when I had this late conversation wi*h him in the street. I noticed accused’s clothes from the fact that he spoke to me.

Alfred George Simmonds, duly sworn, said—l am twelve years of age, and live in Lyttelton with my mother. I remember Saturday, the 9th of January last, I was herding some cows with a boy named John Bailey, near Ripon street. I know the orchard belonging to the parsonage ; it is in Ripon street. Looking through the corner of the fence that evening I saw a girl lying on her right side : her head was down hill, towards the gorse fence. I did not notice that her legs were bare, but I saw she had some blood on her teeth. I did not notice what state her dress was in. I walked away when I saw her, and the boy Bailey went in to look. Bailey saw it first, and told me to come and look. I did not know if she was dead or not.

Bichard Bouse, sworn, said—l am a laborer in Lyttelton. I remember Saturday, January 9th. I went on that evening up to the corner of Mr Pember’s ground from information I had received, and saw a little girl lying there dead. I did not know the girl; her dress was thrown up over her neck, and her legs were exposed. I sent for the police, and they came. Constable Wallace and another constable came, that I do not know, and took possession of the body. Matthew Percy, sworn, said—l am a seaman . I was employed on board the schooner Canterbury last month. I know the prisoner. I saw him at 3 p.m. on January 9th. He was then on Norwich Quay, abreast of the Canterbury Hotel. He said he was going to Christchurch to get a girl, and if he did not get her he would either cut her weazen or her throat. I can swear to the coat and cap produced, but not to the other clothes. There was no blood on his hands, clothes, or face when I saw him that day at three o’clock. I know prisoner possessed a knife. I identify the knife produced as prisoner’s. I know it, as 1 was in the galley with him two days, and used the knife for peeling potatoes. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill—l did not look particularly at prisoner to see if he had any blood on his clothes. By Bench—l think that I should have noticed if there was any blood on his face. John Skett, duly sworn, said—l am a seaman. I live in Oxford street, Lyttelton. I remember Saturday, the 9th of January last, I was standing at the rails by Mr Bunker’s ‘stables. I was leaning on the rails. It was about a quarter or 20 minutes to 6 p.m. I saw the accused come down from the parsonage. When I first saw he was standing shaking his coat at the first post from the corner where the girl was found dead (about nine feet). Accused walked down Oxford street; he went down towards the railway station. I saw blood on his right cheek, the side towards me, as I was leaning on the rail. I noticed him as he passed me. I only noticed the blood on his cheek; none on his clothes. lam sure accused is the man, and that he was going down towards the station.

By the Bench—The coat was on him at the time. Mr O’Neill did not cross-examine this witness.

Miss Annie Rouse, duly sworn, said—Hive with my father at the corner of Ripon and Oxford street. I recognise the prisoner. On Saturday, January 9th, I saw him passing our window. He was crossing the tramway where the prisoners are at work in Ripon street, and came down Oxford street; he was walking hurriedly. I do not know why I noticed him, except that he was a stranger. The clothes produced and the cap are like those he had on. I did not notice any blood on his clothes or face. He went down Oxford street in the direction of the railway station. It was between 5.30 and 6 p.m, when I saw him.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill Few people pass our house during the day. The window I saw prisoner through is in Oxford street.

Bobert Bussell, duly sworn, said—l am a carpenter living in Christchurch. I remember Saturday, the 9th of January last. I was in Lyttelton that day, and went back to Christchurch by the 6 p.m. train. After I got in a man got in behind me. It was accused. He remarked to me I ought to get into the horse-box to make room for the public. [Laughter,] I told him he ought to wash his hands before he spoke. I said this because I noticed blood on his hands. It looked fresh blood; and he said he had been killing a sheep. I did not notice any blood on his clothes.

By Bench : When I saw him in custody I recognised him at once. There was blood on his face when he was in the railway carriage. There was blood on his nose and his right cheek. Mr O’Neill did not cross-examine this witness.

