SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 714, 3 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, October 2. [Before his Honor Mr Justice [Johnston] BESTIALITY. Robert Hyme Osborne was charged with thia offence. Mr Joynt appeared f or the defence. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr Joynt having addressed the jury for the defence, The jury retired, and, after a short absence, returned into Court with a verdict of " Not Guilty." The prisoner was then discharged. PLEAS. William Haines was indicted for bestiality, and pleaded "Not Guilty." Thomas Alfred Bassall and William Oassidy, laroeny of jewellery, pleaded—the former "Guilty," and the latter "Not Guilty,"

»■*— ' I, i i .■■» In the latter case the Crown Prosecutor entered a nelle prosequi, and he was discharged, the jury, under direction of his Honor, returning a verdict of "Not Guilty." RE THOMAS THOMPSON. In this case Mr Gresson, representing the prisoner, being in Court, his Honor asked if he had any objection to the Crown putting in proof of death of the prosecutor, in order that his deposition might go before the Grand Jury. Mr Gresson having replied in the negative, The Crown Prosecutor called the following evidence:— Johanna Ashworth, who deposed that her husband, Robert Ashworth, died on Thursday week. He was the Robert Ashworth who was examined before Mr* Whitefoord respecting the case of larceny. His Honor then directed the bill to go to the Grand Jury as the deposition of the prosecutor, LARCENY OP JEWELLERY. Thomas Alfred Hassal, who had pleaded " Guilty " to the charge of stealing jewellery on board the ship Camperdown, at Nelson, was brought up for sentence. The prosecutor gave evidence as to the prisoner being with him when he found the portmanteau containing the jewellery. His Honor remarked that the property stolen from the prosecutor appeared to have been pretty well distributed amongst the pawnbrokers' shops in the city. It behoved the police to keep a vigilant watch over the pawnbrokers' shops, so that ths very first signs of establishing a receiving agency for stolen goods should at once be put down with a strong hand. Mr Inspector Feast stated that the pawnbrokers were always ready on every occasion to aid the police by at once forwarding to them information as to any stolen property offered to them in pledge. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment, with hard labor. BESTIALITY. William Haines was indicted for this offence. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf * m oi the Crown. After the case had proceeded some way, His Honor pointed out to the Crown Prosecutor the inconclusive and contradictory evidence given by the principal witnesses for the Crown. He did not think for one moment that the jury would convict upon such evidence. In fact, the case for the Crown appeared to have broken down. Mr Duncan admitted, after some discussion, the force of his Honor's remarks, and declined to proceed further with it. The jury then returned a verdict of " Not Guilty," and the prisoner was discharged. LARCENY. Thomas Thompson was indicted for having stolen certain stamps and money, the property of Robert Ashworth. Mr Gresson appeared for the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor said that, on looking into the evidence, he felt that he could not bring the case home to the prisoner. His Honor directed the jury to return a verdict of " Not Guilty," which was accordingly done, and the accused was discharged. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. this day. Tuesday, October 3. The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. CHILD MURDER. Alice Sheehan was charged with having wilfully and feloniously slain and killed her infant child Mary Sheehan. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Duncan conducted the prosecution for the Crown. The following evidence was given : John William Smith Coward deposed that he was a coroner of New Zealand. He held an inquest an the body of a recently born female child on July 17th. The prisoner was present at that enquiry. There was no mark of violence on the child. The prisoner was examined, after being cautioned by witness, and stated that she had been confined of the deceased child about a fortnight. On the day before, while crossing the room, she had become very faint or giddy, and the child dropped out of her arms into a bucket of water, and she had not strength to take it out. Mr Duncan now proposed to ask the witness whether he had held inquests previously on the bodies of children belonging to the prisoner. Mr Joynt objected to the admissibility of such evidence. Mr Duncan quoted Regina v Geary, IS L.J, as sustaining his argument as to his right to ask the question. After some further argument, His Honor said he should rule that the question could be put, taking a note of Mr Joynt's objection for reservation if necessary for the Court of Appeal. Examination continued—ln August, 1874, witness held an inquest upon the infant child of the prisoner, which had been found dead in bed with the mother A post mortem examination was held, and it was discovered that the child had died from suffocation. Mr Joynt would ask the witness *o reacl the whole of the evidence. It might be that it would, when read all through, tend to exculpate the prisoner. The witness said that he could not read the whole of the evidence, because the original depositions were forwarded to .the Minister of Justice at "Wellington. All he had was rough minutes of the cases. Mr Joynt would desire to point cut to his Honor how uufairly this acted as regarded. his client. The Crown Prosecutor was now leading extracts from evidence tending to> inculpate his client, without that which must have cleared her. This was evident from the fact that in the case no prosecution was commenced. He contended that the Crown was bound to lead the whole evidence if they did part of it. His Honor saw the hardship as regarded Mr Joynt's client. He could, however, not help it. Examination continued —Witness held an inquiry on the body of J. J. Sheehan on the 23id of August, 1875. Oross- examined by Mr Joynt—l have been, an accoucheur for some thirty years. The verdict in the first inquest was " Accidentally suffocated," in the secoud " Accidentally drowned." I have seen numbers o£ cast sof puerperal mania. The subjects of it. are low, weak, and nervous. It comes oa generally about a fortnight or sa after cooiiiietnent. It may last either a long or a t<hort time, Iu gome oases it becomes chronic insanity. Patients suffering from puerperal mania da not make any conceal*ment of what they do.

