SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2139, 3 January 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Janhaby 3. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The quarterly session of the Supreme Court in its criminal jurisdiction opeued at 11 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as tho GBAND JTJBY. Messrs F. Strouts, J. P. Jameson, J. Anderson, J. Q-. Hawkos, D. Inwood, H. T. M. Johnson, A. 0. Watson, W. White, Junr., J. W. McAlpine, L. Neville, H. Adams, G-. Taylor, A. Anderson, E. S. Bell, O. R. Bil&iston, B. A. Loughnan and A. Lean. 'Mr 0. B. Blakiston was chosen as foreman of the Grand Jury. His Honor then delivered his oharge to the Grand Jury : —He was sorry he could not congratulate them or the district upon that occasion on the condition of the calendar to be presented to them. The number of offence?, tho number of prisoner. l !, and the numb.r of oases, were such as to give some oaute for grave anxiety. At the same time, although the calendar, both as to {the number and variety of offences seemed somewhat startling, he had no reason to believe that any partioular class of crime was being developod amongst them, or that there was any evidence from the calendar that there was any further establiahment of a criminal class to any greater extent than had been observable on former occasions. The crimes in the calendar, especially those of the more serious and heinous character, were, he took it, so far as could be seen, rather due to what he might call casual occurrences, than attributable to anything in connection with the internal resources of the colony. Though they had, as the gontlemon of the Grand Jury well knew, been passing through a period of great anxiety and depression in the commercial world, and that difficulty had been experienced by a portion of the population in obtaining employment, he did not, from the depositions before him, see any reason to attribute the vory heavy state of the calendar to these causes. There was one case in which there was a suggestion on the depositions, that the orime had been caused by want of employment, but even in that oase, money of his own was found upon the prisoner. They had, however, to enquire into a number of very important cases, and it was a remarkable fact that out of the twenty-six cases on the calendar, no less than fifteen different crimes were charged. Though this was so, it appeared to him, so far as oould be seen, that this was due to casual circumstances, and in no way having referenoe to the state of the oountry. [His Honor then referred to the various cases in the oalendar, specifying the different descriptions of crimes embodied therein.] There were, as he had said, some most serious cases in the oalendar, many of them presenting features to which it might be necessary to refer ; not because he thought there were any difficult questions of law likely to arise before them on the consideration of the cases, but because it seemed advisable to point out to them certain circumstances connected with eome of the cases. Taking the most serious cases on the calendar first, there was a caso of murder against a Native of the Chatham Islands. The prisoner was charged with the murder of his wife. He need not tell them that the same law to which Europeans were subject, applied with equal force to the Natives of this oountry whenever they oame within the reaoh of the law. In this case, so far as he could see from the depositions, there was but little doubt that the evidence produced would lead them to find a true bill The victim was, as he had said, the wife of the prisoner, aud of European descent. As to the death of the woman being caused by murder, they would, he apprehended, have little difficulty in being satisfied of, as the body had been found in such a state as to leave no room for doubt that she must have been killed by violenoe by some one. Though the body was so mutilated as to render identification hy the features impossible, yet the corpus delicti, would, he tnought, be sufficiently identified by dress, &c, as to satisfy the minds of the jury, as to who committed the crime. i'hero was on the depositions a statement made by the prisoner with respect to the crime and its commission, but he did not think he should be justified in detailing it to them in publio Court, for though there was no doubt on his mind of the admissability of the evidence to them as a Court of Enquiry, a doubt might be raised if a true bill were found, and the case remitted to a petty jury as to the admissabilily of such evidenca. [His Honor then proceeded to detail the salient points of the case.] He was not at all preparod to say in this case that thero was any reason to doubt tho admission, but as thero was sufficient evidence before thorn without it, it was only right that he should tell them that their duty was to see whother tho statement was made perfectly voluntarily or not, in order to ascertain whother you may receive it an evidence or not. [His Honor then proceeded to commont on the depositions in the case.") With regard to the next, cobo, that of manslaughter against three youths, that was of a widely different character, and he desired shortly to call tbo attention of the jury to the law on the subject taken in connection with a brief statement from the depositions of tho facts of tho ease. [His Honor then proceeded to quote the law with respect to murdor and manslaughter."! The ruling; of the law seemed to him to be, that unless tho death was tho result of the doing of an unlawful act, and that there was shown to b» an ordinary want of caution, it must be regarded as manslaughter by misadventure. The