James Quin Sheehan, a boy, sworn, said— Mj father keeps a boarding-house in Highstreet, Christchurch. I remember Saturday, 9th of January last. A man came to our house about 10 p.m., a little before 10 p.m. Accused is the man. He asked for a bed. He paid for the bed, went out to have a drink with another man, and came back again. When he returned he had half a pound of tobacco in blue paper; he had also a knife which he took from his coat pocket. The knife had one blade, and had a brownish handle (knife produced and identified by witness). The tobacco produced is like what accused had with him. Accused slept that night in the kitchen on a bed. He only took his boots off. He said he was going to Lyttelton the following morning. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill—Accused said he had half a pound of tobacco with him. Accused paid a shilling for the bed. John Darcy, duly sworn, said—l was cook on board the Cleopatra last January. I know prisoner. I saw him on Saturday, 9tb January, between 4 and 5 p.m.; he came on shore with me. I saw him on the Sunday following onboard the Cleopatra; he emptied his bag of clothes when he came on board,

and he changed his clothes. The clothes produced are those he had on when he came on board. I do believe them to be the clothes that he had on. Accused had a knife. The knife produced 1 believe to be his. Ido not know what accused did with the clothes he had on. I saw two or three articles of clothing floating about alongside the vessel. They looked like flannels or drawers. By Bench—The clothes were partially wetted. There was no vessel so close that the things could have floated from it without being wetter than they were. On Monday, the 11th of January, I found the knife produced in a coal tub by the galley door. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill—Accused changed his clothes on deck. Sailors often throw old clothes overboard, 1 noticed three articles floating, they seemed to be woollen. The nearest ship was more than a cable’s length off. I think the tops of the clothes were dry, because they were floating. Henry Feast, duly sworn, said—l am the chief detective officer. From information received I went in search of the person who caused the death of Isabella Thompson. In company with the sergeant-major, I went off in a boat to see the cook of the Cleopatra. Accused was standing on the port side, abaft the fore rigging. The sergeant-major asked if he was the cook, and he said he was. I asked the prisoner where he passed the Saturday night, and he said in Christchurch. The sergeant-major was not in uniform. The cook, who had a mark on his nose when questioned, said he had done it some days before on board the schooner. The sergeantmajor, prisoner, and myself, then went down into the cabin, and told him we wanted to look at his clothes. I said “the same-clothes you were wearing on Saturday.” There was a canvas bag of clothes pulled out of a side bunk. The sergeant major put the clothes out on the cabin table,and I examined them. The first thing I noticed was the trousers, those produced are the same. 1 noticed blood on them. I found the coat at nearly the bottom of the bag, and I saw blood on it. Prisoner said the blood was that of a sheep he had killed in Wellington. I also noticed a mark of blood on the scarf produced. All the clothes were in the same bag. The cap was lying on the cabin table. The eight handkerchiefs produced were found in the bag also. I then asked prisoner if he had any money on him. He said he had none. I commenced to search him, and took from his waistcoat pocket the pipe and tobacco produced. I asked if he had a knife, and he said he did not carry one. I remarked the tobacco had been cut with a knife, and he said yes, it had been cut up in the galley. I said, “ You are not always in the galley,” and he said, “If I am not I break it up with my fingers.” I found the tobacco produced in prisoner’s bag. I was still searching him when prisoner said, “ What do you want?” I then said to the prisoner, “Why, you murdered that poor girl, and that is the brand of Cain you have on your nose that was done with her finger.” Prisoner could not speak for a minute, and then mumbled out something to the effect as to whether I should like him to say he did it. We then rolled up the things and brought him on deck, and after examining a bed on deck we brought him on shore and took him up to the police station. We there stripped him and then, in pulling off his boots and socks, I saw some dry gorse in the socks.” I said, “ Why, there’s gorse here in the socks. The socks and boots produced are those I took, from the prisoner. I can see some of the gorse in the boots now. The prisoner said it was not gorse when I found it. On examining his knees I looked up at him and said, “ Why, there’s gorse there also,” The sergeant-major then commenced squeezing his knee, and he said they were pimples. When the clothes were found in the bag, prisoner stated they were those he had worn on Saturday. Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill—Neither the sergeant-major or myself ‘were in uniform. We did not tell' prisoner who we were when we seaiched his clothes. Prisoner did not object to our looking at bis clothes. He made no demur when we asked to see the clothes he had worn on the previous Saturday. I have been a detective ten years in Canterbury and eight in London, previously in the force. Ido not see anything unfair in telling him he had murdered the girl. Prisoner went willingly into the boat to go on shore. I did not formally charge him with any murder before I brought him on shore further than I have already stated by telling him he had murdered the poor girl. This concluded the case for the Crown, The whole of the evidence having been read over, the Bench asked the prisoner if he had anything to ray. Mr O’Neill, on behalf of the prisoner, stated the defence would be reserved.

The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court at Christchurch.