SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 717, 6 October 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, October 5. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) perjury. The following is the conclusion of our report in this case, up to the time of going to press yesterday : His Honor summed up at great length, reading over and commenting upon the The jury retired at 6 p.m. to consider their verdict. At 6.30 p.m. they returned into Court with a verdict of "Guilty." His Honor said that it had been a matter for discussion by the Judicial Bench and the Legislature, aB to whether the maximum sentence now fixed to be imposed at the discretion of the Judge, was sufficiently severe in cases of an aggravated nature. It was probable that the suggestions recently made on this subject by the Judges would be carried out, the effect of which would be that the discretion of the Judge in awarding punishment for this crime would be extended, and the sentence made considerably heavier than at present. The case now before him was one of tbose deserving a very much heavier punishment than was at present fixed by the law. Ho might say that he had never known a worse case than that which had occupied their attention during the last two days. The prisoner at the bar had t ndeavoured to fix upon an innocent person the commission of a very serious crime. A case of greater wickedness had never come before him, or one which was of a character more dangerous to society at large. It was a fortunate thing tbat the charge bad been brought home to the prisoner, and that the jury had brought in a verdict of guilty. The testimony against the prisoner was, he considered, of the clearest possible nature. There could not be a greater calamity than a man carrying on the'business of the prisoner, and getting by means of such business power and control over his fellow creatures; a power which he exercised over needy persons in a manner calculated to subvert the entire social relations of Bocietj in the district wherein he resided. Therefore it was most fortunate that the evidence adduced by the Crown had been sufficiently strong to establish in thf minds of the jury the prisoner's guilt. It was possible that the point of law raised by the learned counsel for the defence, and -.reserved by the Court for the decision of the •Court of Appeal, might upset the verdict ot ithejury. Though it wbb certain that the

I Court of Appeal would give the prisoner the benefit of any legal doubt or technical mistake, if he escaped upon this ground he (the judge) must say that he, for one, should deeply deplore it. If the prisoner was not punished as a salutary warning to society a great evil would he felt occur. One of the worst features in the case was that by some means the prisoner had induced a number of witnesses to come into that Court to give evidence on his behalf, and to place them selves in jeopardy of having to answer charges of a similar kind to that for which he had been tried. He could not conceive any worse motives than those which had apparently actuated the prisoner in this matter. It rhowed a most malevolent and evil-minded disposition. It had been a matter of consideration with him whether he should pass sentence at once, or defer it until after the point of law reserved had been decided by the Court of Appeal. He had the power to pass sentenoe at once, but it was not usually done until after the Court of Appeal had decided the point. It was competent to pass sentence at once, and respite the execution until after tbe sitting of the Court of Appeal, but this was attended with some difficulty. Therefore while he expressed his opinion of the great gravity and criminality attaching to the case, he would postpone sentence. If the decision of the Court should bo in the prisoner's favour he would Btill bear such a brand as to cause society to avoid him as though he were one of the most pestilent of men. Had he (the Judge) passed sentence now he should have felt it his duty to have passed the highest allowed by the law, viz, four years' penal servitude, The prisoner would be detained in gaol until the decision of the Court of Appeal was known.

The prisoner was then removed. This concluded the criminal business, and the Court adjourned until Monday next, when the Nisi Prius sittings will commence. SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The following cases are set down for hearing on the civil side : Monday, 9th October, 1876. common jury case. Matson v Campbell and Another—Plaintiffs' solicitor, Mr Thomas ; defendant's solicitor, Mr Cowlishaw. Monday, 16th October, special jury cases. Burton v Deßourbel—Solicitor for plaintiff, Mr O'Neill ; solicitor for defendant, Mr Cowlishaw. Thursday, 19th October. Keiley v Rolleston, Superintendent— Plaintiff's solicitor, Mr O'Neill; defendant's solicitor, Mr Garrick. Monday, 23bd October, divorce and matrimonial causes act. Mitchell v Mitchell—Plaintiff's solicitor, Mr Slater; defendant's solicitor, Mr Cowlishaw. Wednesday, 25th October. Walton v Edwards and Another—Plaintiff's solicitor, Mr Cowlishaw ; defendant's solicitor, Mr O'Neill. Friday, 27tm October. Douglas v Matson —Plaintiff's solicitor, Mr Jameson ; defendant's solicitor, Mr O'Neill.