question was of course whether the ciroum- fr stances of the case were such as to show that o there had been a want of ordinary g caution on the part of these lads so far as to p make it murder. If the jury were satisfied that there had been such culpable neglect d established, they might find a true bill; but, t if not, then they could throw it out. i; [ll'e Honor then proceeded to comment g on all the cases in the calendar.] There b were two cases to which he desired to rofer. t These were cases against two men named Murphy and Watt for perjury. There had t been a great deal of beating about the bush ] with regard to these cases. He had made an , ; order, on the application of the prisoners, for i { the trial to take place at Wellington. But I , they had not taken advantage of the order, and tho result was that tho record in the case had been sent up to the Court of Appeal under what was known as proceedings in error, and without the record tho proceedings could not go on. He would have, therefore, to request thorn to return some day during the week to consider those bills, and he also understood that a case of serious nature was more than proboble to come forward, as the person injured in a recent case was said to be in a dying state, and it was very desirable that such a long period as three months should not elapse before the trial of the case. The Grand Jury might now retire to consider the bills sent up to them. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO DO BODILY HABM. Charlotte Wright and Charlotte Soarborough were charged with having on the 24th November, at Akaroa, assaulted one William Henry Bossiter. Mr Joynt appeared for the prisoner Wright. Mr Spackman for the prisoner Scarbo: ough. Botn prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the prosecution was that the prosecutor had gone on an errand of love to Mrs Scarborough, and mot the prisoner Wright at her house, where Mrs Scarborough was on the arrival of the lover. Mrs Wright reooived him with a dipper full of hot water, which, like Mr Tubbs in "Pink Dominos," wsib not what he looked forward to. Mrs Scarborough, too, joined in tho fray, and aided by procuring a dipper full of water to throw over her admirer. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of the indictment. W. H. Bossiter, the prosecutor, deposed to receiving a message from Mrs Scarborough, asking him to come and see her. He went accordingly, and on going to the house he saw Mrs Wright at the bottom of the garden hanging out some clothes. Mrs Scarborough was there also, and the latter asked him what ho wanted there. Witness replied that he had been sent for, and Mrs Scarborough then asked him inside the house. As they were walking towards the house, Mrs Wright pro- . posed that they should go into the wash- [ house, and they did so. When they got in there Mrs Wright asked what he wanted with her aunt, Mrs Scarborough. Witness replied, that was his business. Mrs Wright then asked what he knew about Mrs Scarborough" and he replied, that Mrs Scarborough and himself understood each other. Mrs Wright turned round and then threw a bowl of water out of tha copper over the witness. i There was a fire under the copper, but he could not say how Mrs Wright got the water and threw it over him. The water was very warm, and soalded him somewhat. He cried out that he was scalded, and Mrr. Wright dipped up another bowl, and chased him out of the garden, throwing the water after him. The two prisoners stood in the gate after he had got into the road with his straw hat, and asked him to come for it, but he said, " No, k you don't." ' Mr Joynt cross-examined the witness at some length, and with a great deal of humor, as to the course of bis wooing of Mrs Scar* borough, which did not appear to have run ' very smoothly, she accepting hit offer of marriage one day and declining the next, and 1 whether he did not express his intention to bring an action for breach of promise. In reply to Mr Joynt, the witness stated , that he had not obtruded himself upon Mrs Scarborough, but that on one occasion he hod , locked himself isto Mrs Scarborough's bed- . room, and refused to come out when asked by '. her, and told to leave the house. He had \ told Mrs Thomas, who had asked him to retire, that he had a right to be there. Wit- ! neBS was "tight" on the occasion, but he swore distinctly he had never asked for money as a condition of his leaving the bedroom. He remembered Mrs Wright saying she would fetch a constable unless he went out in five minutes. He might have said in reply that he would see her d d first, and then he wouldn't. He was subsequently removed by Constable Scott. He had been locked up in Mrs Scarborough's bedroom for three days and three nights prior to this. He always had business when he went up to Mn Ssarborough's house. He was not aware that he had used any insulting language to Mrs Scarborough or Mrs Wright on the 24th November. Mrs Wright did not ask witness how long he was going to continue coming there annoying or persecuting her aunt, nor did he say " I shall come es often 03 I d d well please." Witness did not remember telling Mr Wiggins that this conversation took place Witness did not say to Mr Wiggins after the scalding, " I intend to get £2O or £3O out of them for the scalding, and then I shall go for breach of promise." He did not say it in that way, but one lady said that he ought to get £2O, and that it would he worth Mrs Scarborough's while to pay that to get him out of Akaroa. It might be that his love for Mrs Scarborough kept him in Akaroa, and it might be the hopes of damages from the breach of promise case. Witness did not use bad language to Mrs Scarborough, but he did not remember anything that took place after the hot water had been thrown over him. By Mrs Scarborough and him understanding each other, he meant that he and Mrs Scarborough used to have conversations together. Mrs Scarborough said that if she were to marry again, he should be the man. He was not prepared to say the water was boiling. His Honor—No one would make any objection if the water had bees cold. Mr Spackman then cross-examined the witness at some length. Witness said that if he happened to get the old lady (meaning Mrs Scarborough), he would have a good week's spree. He had not promised any one money in case he married Mrs Scarborough, but Johnston offered to come two days a week to black his boots and work in the garden if witness married Mrs Scarborough. Witness could swear that he had not offered Johnston £2 a week. Witness never told Mrs Wright that he would annoy Mrs Scarborough until I he rot what he wanted out of her.

