SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1099, 7 January 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, January 7. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Quartely Session of the Supreme Court was opened at 10 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as the GRAND JURY : Messrs. J. Palmer (foreman), C. W. Bishop, J. Brabazon. T. H. Potts, P. B.Boulton, D. O'Callaghan, D. Davis, H. H. Hennah, W. B. Tosswill, C. Clark, R. Wilkin, Chas. D'Auvergne, T. P. Baher, J. B. Sheath, M. Hains,J. Anderson, E. S. Helarey, S. Stuckey, C. Flockton, R. F. Holdernesse, J. Aitken, J. Overton, J. T. Ford, J. Beaumont. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honor then proceeded to address the Grand Jury on the bills presented to them. Although the number of indictments preferred at the present session was somewhat considerable, yet he could not say that the calender was a heavy one. As would be seen, no less than ten persons were charged with one offence. The calender of bills presented to them comprised a variety of cases, but none of them of a serious character. There was, however, one case which was rare in this part of the country, and to which perhaps it would be as well for him to call their attention. In the case under notice it was alleged that there had been a combination of persons to obstruct other persons in the discharge of their lawful occupations. In its moral bearing the case was doubtless one of considerable importance, but he did not think they need trouble themselves with that aspect of the question; biit they would have to consider the case as it came before them in its legal bearings. The case might or might not present the possibility, or rather probability, of a combination of persons taking place in the country, which might be of a most serious character, and which the law necessarily condemned. They knew that political economists had in recent years laid down some very nice points as to the right of a combination of persons for the purpose of obstruction of other persons in the carrying out of their lawful occupations. If it could be proved to their satisfaction that there had been such a combination in this case it was clearly an infraction of the law of England. His Honor then commented shortly on the main points of the various cases, and then dismissed the Grand Jury to the discharge of their duties. LAF.CENY AS A BAILEE. John Hills pleaded guilty to having feloniously appropriated a mare and fmrness and bujxgy, the property of Mr E. W. Millet. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. I'OBGKBY AND UTTEKING. Thomas Berry, alias Macdonald, was indicted for having on the 22nd September last forged a cheque at Ashburton for the sum of £7 10s. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded "Guilty." His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. WOUNDING WITH INTENT. William Petley was indicted for having, on the Bth of November last, feloniously assaulted his wife, Etnily Petley, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

The facts of the case, as stated for the prosecution, were brieljy as follows: —The prisoner and his wife had separated and were living apart. On the date mentioned in the irdictment the prisoner went to the Kingston Hotel and asked the barman there whether his wife had passed that day. The barman said she had not, and then the prisoner stated that he intended to kill his wife, and told the barman that he had a weapon, concealed wherewith to do it. Soon after this the prisoner saw his wife passing along, and, rushing out, assaulted her with a tomahawk, giving her some severe wounds. She fell on to the ground, and was afterwards removed to the Hospital by the constable arresting the prisoner. The woman was insensible, and the wounds given were exceedingly severe. The Crown Prosecutor pointed out that the indictment contained two counts, one charging the prisoner with wounding with intent to murder, and the other with wounding with intent to do grevious bodily harm. The evidence called for the prosecution was Constable Brady, who arrested the prisoner, and who deposed to the prisoner saying on the way to the lock-up "I believe I have killed her," and further on he said " I suppose I'll be hanged;" the prosecutrix, Emily Petley, who deposed to the main facts given above ; Henry Hershaw, barman at the Kingston Hotel, who deposed that the prisoner told him he knew he should hang for attempting to murder his wife, but he intended to do it as an act of justice to his country. Prisoner said that she had set his house on fire and he would kill her before twelve o'clock that night. The evidence of Mr Heard closed the case for the Crown. For the defence—Mr Izard called Mr W. Strange, of the firm of W. Strange and Co., to give evidence of some transaction with Mrs Petley. Mr Izurd then addressed the jury for the defence, and Mr Duncan for the Crown. His Honor then summed up, going carefully over the evidence. The jury retired at live minutes to 3 p m., to consider their verdict.

The jury returned into Court after an absence of fifteen minutes, with a verdict of G-uilty on the first count of the indictment. Mr Izard called witnesses as to character, including Professor Bickerton. His Honor' said he would let the case stand over for consideration as to' what sentence should be Pflpeed in it.