SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2063, 4 October 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thib Day. [Before hia Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as THB GEAND JTTBY. Messrs J. T. Matson (foreman), D. O'Callaghan, J. P. Boys, A. D. Außtin, E. S. Harley, W. E. Ivey, J. J. Fletcher, E. Parkinson, W. J. Oliver, D. S. Melville, W. H. Espenette, T. J. Maling, J. P. Jameson, W. Q-. Brittan, W. Chrystall, W. Landgdown, and L. Caro. The Grand Jury having been sworn, the Judge proceeded to deliver his usual charge. His Honor said that the state of the calendar, and crime generally, in the district, did not. call for any special remarks from him to the Gteand Jury. The oases were of the ordinary character, and he did not think that there were any points of law arising out of them to which he need draw the attention of the Grand Jury. As he had said, the cases were of the ordinary type, 'requiring 'no special attention on the part of the Grand Jury, beyond the exercise of due caution. He would, however, briefly refer to the various oases before them for trial. [His Honor then proceeded to comment upon the salient points of the various cases in the calendar.] LAECBNT. E. Haynes pleaded guilty to having stolen a number of articles from Mr Brice, Colombo street. His Honor deferred passing sentence. BECEIVING STOIEN MtOPERTY. Charles Bachelor was indicted for having, in the month of July, received a quantity of goods, the property of William Brice, knowing the same to be stolen by the former prisoner Haynes, who had pleaded guilty to stealing the same. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Stringer. Mr Stringe" stated that he intended to call the prisoner Haynes as a witness. His Honor said in that case it would be better for him to sentence the prisoner Haynes before he gave evidence in the case against Batchelor. Mr W. Brice, the prosecutor, was called, and gave evidence as to the finding of the stolen property both at Batchelor's house and in the box of prisoner, at the shop of witness. The value of the goods stolen was £4O, and the prisoner was receiving 35s per week. Witness had a good character with the prisoner. On searching the prisoner's box, .£75 in sovereigns and five shilling pieces was found.

His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years' imprisonment with hard labor. The case against Batohelor was then proceeded with.

The case for the prosecution was that from information received, Mr Brice went to the ahop of the prisoner and found property there identified as belonging to Mr Brice. Further property belonging to Mr Brice was also found at the house of the prisoner. Mr Duncan prosecuted for the Crown, and called evidence in support of the case. W. Brice detailed the discovery of certain stolen property on the premises of the prisonar, which witness identified as belonging to him.

On cross-examination by Mr Stringer the witness deposed that on going to the shop he asked prisoner for the things that Haynes had brought there. Witness could not have identified the hair found on the premises had not Haynes told him that he had given it to Batchelor. When the detective wanted to search the house prisoner said they would find nothing there. The bag found by witness was locked, and was only opened by the key found on the prisoner Haynes. Some of the goods belonging to witness were found in Lyttelton, but no steps had been taken to prosecute the person on whose premises they wore found.

Datective O'Connor gave corroborative evidence.

On cross-examination by Mr Stringer nothing material waß elicited. Mr Duncan said that this was the case for the Crown. *"

His Honor asked where was the proof of the larceny. Mr Duncan said that Mr Brice had told the Court that Haynes had stolen the goods. His Honor said all that was stated by Mr Brice was that Batchelor told him that Haynes had given the goods to him. Mr Duncan said that Mr Brice had proved that the goods had been stolen by Haynes, and. had traced the goods from Haynes to Batchelor.

His Honor said this would not prove the larceny by Haynes. All that Brice proved was that he had lost goods, but as Mr Duncan knew well the admission of a third party was no evidence against the prisoner. The indictment was not drawn in a safe way, as pointed out by several cases in the books. The law was that the admission of a principal who pleaded guilty was not evidence against a person charged as receiver. Mr Duncan must have previously proved the larceny. Mr Stringer also submitted the point that there was no evidence of the guilty knowledge en the part of the prisoner that the goods were stolen. His Honor said the evidence on this point was exceedingly meagre. He would ask Mr Duncan what was the evidence he relied upon to prove the guilty knowledge. Mr Duncan said the denial by Batchelor that he had anything in the house and his attempt to get into the house before the detective.

His Honor said that this was very weak evidence indeed. In the point of law there was no evidence of the larceny, and on that of guilty knowledge it was |but meagre. Did Mr Duncan wish the case to go to the jury ? Mr Duncan Baid that, under the circumstances, he would withdraw the case. Mr Stringer said that he had ample evidence to prove that the goods came quite innocently to Batchelor, and also of continued good character.

His Honor directed the jury to return o» verdict cf not guilty, which was done and the prisoner discharged. SUICIDE. Mr Joyce applied for the discharge of the girl Isabella Craig Parry, against whom a bill had been preferred for attempted suicide, and which the Grand Jury had thrown out. His Houor asked Mr Joyce how long the prisoner had been in custody. Mr Joyce—Two months, your Honor. His Honor—l am exceedingly sorry for it. Had the prisoner been found guilty I should have only felt it my duty to give her a few hours' imprisonment. The prisoner is discharged. INDEOHNT ABSAUIT. Edward Addison pleaded "Guilty" to this charge. Ho was sentenced to twomonths' imprisonment with hard labor. BOBBERY 'WITH VIOLENCE. John Leishman was charged with this offence. He was undefended. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. After a considerable amount of evidence, the jury found the prisoner " Not guilty." His Honor said that the prisoner had escaped through a thorough misconception as to the manner in which the prosecution had brought the case into Court. Had the prosecution framed a count for receiving there was no doubt whatever that the prisoner would have been convicted. 20BGEBY AND UTTERING. Wm. Henry Lyons Boe was indioted for having on the 2nd June forged and uttered a promissory note for £SO. The prisoner was further indicted for having forged and uttered a second promissory note for £3O. He pleaded "Guilty" to both charges. His Honor said that the case must stand over for some further information as to the prisoner. The prosecutor, Mr Thos. Fepperill, and Mr Kemp gave evidence as to the good character of prisoner. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years' imprisonment with hard labour upon each charge, the sentences to run concurrently, or two years in all. THE LIBEL CASE. The Grand Jury enquired whether there was any prosecution in the libel case. Mr Duncan said he had declined to go on with the prosecution in the case. His Honor said he held Mr Duncan responsible both as counsel and solicitor. Mr Duncan declined to be held responsible in the case where he had distinctly told the private prosecutor that he did not intend to prosecute. Mr Spackman spoke shortly on the subject, and stated that the understanding was that when the Crown prosecutor declined to prosecute the private prosecutor could go on or not. After some discussion, His Honor said that no one appeared to have been bound over to prosecute at all. He really could not understand the manner in which the case had been conducted at all. Mr Spackman said that he understoood an apology had been offered and accepted. Mr Loughrey said he had been instructed to appear for the defence, and had been waiting to hear something about the bill to be presented to the Grand Jury. His Honor said that as it now appeared there was no one bound over to prosecute at all. Mr Loughrey said he Ehould apply for the discharge of the prisoners. His Honor said that he could not order their discharge until the Grand Jury had finished their labors. [Left sitting.]