George Haylock deposed to seeing Risaiter in the middle of the road on the 24th of November, and ultimately got him away. In cross-examination by Mr Joynt, witness B&id he saw nothing in prosecutor's face to make him believe he had been scalded. Prosecutor was using offensive language to Mrs Scarborough and Mrs Wright. He said that he would make them give him best before he had done with him.

Dr. Guthrie gave evidence as to the appearance of the prosecutor on the day mentioned in the indictment. His face presented the appearance of a burn of the first or least degree of severity, the atin being red. There was a portion of the forehead about the siza of a fivd-sbilling piece, which exhibited tho symptoms of a turn of the second degree of severity, viz., Watering of the skin. There was no dang»r. The scalds appoarei to be irdicted by some hot liquid. This closed the case tor tho Cr»wru Mr Spackmau submitted taere was no case agninst the pri/oner, Mrs .Scarborough. His Honor saie it was a irretched case to sond to that Court, and thn Magistrate could not have known hibduty in sending it there. Mr Joynt said thit he should like, on Mrs Wright's behalf, to c.ll evidence to show the strong provocation tlis man had given the prisoners. His Honor said he sould not, though a trumpery ca;o, ao a mator of law, withdraw it Jfrom the jury. Thiugh. there might be provocation, there could be no doubt that an asaanlt had been commit!, el.

Mr Joynt said ho suppsed there was no horse pond about Akaroa. 3e should now call Mr Thomeß deposed t> the prosecutor saying, when locked up in BJs Scarborough'.* bedroom, that money ho w.nted, and money ho would have, if he waitel for Bix montl-s for it. He said he was mister there and would not go. He then wert to bed in Mrs Scarborough's room. Sho also gave evidence va to the bad language used by '.he prosecutor to the prisoners. He tilso said ihat he would blacken Mrs Scarborough's ;horactor in Akaroa.

A. G. Wiggins deposed as to the prosecutor soeing him on the evening of the 2Jch November and describing the Cireumi ta wes of the warm receptioc he had. met WitiJt Boseitor

told witness he intended to g«"t £25 or £3O out of them for this hot water affair, and then go against Mrs Scarborough for breach of promisp. The learned counsel for the prisoners addressed the jury, after whioh the jury retired to consider their verdict. They returned into Court, after about half an" hour's absenoe, with a verdict of '■ Guilty" againiit both prisoners, with a nlrang recommendation to mercy. His Honor said that the prosecutor was a mran fellow, but the prisoners should not have taken the law into their own hands. The jury could not havo found any other verdict, in law, than the one they htid, but it was not i> case for punishment. His Honor then asked "Etossiter to stand foiward, and, addressing him, said that he was a most despicable character, one who had unquestionably lied in the witness-box, and he (the Jndge) should order that his expenses should be disallowed. His Honor then sentenced the prisoners to one daj'g imprisonment without hard labor, which would allow of their going home at the close of tiat day, remarking that the law must be vindicated, but that tho case never ought to hove been sent up tc thEt Court. The sentence traß received with some slight manifcstatioLg of applause, which were immediately suppressed. QLeft bitting.]