SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1202, 10 January 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] Wednesday, January 9. conspiracy. The following is the conclusion of the case against Michael Murphy and W. H. Wykes for sonspiracy : Mr Izard briefly addressed the jury on behalf of Wykes, contending that the prosecution had made out no case as connecting him with any conspiracy, and that therefore he was entitled to ask them for a verdict of acquittal. Mr Joynt followed in an exhaustive address, in the course of which he dealt with all the points raised by Mr Harper, and contended that both prisoners were by the evidence conclusively proved to have conspired together to defraud Hammill's creditors. This was proved by their proceeding at night to remove the goods, and also by Murphy's conversations with Hammill, at some of which Wykes was present, and therefore became cognisant that some illegal act was contemplated. After reviewing the evidence in the case, the learned counsel concluded by asking the jury to accept the construction put upon the actions of the accused by the Crown, and find them guilty of conspiracy to defraud. His Honor gummed up with very great care, going most minutely into the various phases of the case, and reading over the evidence given. As to the questions of law which had been raised, those would be argued on another occasion if the verdict of the jury should be against the prisoners. The jury retired at 6.35 to consider their verdict, and returned into Court at 7.35 with a verdict of " Not Guilty." The foreman, Mr C. P. Hulbert, said —The jury wish to ask your Honor if you will allow them to make some remarks on the case.

His Honor—Well, gentlemen, this is rather an important matter, as being likely to form a precedent. .Let me consider the question for a moment. I don't think Mr Duncan and Mr Harper, that I ought to prevent the jury from expressing their opinion upon the case if they desire to do so. What do you think, Mr Harper ? Mr Harper—lt may come in the form of a rider to the verdict, your Honor. His Honor—Well, gentlemen, if you say we find the defendants not guilty, but desire to add so and so as a rider, I don't see that I can decline to hear what you have to say. The Foreman—The jury, your Honor, desire to convey to you their very great regret that there has been a miscarriage of justice with regard to Murphy in this case. His Honor —I perfectly agree with you, gentlemen, but whether the miscarriage of justice referred to by you has been the fault of anyone or not is another matter. I suppose I may assume that you could not convict Murphy because you did not see your way clear to .convict Wykes ? The Foreman—Just so, your Honor. His Honor —Well, Mr Harper, I think it is just as well that the public should know the opinion of the jury upon the matter. Murphy, before discharging you, and fortified by the expression of opinion from the jury, I feel it to be my duty to say that it is only on account of a reason almost technical in its character that you have not been convicted. You now know what your fellow-citizens think of you. The defendants- may be discharged. THE LAKE ELLESMERE FISHING CASE. The nine prisoners who were convicted of obstructing one Eobelli in the lawful prosecution of his ordinary business as a fisherman at Lake Ellesmere were brought up. His Honor cautioned them very strongly against their obstructing in future anyone who did not agree with them as to the mode of conducting business, and they having entered into recognisances of £2OO each, to come up for judgment when called upon, were discharged..

This Day. The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. LAKCENY A 3 A BAILEE. W. T. Chapman was indicted for having, whilst bailee of certain wool for scouring purposes, converted the same to his own use. Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. Mr Joynt for the defence. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty." The case for the Crown was that the prisoner, who was a woolsorter, whilst entrusted with certain work for the purposes of his business, fraudulently converted the same to his own use. Evidence having been led to support the case for the Crown, Mr Joynt addressed the jury, and his Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of " Not Guilty." . This concluded the coamm jury c^sce,