SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1200, 8 January 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, January 7. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston,] EEGINA V WAEEBN. In this case, which was a charge of assault with intent on a girl nine years of age, His Honor said he had examined the prosecutrix, through the Rev Mr Stack, and he had come to the conclusion that the girl was not a fit witness to go before the Grand Jury. However, the ends of justice would not be defeated, as other evidence, he believed, would be forthcoming. I/AECBNT. Francis Crompton was indicted for having on the 18th April last stolen from the person of one John Elken one watch and one pocketbook. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The case for the Crown was that the prisoner and prosecutor were together on the evening of the date mentioned in the indictment, and drank at several public houses. They ultimately got into a cab, and the prosecutor knew very little of what took place after this except that they went into a wash-house near Waltham and there slept that night. In the morning the prosecutor found that the prisoner had gone, and that his watch and pocket-book had also disappeared. The prisoner was afterwards traced to have sold the watch on the morning of its loss to a witness who gave evidence. For the prosecution Mr Duncan called Detective Wajker, John Elken, H. Roberts, F. Banholt. The latter deposed to purchasing the watch, sworn to by the prosecutor, from the prisoner on the 19th April, in the forenoon. The defence set up by the prisoner was that the prosecutor gave him his watch and pocket book to take care of and being hard up he had sold the former. The jury found the prisoner “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. POEGEET AND UTTEEING. Richard Tubman was indicted on two separate indictments for having forged and uttered a prodießoiy not® and endowment (bwra*

The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Tho > same prisoner was also indicted for uttering a valueless cheque for £5 on the Bank of New Zealand.

The prisoner pleaded “ Not Q-uilty” to this charge also. The case for the Crown, under the first indictment, was that the prisoner went to the ofliee of Michael Murphy for the purpose of borrowing money on the security of a promissory note, purporting to be signed by Thomas Tubman and endorsed by liim. Murphy suspecting that the note was not a genuine one, informed the police, and the result was the arrest of the prisoner by Detective Walker, Thomas Tubman denying that the signatures to the promissory note and the endorsement were in his handwriting, that in fact they were forgeries. For the prosecution Mr Duncan called Detective Walker, Michael Murphy, and Thomas Tubman.

His Honor having briefly summed up, the ■jury without retiring brought in a verdict of “ Guilty.” The prisoner was also indicted for a previous conviction for forgery on April 10th, 1874, to which ho pleaded “ Guilty.” The Crown Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi on the second indictment for passing a valueless cheque. His Honor said he should be trilling with public justice if he gave the prisoner, who had been convicted before of such a serious crime, anything but a heavy sentence. Such men as the prisoner must be kept from the opportunity of committing crime, and he should mark his sense of the heinousness of the prisoner’s guilt by a substantial sentence. He could give him penal servitude for life, but under the circumstances the sentence would be fifteen years’ penal servitude.

DEFAULTING JUEOES. Messrs H. F. Knyvett and H. F. Gray were fined £5 each for non-attendance as grand jurors, and John Manders 40s for non-attend-ance as a common juror.

TEUB BILLS. During the day the grand jury returned true bills in the following cases:—Regina v John Hills, larceny as a bailee; Regina v Thomas Berry, forgery and uttering; Regina v W. Petley, wounding with attempt to murder; Regina v Francis Compton, larceny; Regina v Tubman, forgery; Regina v Brown and others, conspiracy; Regina v A. J. Chapman, larceny; Regina v Michael Murphy, W. H. Wykes, and A. Hammill, conspiracy; Regina v R. Tubman, forgery (second ease); Regina v Horler, obstructing the highway; Regina v John Warren, assault with intent. The grand jury were discharged without making any presentment. Tuesday, Januaey 8. The Court re opened at 10 a.m. ASSAULT AVITH INTENT. John Warren, a Maori, was indicted for having on the 9th May, 1877, feloniously assaulted, with intent, one Mary Tawhio, a girl under ten years of age. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment for twelve months, with hard labour. CONSPIEACY. Michael Murphy and William Henry Wykes were indicted for having conspired together to defraud. On the prisoners being called upon to plead. His Honor asked how did Mr Duncan propose to put Hammill, against whom a true bill had been found, into the dock. The case was in this position, that they had a bill of indictment found against a man who had never been committed, and who was under no recognizances. Mr Duncan said Hammill was in Court. His Honor —Yes. But how do you propose to get him into the dock. You cannot do it without going through the proper form of law. Has any application been made to Mr Malet for a Bench warrant P

The Registrar —None your Honor. His Honor—Well, Mr Duncan, the case cannot proceed until Haxnmill is before us in due course of law. Do you intend to abandon the prosecution ? Mr Duncan—As against Hammill, I do your Honor, His Honor —But Mr Duncan how can you do so without entering a nolle prosequi, and you cannot do this until you have got Hammill into the dock by proper course of law. Mr Duncan—Well your Honor I now apply for a Bench warrant against Hammill. His Honor —I see Mr Duncan from the authorities that the certificate of a hill being found against any person who is at large not being under recognizances can only be granted at the end of the sitting. It is therefore very doubtful whether I can grant a Bench warrant for immediate trial. The course is laid down at common law, but I am not prepared to say how far the Justice of the Peace Act interferes with it. However I will issue a Bench warrant for the arrest of Hammill. The case must stand over. UNNATURAL OFFENCE. In the case of Regina v Charles James, the Crown Prosecutor intimated that owing to the absence of the principal witness he could not proceed with the case. The prisoner was therefore discharged by proclamation. CONSPIRACY. John Brown, John Murphy, Nicholas Rodovinich, Q-eorge Reeves, Alexander Lazarette, Joseph Fletcher, James McKinley, Peter Antonio, and Charles Williamson were indicted for having conspired together for the purpose of preventing Thomas Robelli from carrying on his lawful occupation as a fisherman on Lake Ellesmere.

Spiro Papiano was called on his bail, but did not appear, and the Court made an order forfeiting the bail. The prisoners pleaded <! Not Guilty,” and were defended by Mr Izard. The case for the Crown was that the prisoners, who were fishermen on the Lake, had dropped anchors down on the nets of the prosecutor, and thus prevented him from carrying on his lawful occupation. Mr Duncan called several witnesses to prove the case as alleged for the Crown. Mr Izard did not call witnesses for the defence. He then proceeded to address the jury. His Honor having summed up, The jury retired at 1.45 p.m. to consider their verdict, and returned at 2 p.m., with a verdict of “ Guilty ” against all the prisoners.

His Honor said he believed the prisoners had no settled wicked intention, but that they had fallen into a very sad mistake. He therefore wished to do what was right between the prisoners and the country, to vindicate the law and to show the community that they would protected ja out

their ordinary avocations. He should be inclined to discharge them, if the prisoners would make some arrangements with the prosecutor to pay some compensation, and would give security to the satisfaction of the prosecution that they would keep the peace. The case would be put off for a short time to enable this to be done. An arrangement was subsequently made on the terms proposed, and the prisoners were discharged. SENTENCE. William Petley, who had been convicted of an attempt to do grievous bodily harm to his wife, was brought up for sentence. Detective Walker gave evidence as to the previous character of the prisoner. His Honor, after commenting upon the enormity of the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted, sentenced him to six years’ penal servitude. HEGINA V. HOKLEU. On the application of Mr Cowlishaw, His Honor made an order for the trial of this case by special jury on Thursday, 17th Jan. ! Loft, sitting.]