SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 332, 6 July 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

♦ CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July, 5. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) MANSLAUGHTER. Janet M'Kinlay was indicted for having on the 15th April last unlawfully killed and slain a female child. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr Ivory was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The case for the Crown, as given in evidence, was as follows:—In April last the prisoner was confined of a female child, and was attended during her confinement by several of her neighbors. The child was healthy at the time of birth, though small, and lived until the 15th April, when it died. Shortly after the birth of the child the mother gave way to drinking, and consumed a large quantity of spirits, being drunk almost all the time and at the time of the death of the child. On the morning of the 15th April the son of the prisoner asked her how the child was, and she then turned round in the bed and looked at it. It was then alive. About midday on the same date the son again asked after the ohlid, when it was found to be dead. Sergeant Kennedy, from the circumstances of neglect attending the death of the child, went to the house of the prisoner on the 16th April, where he found the prisoner stupidly drunk lying on the bed with the body of a female infant beside her. The constable arrested the prisoner and took the body of the infant to the Christchurch Hospital. An inquest was afterwards held, and a post mortem examination took place, which showed that the body was greatly emaciated from want of sustenance, and that its death had taken place from want of proper food and neglect. Mr Duncan called Sergeant Kennedy, Mrs Carter, Mrs Johnson, Duncan McKinlay (son of the prisoner, a little boy 18 years of age), and Dr Powell. The female witnesses concurred in stating thattheprisoner’s child was notahealthybahy. The evidence of the little boy was to the effect that for the five days preceding the death of the child he had procured a bottle of whiskey each day, or five days in all, and that she was drunk for a number of days prior to the death of the child. There were four childen, of which he was the oldest. His father was in gaol. In answer to the prisoner, the witness stated that one night before his father was put in gaol he had turned his mother out of doors with the child, and would not let her in again. He was positive as to bringing five bottles of whisky for his mother, who drank all the contents. Dr Powell’s evidence related to the post mortem examination made by him of the body of a female child about a week old at the Christchurch Hospital. The body was very emaciated, weighing only a trifle over 5* lbs. The only marks on the body were two slight bruises, one on the head and the other on the groin. The stomach and intestines were empty. His opinion of the cause of death was that it had been accelerated by want of sufficient nourishment and proper attention. He did not think that the bruise on the head would have caused death, nor was the congestion of the lungs discovered on the post mortem. It might have been the case that the infant would not take nourishment, as was frequently the case, more particularly with puny children. The prisoner stated that the baby was alive when she gave the children their breakfast, and that when she came to look at it again she found it dead, and that was all she knew about it. His Honor summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. LARCENY PROM THE PERSON. Minnie Thompson, alias Edwards, and Margaret Clarke, were indicted for having on or about the Ist day of May last stolen one watch, one chain, and money, the pro perty of one Patrick Laffey. John Eldridge was jointly indicted with the above-named prisoners for having received the said watch and chain, knowing the same to be stolen. All the prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded not guilty. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Grown. Mr G. R. Rankin was chosen foreman of the petty jury.

