SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 713, 2 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, October 2. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The quarterly sitting of the Supreme Court was opened this morning at 10 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as THE GRAND JURY. Messrs I. B. Sheath, W. B. Milton, C. Flockton, L. Caro, P. Laurie, T. D. Triphook, S. Stuckey, J. D. Macpherson, E. G. Griffith, G. W. Hall, D. Davis, G. J. Leech, J. Campbell, P. H. Brittan, T. J. Maling, P. H. Moore, P. B. Boulton, W. Blake, E. Pavitt, H. P. Gray, and C. Bain. Mr J. D. Macpherson was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury. DEFAULTING GRAND JURORS. Mr A. B. Bain was ordered to show cause why he should not be fined &5 for nonattendance as a Grand Juror . HIS HONOR’S CHARGE, His Honor then proceeded to address the Grand Jury. In doing so his Honor remarked he did not propose to detain the Grand Jury now with any remarks on the position of the province, or the state of crime in it. After the session of the Assembly he might deem it his duty to remark upon the legislation which had taken place. He might say, however, that the cases before them gave evidence of a watchful care on the part of the police to prevent the growth of a criminal population amongst them. That this would ensue without such care and watchfulness on the part of the police, was certain. Their population was increasing, and unless care was’taken, they would have growing up amongst them a criminal population. It was therefore a very good thing that the police were as active as the cases revealed them to be. As regarded the cases in the calendar, he might say that he did not intend to offer any remarks upon the case of murder, at present. Prom the depositions taken before the coroner upon which the commitment had taken place, it appeared that there were several matters of law, important as bearing on the case, Under these circumstances he had requested the counsel for the defence and the Grown Prosecutor to argue these matters of law before him. He did not, therefore, propose to offer any remarks upon this case to the Grand Jury until after such argument had taken place. His Honor then proceeded to comment shortly upon the cases in the calendar, giving an outline of the facts in each case. FORGERY AND UTTERING, Robert James Thompson was indicted for having on the 19th June forged and uttered a cheque for £6 3s 6d on the Union Bank of Australia. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” His Honor enquired what the prisoner was undergoing sentence for? Mr Duncan explained that the prisoner had committed forgery and uttering at Oamaru after the one here. For this offence he was tried at Dunedin and sentenced by Mr Justice Williams to two years’ imprisonment.

His Honor could not see what end was served by again bringing up the prisoner. It was almost impossible for him to know how to apportion sentence until ho had seen the depositions in theOamaru case. It might be that the punishment of two years might be sufficient for the two offences. Mr Duncan would see that it was difficult for the Court to judge whether it would be right under the circumstances to iiaflict a sentence to run concurrently with the present one, or to take effect at its expiration. Under all the circumstances he thought perhaps it would be better for the prisoner to stand down for the present until the Court had communicated with Mr Justice Williams. The prisoner was then removed. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Joseph Garrett alias Willi ;m Carberry, was indicted for having on the Isth August, in company with another person unknown, violently assaulted one Thomas Butler, and stolen from him one watch. The prisoner, who was undefended by counsel, pleaded “Not Guilty,” Mr Robert Brown was chosen foreman of the petty jury.

Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on be* half of the Crown.

The facts of the case, as disclosed by the evidence, were shortly as follows On the evening of the day named in the indictment the prosecutor was drinking in the Warrick Hotel. The prisoner, with others, was also there. The prisoner left before Butler, who, on going away from the hotel, went in the direction of the Bast town belt. He had not gone far when he was attacked by two men who demanded his money. He refused when they seized him, and beat him about the head, one of the men attempting to rifle his pockets. The prosecutor continued to struggle when one of the men wrenched his watch out of his pocket, and they both made off. Some two or three days after this Detective Bettington happened to be in a watchmaker’s shop in Durham street, when a man named Clarkson and the prisoner cams up. Clarkson brought a watch into the shop, and offered it for sale to the watchmaker. Detective Bettington saw the watch, and recognised it as the one stolen from Butler. The detective asked Clarkson where he got the watch, and he said from prisoner who was outside. Detective Bettington went out, and arrested the prisoner on the charge of robbery with violence. Evidence was led by the Crown in support of the charge. Detective Bettington, the prosecutor Butler, and Messrs Simmons and Clarkson gave evidence. His Honor having summed up, shortly recapitulating the facts of the case. The jury without leaving the box returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” Mr Inspector Feast deposed that he had known the prisoner to be habitually loafing after drunken men. A number of robberies had been committed while the prisoner had been in the neighborhood. He considered him one of the worst characters they had. His Honor, in passing sentence, remarked that this was one of the gravest crimes that could be committed short of murder. It was one of the worst crimes he had to try in the colony. The prisoner was in concert with others, endeavoring to introduce into this young and prosperous country all the crimes and vices of older and over populated communities. He made these remarks not only to the prisoner, but also his associates who might be within hearing. It would be trifling with the administration of justice to pass anything but a heavy and severe sentence for the offence so as to act as a detriment The sentence of the Court would be that the prisoner be kept in the penal servitude for fifteen years, The prisoner was then removed. STEALING IN A DWELLING HOUSE. Frederick Hardy was indicted for having stolen in the dwelling-house of one Mrs Tindall, £22 the property of a fellow lodger named Sutton. The prisoner who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” His Honor, after remarking upon the pain he felt at seeing so young a man in the painful position of the prisoner, sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment. TRUE BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned into Court with true bills in the following cases :— Regina v Robert James Thompson, forgery and uttering ; Regina v Joseph Garrett, alias William Carberry, robbery with violence ; Regina v Frederick Hardy, robbery from a dwelling; Regina v Norman Evans, perjury, The Court at this stage of the proceedings adjourned until 2 p.m. THE MURDER CASE. On re-assembling, at that hour, the Grand Jury were sent for. , His Honor said that he had come to the conclusion that he need not embarrass them with questions of law on the murder case. The evidence was principally the admissions of the accused before the Coroner. Her statement was that the child dropped from her arms . into the bucket of water land was there drowned, before she could rescue it. Evidence would be led contrary to this, and it would be for the jury to consider whether there was a prima facie case against her. IE there was, their duty was to tmd a true bill. If not, then they would throw out the bill. He did not intend to give them any further direction on the matter. His Honor then referred shortly to the case of Regina v Thomas Thompson. LARCENY. In the case of Regina v Thomas Thompson, charged with larceny from the person, Mr Duncan applied to put in evidence of the death of the prosecutor. His Honor did not see that Mr Duncan was entitled to do this in the absence of the prisoner. ... . • Mr Duncan pointed out that the prisoner being on bail it would necessitate his surrendering and coming into the custody of the gaoler. . r ; * Ultimately his Honor took time to consider the point as to whether the prisoner had a right to be present to object to the evidence being tendered, so as to prevent the bill going before the grand jury. ** BESTIALITY. Robert Hyme Osborne was charged with this offence. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case was proceeding when we went to press.