SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 715, 4 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Tuesday, October 3. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] CHILD MURDER. The following is the conolnsion of our report iu this case from the time of going to press yesterday : His Honor summed up at great length, laying it down to the jury that if they were of opinion that the prisoner knew that she was doing wrong they must find her guilty. If they were of opinion that she was not, then might return a special verdict of “ Not guilty on the ground of insanity.” The Jnry retired to consider their verdict at 4 5 p.m. At 6.45 p.m, they returned into Court with a verdict of “ Not guilty on the ground of insanity.” His Honor ordered that the indictment be endorsed to the effect—” That the jury acquit the prisoner on the ground that she was not sane at the time of the commission, of the offence.” His Honor said that under the 9th section of the Lunatics Act of 1868 he had power tocommit the prisoner to ibo lunatic asylum for strict custody until the Colonial Secretary's pleasure was known. The section gave the Court discretion to send the prisoner to gaol, lunatic asylum, or other place of confinement.

Mr Joynt pointed out that at Addington the prisoner would have to mix up with the very worst characters, whilst at Sunnyside she might be placed in the convalescent ward, where but little indications of insanity were visible. His Honor said he should order the prisoner to be kept in strict custody at theLunatic Asylum, Sunnyside, until the pleasure of the Colonial tertiary wrb known*

The police would see that the transfer to the custody of the keeper of the Asylum’w;as made at once.

FORGERY AND UTTERING, Robert J. -Thompson, who had pleaded guilty to forging a cheque on Mr W. Wilson, was brought up to receive sentence. Mr Inspector Feast stated that the prisoner had been employed in the detective force for five months. He had a good character and had previously been employed as a policeman on the West Coast. He was dismissed from the detective force some four months before the commission of the offence on the ground of drunkenness and vicious habits. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to one year’s imprisonment with hard labour. _ He had communicated with Mr Justice Williams on the subject, and thought that the ends of justice would be met by passing the sentence he had done. The sentence would take effect from the expiry of the one the prisoner was now serving. NO BILL, The Grand Jury returned into Court daring the morning, and returned No Bill in the case of Regina v George Fluteyand Peter Fabricur, killing cattle with intent to steal part of carcase, P - , DISCHARGE OF THE GRAND JURY. His Honor then said that the bills pre sented by the Crown Prosecutor having been all found by the Grand Jury, he had much pleasure in discharging them with the thanks of the Queen and the colony for their services. The Grand Jury, who made no presentment, were then discharged. Wednesday, October 4. The Court re-opened at 10 a.m, PERJURY. Norman Evans was indicted for having on the 10th July, 1876, before Caleb Whitefoord, Resident Magistrate, at Kaiapoi, committed wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr Joynt appeared to defend the prisoner, Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the was chosen foreman of the petty jury. . The facts of the case have been so recently and so fully before the public that a short summary of it is all that is necessary. The prisoner laid an information before the Mayor of Kaiapoi (Mr B. G. Kerr), that one Benjamin Stackwood had stolen a saddle and stirrup irons, his property. The case came on for hearing before Mr Whitefoord, the Resident Magistrate at Kaiapoi, on the Tth July, and the prisoner on oath there gave evidence that the stirrup leathers were marked by him prior to the sth July, and that the saddle was his property. The case was dismissed, as on the trial, evidence was given that the saddle belonged to another person, and also as to the marking by prisoner of the stirrup leathers whilst on the horse of Stackwood. Mr®. G. Kerr having been examined, to prove the information laid by prisoner before him against Stackwood, Mr Joynt took objection to the indictment, contending that no Resident Magistrate or two Justices of the Peace could proceed to hear a case of larceny or suspicion of larceny where the information did not allege the ownership of the property stated to have been stolen. His Honor thought there was a good deal of weight in the objection. Mr Duncan pointed eut that though the ownership of the property alleged to be stolen' was not stated in the information, yet when the law was put in motion by the prisoner, he stated that the property was his. In this consisted the perjury. His Honor would remind Mr Duncan that if the information did not allege ownership in the property, there could be no larceny. Hence it followed that the investigation was not a judicial proceeding, without which no prosecution for perjury would lie. Under these circumstances the Magistrate would have no jurisdiction. After some fuither argument, His Honor said he would not stop the case, but would reserve the point raised by Mr Joynt. The case was proceeding when we went to press, there being a large number of witnesses to examine.