SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1368, 4 July 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday July 4. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The sitting of the Supreme Court was resumed at 10,30 a.m. illegally at large. James Patrick Casey, who had pleaded guilty to this charge, w r as placed at the bar. His Honor said that he had considered the question, and ho tnoughb that the case of the prisoner did not come within the statute, which had evidently been intended to meet the case of persons returning from penal servitude illegally, and being at large in any part of Her Majesty’s dominions. Besides, it was a very nice point as to whether the prisoner was at large. He was closely followed by the warders aud captured. Therefore, it seemed to him that the case did not come within the statute. He should, therefore, allow the prisoner to withdraw his plea of guilty, and substitute on of not guilty, as the point involved one of law. The prisoner then withdrew his plea of guilty. A jury was empanelled, and the Crown Prosecutor having entered a nolle prosequi, the jury returned a verdict of “ Not guilty.” THE CASES OP WOODFORD AND RASMUSSEN. With reference to these cases in which a doubt had arisen as to the legality of the trials owing to a juryman having served in a wrong name, His Honor said that he had given the subject a very great amount of consideration, and had looked into the various cases bearing upon it with much caro. In Mellor’s case, which was somewhat analogous to this, eight judges out of fourteen expressed their opinion that there had been no mis-trial. Learned and experienced Judges had considered the matter as one of groat interest, and removed somewhat from the mere technical objections which might occur. Had Mr Duncan found any cases bearing upon the matter ? Mr Duncan had »ot beyoud the case of Mellor referred to by his Honor. His Honor —In order to satisfy myself as to the application of this case to that of Mellor and others, I shall ask the Sheriff to produce the jury list. On that there is an entry “ 4171, Tick, Peter, Fendalltown, laborer.” Is (here on this jury list any person named Peter Chick P 1 shall treat this as a document in Court. Mr Inspector Hickson stated that the man who had compiled the jury list was no longer here. His —Honor—Wo really must try and get something done with these jury lists, so as to make the necessary corrections. The Sheriff—There is no name of Peter Chiek on the jury list. The name on the panel is the same as on the j ury list. His Honor—Now, Mr Sheriff, produce the summons, I have already sworn the juror himself, who stated that the summons was in the name of Tick, and that he had served for one day on the jury. That there was no other person of the name of Chick in Fendalltown. I shall now take the evidence of the constable who served the summons. Joseph Crockett—l am a constable. I served a copy of the summons produced on Peter Tick or Chick. Ido not know the man by sight. The summons was served on his wife. I know no other person named Chick or Tick, a labourer in Fendalltown. His Honor —That summons is directed to Peter Tick, labourer, Fendalltown. Mr Duncan, I am of opinion, after very considerable reflection —and though the opinions of the minority of the Judges in Mellor’s case weigh with me —that there is no doubt that the person who came forward was a person who was entitled to try a case on a jury, who was liable to serve, and was the right man but wrongly described. Though it might be that the prisoner might be deprived of his right of challenge from knowing the name of Peter Chick and not his face, and that Pet er Chick might have been hostile (o to him, I think that there is no reason for a new trial, and this because it seems to come within the rule laid down by the majority of the Judges in Mellor’s case. In that case the question arose as to whether the case should be reserved for the opinion of a higher tribunal, but in this I am of opinion, for the reasons I have stated, that there is no necessity for reserving the point. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO DO BODILY HARM. John Taruouski was indicted for having committed an assault upon one Richard Beale, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded “Not Guilty.” The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner and prosecutor were employed together at Moffat’s mill, and on the date mentioned in the indictment were drinking together at Mullins’ Junction Hotel. They proceeded on their way to their tents, and on the road, according to prosecutor’s statement, the prisoner drew a knife and stabbed him several times. The Crown Prosecutor having led evidence in support of his case, Mr Izard addressed the jury for the defence. The jury then retired, and after some deliberation returned a verdict of “ Guilty of unlawfully wounding.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to nine calendar months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. AN APPLICATION. Mr S. D. Nathan, manager of the Mont de Piete Company, applied to his Honor to have certain money found on Crawley, alias Hinks, sentenced to three years’ penal servitude, handed over to him, as being the proceeds of a watch pawned with them, which, having been stolen, had to be handed back to the owner. Mr Inspector Hickson said that he would like to support the application, as the pawnbrokers were of the utmost value to the police in the detection of crime, and it was, therefore, advisable in cases like the present where money was found on the prisoners which might reasonably be supposed to be the proceeds of pawning, to hand it over. After some discussion, His Honor said that as the applicant might probably have a good civil action for the restitution of the money at the expiration of the sentence of the prisoner perhaps the gaoler would bo doing no harm in handing over the money found on the prisoner, Mr Phillips said he could not hand over the money without an order. His Honor said he was not sure that he had power to make an order, but it seemed to him that it was reasonable to suppose that the money found on the prisoner was a portion of the proceeds of the pawning of the watch with the applicant. The order would bo made, but not as a matter of law. LARCENY AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICER, J. B. Hunter was indicted for having, whilst employed in the service of the Government as a surveyor, appropriated certain monies the property of the Government of New Zealand to his own use. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded “ Not guilty.” The case for the Crown was that the prisoner was acting as district surveyor, and as such received certain monies, an imprest account which were never accounted for by him. He subsequently left the colony without leave, and was arrested in Australia, Mr Duncan called the Chief Surveyor, who deposed to the general facts of the case as regarded the imprest advanced to the prisoner. The prisoner hud £l3O per annum allowed him, out of which ho had to provide horses, drays, Ac., aud for the carriage of the camp equipment. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “ Guilly,” and His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two year’s imprisonment with hard labour.