Mr Joynt then quoted from "Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence," on the subject of puerperal mania, respecting the legal responsibility of patients suffering from this disease. Witness —I agree with Dr Taylor in the remarks made by him as read. During the lucid intervals there is no means of detecting that persons arc' suffering from puerperal mania. His Honcr enquired whether the witness had sent the depositions to the Resident Magistrate ? The witness stated that he had always sent the depositions, The impression on his mind was that the depositions in this case were sent. His Honor said that the Magistrate had not returned the depositions. This was a case in which an enquiry should be made. It waß important that in a case like this, where there were grave suspicions of murder, that a more formal preliminary investigation than that of the coroner's inquest should have taken place. It was to be regretted that it had not been done. There would have to be an enquiry into the matter and if necessary the Resident Magistrate would have to be acquainted with the necessity which existed under the law for his taking steps in the matter. Re-examined by Mr Duucan—The prisoner did not appear to or suffering from puerperal mania at the time of the inquests. She was perfectly sensible. Mary Horgan deposed to knowing the prisoner. On the 6th July witness was at prisoner's house about, ten o'clock in the forenoon. The prisoner was inside; the house, and had the baby in her arms. It was d*ad. She said she was crossing from the fireplace to the dresser, when the baby dropped out of. her arms into the bucket. This was in answer to a question from witness. She also said that there was water in the bucket, and that the child waß drowned. There were two buckets in the room ; thny were laree milking buckets, of metal. The bucket produced is like the one witness saw. Prisoner told her that the child was just drowned before she (witness) came.' The clothes of the child were wet, Its clothes were not wet below the waist. Its clothes were wet from the head about down to the waist. Witness did not notice any water on the floor. The prisoner was standing near the door with the child in her arms. The door was shut. The water was dropping from the clothes of the child. The bucket was between the dresser and the fire place. She did not say anything with regard to a basin. On the evening before, the prisoner said she was not, fit to take care of the baby, and Bhe would like to send it out to be nursed. She used to be complaining of her head. She seemed on the morning of the infant's death to be very bad. Witness was looking after prisoner when she was confined. Cross-examined by Mr- Joynt—Prisoner seemed all right a week or so before her confinement. Witness saw her every day after thiß until the baby died. The prisoner had been up about four days when the death of the baby took place. She seemed all right whilst she remained in bed. After she got out of bed witness used to wash and dress the child. Prisoner seemed to be frightened to touch the child for fear she would hurt it; Bhe didn't seem to care about it. The day of the child's death was the first day that prisoner had done anything for the child herself. She seemed to like the child aB well as any mother could. She seemed very fond of it, and appeared too careful of it. Prisoner said she hoped the child would be spared to her to be company for her. She used to tell witness that her head was bad. Prisoner changed for the worse every* day after she got out of bed. She seemed to get lower in spirits every day. Michael Horgan, deposed that on July 6th he went to prisoner's house. The prisoner was crying and tearing her hair. Witness's wife in response to a question from him said that the child was dead. Thomas Bell Hay deposed that he was a legally qualified medical practitioner. He made a post mortem examination on the body of a female child of the prisoner on the 7th July. There were no external marks of violence, and it appeared to be a healthy child. From the examination made by him he came to the conclusion that death was caused by drowning. IE the child had dropped into the bucket as described by prisoner there would have been some mark* of violence on the body. It was very unlikely though it might be possible, for a child of the age described to fall in the manner stale!, without some external marks being pereeived. The struggles of a child of the age described would not be sufficient to upset a bucket such as produced. The post mortem appearances internally were quite consistent either with the child falling into the water by accident as stated, or being held there. In the former case he would expect to find a ibruise on the head.

£!ro8B examined by Mr Joynt—lt would be probable that if the mothpr fell to the grouna", aQ d the baby dropped from her arms wh*2n near the floor into the bucket, that no beaise would be observable. In the case of swooning, however, he would expect the child to fall as soon ai the fainting commenced.

By his Honor —The statement made by prisoner before the coroner is consistent with her suffering from puerperal mania. There are a number of symptoms indicative of puerperal mania. There is not one car dinal yympuoiu distinguishing nucrperal mauia. It )*-' indicated by a conabi lation of symptoms. Vtv&na eufferirg frr m puerperal mania know right from wrong. They know jt is wrong to do a certain act. but are unable to rest ruin them«elrea. Puerperal mania may an.sumn any form. It rany be developed in religious mania or homiftidal mania.

(Jross-examined by Mr Joynt—Killing of a child by persons suffering from puerperal mania is distinguishable from ordinary infanticide, by the absence of all concealment. This closed the cage for the Crown. Mr Joynt opened the case for the defence, and proposed to call evidence as to death of of the the fo<-raer children.

liefore Mr Joynt called his witnesses His Honor said he wished to ask the medical witness a question. ,Dr Hay, in reply to a question from his Hon*"'r, said he quite agreed with Mr Tiylor when he said that in cases of puerperal mania, women recently delivered were suddenly with a desire to kill their offspring. The following evidence was given for the defence.

Margaret Connor deposed to having known the prisoner for five yeam Hhe saw a good deal of hev from rhe time of the birth of the fecoad cbijd up Jp its During the

whole of this time—some eleven or twelve weeks—prisoner did not seem in her right mind. She appeared to be in very bad spirits. She complained of her mind and her head being very much affected. This occurred very often. On the morning of the child's death witness met prisoner in her own. paddock. Prisoner was coming to witness's house, rand was wet from head to foot. When witness met her the prisoner had her baby on her arm, dead. She said "I went for a bucket of water this morning and I tumbled into the water hole." She said the more she struggled the less chance she had to get out. The baby, she told witness, v.&s with her, and it fell into the water with her. She seemed at this time to be in a distracted kind of way. This closed the case. '

Mr Joynt then proceeded to address the jury at some length. The case was not concluded when we went to press.