SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1366, 2 July 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

* CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July 1. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The following is a report of the proceedings of the Court after we went to press yesterday : OBTAINING GOODS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. David Wright was indicted for having on the 23rd 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 10s drawn on the Union Bank of Australia with intent to defraud one George McDonald. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not guilty.” The jury, in McDonald’s case, returned a verdict of “Guilty,” with a recommendation to mercy. His Honor desired to know the reason of the recommendation of the jury. The foreman said that the practice was a very common one on race-courses. His Honor said because swindles were common, it was not that they should go unpunished. They must reconsider their verdict. The jury did so, and returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor pointed out to the jury that they had recommended a man to go unpunished, because the offence he had committed was one that was rife. If the offence was rife, it was the more reason that it should be put down with a strong hand. The case of uttering the cheque on Mr Bashford was next proceeded with. The Crown led evidence, and, after a short consideration, the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment on each case, to run concurrently. UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE. John Patrick Casey was charged with, while being a prisoner of the Crown and his sentence unexpired, being unlawfully at large within the colony of New Zealand, The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Guilty.” His Honor said he did not think that the section under which the indictment was laid —section 13 of the Prisons Act —affected the case. It only provided that any persons sentenced to penal servitude being at large, which meant as he took it wholly at large. Here was a case in which a man who had endeavoured to escape was recaptured in the act of doing so. Was that to be considered being at large ? Besides, the statute did not state that this was an offence. It was not made a felony or misdemeanour by the statute. He would, therefore, take an opportunity of considering the matter, and see whether he would pass sentence or reserve the point for the consideration of the full Court. RAPE. James Woodford was indicted for having on the 11th May last committed a rape upon a young girl. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded “Not guilty.” The evidence is unfit ter publication. The jury, after deliberation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for ten years. TRUE BILLS. During the day the Grand Jury returned into Court with true bills in the following eases:—Regina v John Crawley, alias Hinks, larceny; Regina v Emile Huskisson and Arthur Fredk. Wilson, robbery from the person with violence ; Regina v Casey, escape from lawful custody ; Regina v James Woodford, rape ; Regina v Wm. Hatch, larceny from the person; Regina v Sarah Steele, manslaughter ; Regina v David Wright, obtaining money under false pretences (two indictments) ; Regina v Samuel Badham, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm ; Regina v Brooks, larceny of jewellery; Regina v C. J. Carter, breach of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act; Regina v James Kelly and William Stewart, unmentionable offence. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m, this day. Tuesday, July 2. [Before His Honor Mr Justioe Johnston.] The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court was resumed at 10 a.m. AN IMPORTANT POINT. During the calling of the jury in Sarah Steel’s case, a juryman was called by the name of Peter Tick. The juryman said his name was not Peter Tick but Peter Chick, and that under that name he had served on several juries by which prisoners had been convicted. His Honor said that it was a question for Mr Duncan to consider whether the statement now made be the juryman did not affect the cases tried on a former day. As a matter of law, as at present advised, the serving of a juryman on the cases under a false name would render the proceedings taken under such error likely to be upset if the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment on error. He would communicate with his brother judges on the subject, and in the meanwhile Mr Duncan might see if there were any authorities bearing upon the point. His Honor then called the juryman forward and examined him on oath, when lie made the same statement. The Registrar said that on the panel the name of the juryman was returned as Peter Tick. His Honor—l have been informed by the Registrar that the jury list is in a very bad state ; that all sorts of names are upon it. It seems to me that the system is lamentably deficient, and that the machinery is very cumbrous indeed. The Jury Act appears to bo one of the most troublesome ever introduced. If the juryman now before the Court bad wilfully served under a false name 1 am inclined to believe that it would be an indictable offence. However, I do not think this is the case in the present instance. MURDER. Sarah Steele was indicted for having, on the 20th of April, feloniously killed and murdered one William H. B. Steele, her son. Mr Izard appeared to defend the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, Mr Duncan appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown. The case for the Crown was that the deceased, on (he day in question, was greasing Ids boots at the end of the garden. The prisoner, who was in a neighbour’s house, on being told by her daughter that the hoy was using some dripping, wont out suddenly. The next that was seen of the prisoner was with the boy in her arms with a wound on the loft side of his head, The prisoner explained that

the boy must have fallen on some gloss and cut himself. On the neighbours going down the garden a poker, with blood and brains upon it, was found near the spot, as also the boy’s hat. The boy ultimately died from the wound, and the prisoner, who had often been heard to threaten the deceased, was arrested on the charge of murder. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of liis case, the testimony given being identical with that of. the inquest and magisterial inquiry, which bus already been published. The medical evidence given by Dr Frankish was to the effect that prisorn-r could not have killed the deceased, as she could not have thrown the iron produced with such force as to have caused the death. The jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty,” and the prisoner was discharged. UNMENTIONABLE OFFENCE. J. GK Fortescue was charged with a crime of this nature at Ashbui’ton. The charge against Kelly was withdrawn, and he was called for the Crown. The jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty,” FALSE STATEMENT TO THE EEGIBTEAE OF BIETH9. Clement James Carter pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the Registrar of Births, and was sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment. [Left silting.]