SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1448, 7 October 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Oct. 7. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened at 10 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as the GBAND JUEY. Messrs A. Cuff, H. Sawtell, J. P. O’Callaghan, R. M. Morten, Q-. Booth, H. M. Tipping, J. Shand, G. D. Lockhart, J. Izett, H. S. Bennett, R. H. Wood, H. W, Packer, G. W. Hall, H. Hawkins, A. Hornbrook, E. W. Roper, 0. Bain, J. R. Hill, B. S. Bell, S. 0. Farr, C. R. Blakiston, T. D. Triphook, D. O’Callaghan, P. Cunningham. Mr H. Sawtell was lined £5 for non-at-tendance. Mr Chas. Robt. Blakiston was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury. the judge’s chaege. His Honor then proceeded to charge the Grand Jury. He said that he had to congratulate the Grand Jury upon the continued prosperity of the part of the colony in which they were called upon to serve. Ho was sorry, however, to say that he could not congratulate them upon the paucity of offences in the calendar. Certainly with such an amount of material prosperity as they saw around them no one need be tempted to commit crime. They found that while a portion of the crimes in the calendar were attributable to intemperance, some were attributable to the facilities afforded—which were, however, less than before—for the passing of forged or valueless cheques. The calendar contained a variety of offences, two of which he was sorry to say were of a very heinous character, indeed of the most heinous known to the law. He alluded to the charges of murder and rape. As to the capital charge of murder, he would address some observations to the Grand Jury at a later stage. The case of rape he might say presented some features of difficulty, upon which he would have something to say before concluding. He was sorry to see that the crime of arson was so prevalent as it appeared to be. They were unable to discover any ascertainable cause why men’s minds should be turned towards this crime, and this being so, he was surprised to find it so prevalent in the colony. In one of the cases which had occurred in this city, of setting fire to a house, there was an entire absence of any ascertainable cause for the committal of such a heinous crime. In this case the prisoner, who was named Smith, was groom to one of the medical men in this city, and, so far as can be seen, had no cause whatever to have a grudge against his master, or any of the neighbours. The circumstances of the case, as detailed in evidence, ho would shortly put before them. [His Honor then proceeded to give an outline of the salient points of the case as disclosed in the evidence.] The conduct and statement of the prisoner, as disclosed by the evidence, were a strange exemplification of the old and wellknown French proverb, that he who excises himself accuses himself. It would be for them to say whether the language and statement of the prisoner were not sufficient (o amount to evidence of consciousness of guilt, aid whether there were not falsehoods in these s;atementa which would not have proceeded from an innocent man. The conduct and statements of the prisoner on the night of the fire were not alone evidence relevant to the inquiry. It appeared from the evidence that on the Sunday before the fire he told one of his fellow-servants —a maid servant —that she would be frightened on (he night of the bail, which was the night on which the fire took place. The prisoner also made the same remark to another of the servants on the very morning of the day when the fire broke out. It was almost impossible to conceive that a man in a calm state of mind could conceive such a heinous crime as sotting fire to a wooden house in which, and its immediate vicinity, -were a number of human beings. So far as the evidence went he thought there could be no suggestion that the fire was accidental, and it would be for the grand jury to consider the conduct and statements of the prisoner,

and see whether, on consideration f a ll the circumstances, they were of opinioi that a prima facie case had been made out. There were two other cases of arson, in which one man was charged with two ounces. [llis Honor here gave a brief rcsind of White’s case.] In this case, as would b observed, a great deal of the evidence a&inst the prisoner rested on the point of ientifieation. How when the only mean of identification was by comparing shoes or boots said to have been worn by he accused person with footmarks near tie spot where the crime was committed, it wu necessary that the process of identificatioi should be very carefully conducted. So far as he could see from the evidence, the constable in charge of the case took the best steps under the circumstances of the case ascertain whether these footmarks corresponded with the boots worn by the prisoner. If they thought the evidence altogether, including that of identification, was sufficient to make a prima facie case, then it would be competent for them to find a true bill. The same person was charged with arson on another indictment. Here again was an entire absence of evidence of motive. The building set on lire was a barn, in which a large quantity of grain was stored. There was no dwelling-house near the barn, and the connec ion of the prisoner with it arose from the fact that ho had been seen about there, had been sleeping in the barn, and using it for his convenience. There was nothing, he believed, to bring the prisoner nearer to the scene of the fire than this. The evidence seemed to point to the fact that the fire could not have been the result of accident, as the fire was found to have been lighted from the inside. It was for the jury to say whether upon the evidence which would be submitted to them, a case was made out against the prisoner. It was right to point out to the jury that they should not allow the other case to weigh with them in coming to a decision upon the one to which he was now alluding. That disposed of the arson cases, The next case they came to was a case of unlawfully killing cattle, one of a very grave nature in a country like this. He did not know whether it was intended to present a bill for killing cattle with intent to dispose of the carcases; hut if two bills were presented to them it would be competent for them to find true bills on each if the evidence was sufficient to enable them to do so. [His Honor then proceeded to give an outline of the evidence in the case.] If there was a prima, facie case on the evidence of the conversation of the prisoners with regard to the disposal of certain portions of the cattle alleged to have been unlawfully killed, it would be competent for them to find a true bill. There was a case against W. D. Stanton, which was a rather remarkable