The facts of the case were as follows : On the Ist of May last the prosecutor, Laffey. was in Gloucester street, where he met one of the female prisoners. Ultimately he mcl the other prisoner. After some conversation the prosecutor and the two women got into a cab and drove off. The prosecutor had then in his possession a watch and chain and money. After a short distance had been gone in the cab the prosecutor fell some one’s hands about his watch and in the pocket where the money was. The women at this time stopped the cab and got out, leaving the prosecutor alone in the cab. Immediately on the women leaving the cab the prosecutor missed his watch, chain, and money. Information was given to the police, and Inspector Feast went in search of the missing property. On the 4th May Inspector Feast saw the prisoner Eldridge in the City Hotel offering a pawn ticket for sale. He immediately arrested him and took possession of the pawn ticket, and found that it referred to the watch reported as stolen, which had been pawned by Eldridge at Rtewart’s pawn shop. Inspector Feast went to Stewart’s pawn office and there received the watch produced, which had been sworn to by the prosecutor Laffey. On the way to the lock-up Eldridge told Inspector Feast that he had got the watch from Clarke to pawn. Mr Duncan led evidence to prove the facts detailed above, Inspector Feast, the prosecutor (Patrick Laffey), and Detective Bettington giving evidence. After his Honor had summed up, the jury returned into Court with a verdict of Guilty against Minnie Edwards and Eldridge, and “ Not Guilty” against Margaret Clarke. His Honor sentenced the prisoner Edwards to one year’s imprisonment at Addington Gaol, with hard labor. Eldridge was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in Lyttelton Gaol with hard labor. APPLICATION. Mr Duncan said he desired to make an application to his Honor under the B7th section of the Pawnbrokers Act of 1868, which was as follows :—“ It shall be lawful for any two or more justices of the peace to order that any goods unlawfully pledged, pawned, or exchanged, which shall be brought before them, and the ownership of which shall be established to the satisfaction of such justices, shall be delivered up to the owner by the party with whom they were so unlawfully pawned, pledged, or exchanged, either without compensation or with such compensation as such justices may deem fit.” Under this section he had to apply, in the case of Regina v Armfield, for an order directing compensation to the amount of £1 10s 6d to be paid by the owner of the watch on the delivery to him of his property. The evidence went to show that a perfect bona fide transaction had taken place so far as the pawnbroker was concerned, and therefore under this section the pawnbroker was entitled to receive from the owner the amount advanced by him. His Honor —But, Mr Duncan, must we not consider the watch as having been stolen by the prisoner ? Mr Duncan—Certainly not, your Honor ; the evidence is that the prisoner went to Mr Smith, of Coates and Co, and obtained the watch on the strength of having got several watches before for Mr Cookson. On getting it he sent Goodacre to pawn the watch, the pawnbroker believing the transaction to be bona fide. His Honor—Of course, all I want to get at is the right of the parties at law. Mr Duncan—This is a case, your Honor, in which this special clause exactly applies. Under it the Court may order that the watch be given up to the owner without any compensation ; or, on the other hand, if it thinks fit, it may order the owner to pay the amount advanced on the property, receiving back his watch. His Honor —I see, Mr Duncan, that this appears to relate only to Justices of the Peace. Mr Duncan—l think, your Honor, that it refers to any case tried under this Act. His Honor—As the owner is not in Court to apply for the return of the property, the application had better stand over till tomorrow. Mr Duncan—Very well, your Honor, I will renew it to-morrow. TRUE BILLS, During the day the grand jury returned into court with true bills in the following cases Regina v John Armfield, breach of Pawnbrokers’ Act (Stott’s case) ; Regina v John Armfield, breach of Pawnbrokers’ Act (Hole’s case) ; Regina v William Hudson, shopbreaking and larceny therein ; Regina v Janet McKinlay, manslaughter ; Regina v Patrick Broderick, horse stealing ; Regina v Charles James, embezzlement ; Regina v Edward Mainwaring Johnson, contravention of the Land Transfer Act ; Regina v Minnie Thompson (alias Edwards), Margaret Clarke, and John Eldridge, larceny. The Court adjourned at 6.30 p.m. till 10 a.m, this day. This Day. The Court resumed at 10 a.m. RE EDWARD MAINWARING-JOHNSON. His Honor said, in this case, he desired to say that as, at the time proceedings were instituted against Campbell, he (the Judge) was District Land Registrar, he had been in communication with his Honor Mr Justice Johmt in, as to the trial of the case by him. Since then, he had received a reply from his Honor, fixing Tuesday, the 27th July, as the day for the trial of the case. All witnesses and others interested in the case would, therefore, have to give their attendance on that day. HORSE STEALING. Patrick Broderick was indicted for having, on or about the month of March last, stolen a mare, the property of John Willoughby Mallock. Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. Mr T. I. Joynt for the defence. The prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty,” and Air John Beharrel was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case were as follows; Some two or three years back the prosecutor, who has a station at Horselydown, had a mare running on a portion of the station known as Cabbage Tree Flat, amonst others. After having the mare about three weeks or a month the mare was lost, and the prosecutor gave information to the police. .Nothing however was heard of the mare until May last, when Air Alallock’s head shepherd, accompanied by Alounted-con-stable Dance, went to the prisoner’s place, which was contiguous to Horselydown, and there identified the mare as the one lost by Mr Alallock. Constable Dance asked the prisoner where he got the marc from, and he said he had purchased her from a man named Brown at Hurunui, but refused to produce

the receipt or give ?ny further in foi .nation on the matter. The constable then arrested the prisoner on the charge of horse stealing. In support of the indictment, Mr Duncan called Constable Dance, Mrs Gibb, Mr Mallock, and Patrick Duffy. Mrs Gibb deposed to having seen the mai e outside the Court in November 1871 or 1872, running with a mob of horses on Cabbage Tree Flat, where she remained about six months. Mr Joynt declined to call any witnesses. Mr Duncan and Mr Joynt having addressed the jury, His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor intimated that he would defer passing sentence in this case. ILLEGALLY PAWNING. John Armfield, who had been convicted of illegally pawning (Stott’s case) on the previous day, was placed in the dock, for the purpose of evidence as to character bebie given. James Harris Wills deposed that the prisoner lived with him for some five months, and he had every reason to believe him to be honest, sober, and industrious. He had every reason to be thoroughly satisfied with him during the time he lived in his (Mr Wills’) house. The prisoner was then removed, there being another bill presented against him for a similar offence (Hole’s case). LARCENY FROM A DWELLING. Mary Durham, and Lucy Ashley were indicted for having on the 3rd July instant, stolen certain articles of wearing apparel from the residence of one Mary Ann Gilman, Ferry road. The prisoners who were undefended, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Blackwell was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case, as given in evidence, were as follows :—On the Ist July, the two prisoners went to lodge at the house of the prosecutrix, who, on the Friday [night,|lent them certain articles of wearing apparel t to go to the theatre with, which were returned. On the Saturday, however, the prisoners left the house, taking with them the articles laid in the indictment. The pnsecutrix gave information to the police, and the prisoners were arrested on board the s.s. Albion with the property on them. [Left Sitting.]