SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1365, 1 July 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July 1.

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened this morning. Tire following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand Jury : —Messrs W. M. Maskell, P. B. Boulton, T. Acland, W. G. Brittain, D. Middleton, J. P, O’Callaghan, T. M. Hasdai, W. R. Browne, C. Bain, H. It. Henr.ah, R. J. S. Harman, C. C. Aikman, R. P. Bain, J. Henderson, T. P. Baber, B. S. Harley, A. C. Watson, 11. Allwright, E. Parkerson, T. 11. Potts, I. B. Sheath, W. W. Cobb. Mr R. J. S. Harman was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury. THE JUDGE’S CIIAEGB. His Honor then addressed the Grand Jury. While it gave him very great pleasure to be able to congratulate the Grand .Jury upon the great and increasing prosperity of the part of the colony which they represented there, he was afraid that he could not say as mnch regarding CU state of crime in the district. IJo did not thirjk there <w»p any cause to ap

prehend that there had been any serious influx of criminals from other countries, but taking the whole district, including the southern portion of it, the amount of crime was, in his opinion, disproportionate to the numbers of the population. The cases in the calendar were not crimes committed from want, but rather from temptations arising from causes which will exist in every community, notwithstanding the endeavours which may be made to remove them. Their duty, however, was to do all they could to check the prevalence of crime by a firm administration of justice. There was, it appeared, a change contemplated in the civil courts of the colony which be trusted would be found to work advantageously. There were a few genera] observations which he desired to make to them arising out of the cases in the calendar before them. There was now at home some discussion taking place as to the desirableness of making an alteration in the law with regard to homicide, a case of which would come before them that day. The point which was being discussed at home was whether there should not be an alteration in the law so as to provide for the definition of certain degrees of homicide. The Legislature at home in a late session had had before it a Bill to define the different degrees of homicide instead of as at present the law only recognising two—viz., murder and manslaughter. It would therefore be for the colonial Legislature to take such steps as might be necessary to assimilate the law with that adopted in England, should the proposed alteration be carried into effect. With reference to the case of murder which they would have before them that day, so far as he could gather from the depositions, if they believed the evidence brought before them, it was his duty to tell them that, under our present state of the law, they could not bring in a bill for anything else but murder. They had no right to consider the effect of a true bill, and it was his duty to tell them the state of the law as hearing on the case, [His Honor then proceeded to describe the law as regarded the definition of murder and manslaughter, aud also touched upon the salient points of the case.] It might be that when all the points of the case came to be brought out in evidence before them there might be a prima facie cose made out so as to bring it within the definition of manslaughter. But they had to take the definition of the law from him, and he had to tell them that so far as appeared on the depositions there was no evidence on which the Q-rand Jury would bring in a bill for manslaughter. His Honor then proceeded to comment on the various cases in the calendar. There was one case which raised a point of some importance as to the duties of police constables entrusted with the execution of warrants. This was in the case of Badbam in which the prisoner was charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. So far as the evidence on the depositions went, ho thoub the constable had acted unwisely, and „his action raised the question whether a trespass had been committed or not. Though this was so he should advise the Q-rand Jury, if they were satisfied on the evidence, to find a true bill so that the matters might be fully discussed. In case of a trespass being committed the person trespassed upon was entitled to use such force or violence as might be necessary to expel the trespasser. If the trespasser resisted seriously, and the person trespassed on was in danger of his life, he might be justified in killing the trespasser. But if only a slight trespass was made, and the person on the premises used violence unnecessarily, such as would inflict a serious wound, it became a crime, because the law did not protect the occupier of premises when such unnecessary violence had been used. He was not quite sure on the evidence that the constable was not a trespasser. The warrant had been issued for some time for wife desertion, and at the time the constable went into the house the prisoner and his wife were seated at tea, and apparently on good terms. The constable, when asked for the warrant, could not produce it, as he did not appear to have had it with him. The man then told the constable to quit the house, and on his refusing, took up a knife from the table near and stabbed him. As he had said, upon the evidence, he was not sure that the constable was not trespassing, but if they were satisfied on the evidence it would be better for them to find a true bill. If the man knew that a warrant was out for him, that the constable could get the warrant if necessary, and know that he was a constable, seeing him in official costume, he was not quite sure that the constable would be trespassing. However, this was a point which need not then be discussed ; but if the Grand Jury found that a prima facie case had been made out they would find a true bill. His Honor having commented on the salient points of the cases in the calendar, dismissed the Grand Jury to their room to consider the bills laid before them. LAECENY. John Crowley alias Hinks was indicted for having on the 22nd June stolen a quantity of jewellery, the property of S. H. Stewart. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Guilty.” The prisoner also pleaded guilty to a previous conviction entered on the indictment as taking place on the 11th June, 1877, in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch. Inspector Hickson said that there were several previous convictions against the prisoner.

Detective Walker spoke as to the previous career of the prisoner, stating that he had commenced his prison life in Dunedin, His Honor said it was useless to give such a man as the prisoner a short sentence. He had evidently made up his mind to prey upon the public, and it was, therefore, necessary that he should be put out of the way of doing harm as long as possible. Prisoner would bo sentenced to three years’ penal servitude. EOBBBEY WITH VIOLENCE. Emile Huskisson and Arthur Frederick Wilson were indicted for having, on the 6th April, committed a robbery with violence upon one Michael Leary. The prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

The case for the prosecution was, that on the night in question the two prisoners and the prosecutor were drinking together in the Palace Hotel, Gloucester street. About midnight the prisoners and the prosecutor left the hotel, and proceeded along to Worcester street. The prosecutor’s story then was that the prisoners, who had an opportunity of seeing the purse of the prosecutor, took hold of him by the throat and nearly choked him, at the same time taking the money from the prosecutor. The prosecutor called for the police, and several persons assembled. Ultimately the prisoners were arrested. For the prosecution Mr Duncan called the prosecutor, Messrs. Toddhuntor, Bently, Thos. Hooper, and Detective Benjamin. The prisoner Huskisson addressed the jury at great length. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty” in both cases.

Inspector Hickson deposed to having known the prisoner Huskisson for fourteen years, and during the whole of that time he was either in gaol or at large with a charge out against him. His crimes and sentences comprised burglary (two years), larceny from a dwelling (six years), escape from gaol (one year), stealing from a dweliing (six years). Nothing was known as to Wilson by the police. His Honor, after remarking upon the number of offences committed by the prisoner Huskisson, stated that he would be prevented from carrying on his career of crime, at any rate for some time. The sentence of the Court would be that Huskisson be kept in penal servitude for fourteen years. Wilson would be sentenced to twelve mouths imprisonment with hard labor.

OBTAINING GOODS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES

.David Wright was indicted for having on the 28rd April, 1878, passed a valueless cheque for £lO 10s drawn on the Bank of Australasia with intent to defraud one J. E. Bashford. A second count charged the prisoner with having passed a valueless cheque for £7 10a drawn on the Union Bank of Australia with intent to defraud one George McDonald.

The prisoner, who was undefended, pleady “Not guilty,” (Xeft Sittiag.J