one as a case of circumstantial evidence. [His Honor here gave a history of the case.] It would be for the Grand Jury to say whether, on the facts on the evidence of finding on the premises of the prisoner of a large quantity of stamps, there was not a prima facie case made out of burglary and stealing. There were two cases of larceny, but the circumstances of them did not render it necessary for him to make any remarks upon them to the Grand Jury. There was One case which was very extraordinary, and he trusted, would remain so in this part of the country. It was a case of damage to shrubs and fruit trees to a large amount. Bylaw, any damage to shrubs or trees exceeding £1 in value was made a felony ; in this case a large number of trees, &c., had been destroyed, amounting to nearly £SO in value. But the market value of the trees and shrubs was not the only thing to be considered. It was very distressing to anyone to find, when trying to establish a new home, that the trees, shrubs, &c., growing up around him had been ruthlessly and maliciously destroyed. The only motive which is assigned ror the commission of such an act on the part of the prisoner who is a publican, is that the prosecutor opposed the granting of the license to the prisoner, and also that the prosecutor’s wife had given evidence on an information or complaint against the prisoner, But nothing could justify such a maligant and mischievous act as this being done. [His Honor here quoted the salient points in the depositions.J In this case also considerable care had been taken by the constable to compare the footprints, near the trees destroyed, with the shoes said by the prisoner to have been worn by him on the day that the crime was supposed to be committed. It would be for the Grand Jury to say whether this evidence was sufficient in their mind to enable them to be satisfied that a prima facie case against the prisoner had been made out. There was one minor point in connection with the case which materially strengthened the other portions of the evidence. That was, that on the prisoner’s premises being searched for any cutting weapon, such as a tomahawk or axe, a tomahawk was found with gaps in the edge. The appearance of the portions of the trees remaining was said in evidence to be such as to induce the belief that they had been cut down by a tomahawk having gaps in it such as the one found in the prisoner’s premises. If they thought there was a chance of a prima facie case that the trees had been cut down with this tomahawk, it would be additional evidence that the prisoner, or some one in his house, must have done this havoc. It was for them to say whether, coupling threats, footmarks, and tomahawk, there was evidence sufficient to entitle them to find a true bill. During his journeys along the line, he was pleased to see that the township of Ashburton was advancing so rapidly in prosperity, but he was also sorry to see that this prosperity was accompanied by a corresponding increase of crime, there being no less than three cases from the Ashburton district this session. This, he hoped, would not be the case on a future session. There was a case of larceny against a prisoner named Manning, for stealing £IOO from the Bank of New Zealand. From the evidence which would be laid before them there would be no difficulty in arriving at a true bill. As far as they were concerned, there was evidence that the money was lost, and that the prisoner admitted to the manager that he had taken it. As to the case of rape, there was some difficulty attending it, because it was necessary to consider whether the girl, the principal witness in the case, was competent to give evidence. Before addressing them on the case, he would take an opportunity of satisfying himself as to whether the girl was competent to give evidence or not. In the meantime he would address a few remarks to them upon the capital charge of murder in the calendar. The prisoner in this case was a foreigner and the person he was accused of murdering was his wife. The difficulty in the case lay in the prisoner not being able to speak English, and the only language he spoke, Bohemian, being very difficult to obtain interpretation. So far as the Grand Jury were concerned they would have no difficulty as to language, as the witnesses who had conversation with the prisoner would detail the facts in English. He was glad to take the opportunity of acknowledging the courtesy of one of the visiting justices of Lyttelton Gaol in calling his attention to the necessity of taking early steps to obtain an interpreter, as the prisoner did not speak German and the Bohemian language was but little spoken here. Ho was glad to say that the Government had placed a sum of money at the disposal of the Crown in this ease. [His Honor then proceeded to comment on the evidence in this case.] The evidence was to the effect that the body of the woman was covered with wounds, which it was impossible she could have inflicted herself, and the question was who had done it ? The prisoner had been quarrelling with his wife, and was seen running avray from his house in a great state of excitement, so much so that a brother Bohemian asked a most peculiar question of the prisoner, viz., “if ho had killed his missus.” It would be for them to consider, when they had oil the evidence before then-, whether there was any possibility of ai y other persons having committed the crime. £ not, then they would have to consid r whether there was evidence sufficient to warrant them in returning a true bill against the prisoner. The other eases did not require any comment from him. If the Grand Jury would retire to their room the various hills would be sent to them. The jury then retired, and soon after returned, into Court with, a true bill iu one of the cases.

His Honor, addressing the jury, said that he had examined the girl, who was the principal witness in the rape case, and she should go before them as a witness. It would be for them to consider whether the evidence ‘given by the girl was sufficient to make a pri,/ia facie case to'go before a jury, in which case they would return a true bill. HOUOEBEEAKING. Thomas Grossman, charged with housebreaking and stealing at Ashburton on 28th August, pleaded “ Guilty,” and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour, LABCENY._ Samuel Lawrence Dennis, charged with stealing a cash box and £l3 on October 2nd, pleaded “ Guilty,” and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. FOBGEEY. Bridget Burnett pleaded guilty to the above offence, and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. IAECKNY FEOM THE FEESON, Margaret Ellison, charged with stealing £8 frKm Robert Groti, was convicted, and sentenced to four years’ penal servitude. [Left sitting.]