SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2353, 18 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Thib Day. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston. J The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. The following gentlemen were sworn as the GBAND JURY: Messrs F. A. Bishop, Heath, W. H. Simms, J. B. Hill, H. P. Murray-Aynaley, E. 8. Bell, W. H. Eapenette, T. O. Moorhouse, O. Palairet, T. H. Bamfield, J. Inglia, B. M. Morten, James Wilkin, John Anderson, jun., W. N. Moßeth, Oharlea Parsons, E. T. Sandera, J. Shand, Bobsrt Spenoe, Thomas Boyd and A. Soott. Mr H. P. Murray-Aynaley was chosen as foreman of the Grand Jury. His Honor prooecded to address the Grand Jury. He said that the exigencies of the public service had necessitated the postponement of the session, but no public inconvenience had resulted. The calendar contained a number of cases, but they were mostly onea in which there were several charges against one prisoner, ao that really the oalendur was not so formidable. Thore wag one important case to which he should make referonce later on. The calendar also disclosed the fact that the crime of robbery from the person was on the increase, which was to be deplored. The cases of indecent assault, he desired to say, were of a clasa which ahould never have come before the Court, but have been dealt with summarily. This was the more bo to be desired as the evidence given in Court, and the dealing publicly with the cases, led, in many instances, to results which they could only deplore. In one of the cases the prisoner was a boy, who, instead of being brought there, should have been soundly whipped. The calendar, however, though the cases were numerous, did not, he thought, require very much comment from him aa guiding the Grand Jury, the majority of them being of that olaaa that their experience would enable them to deal with. There waa, he regretted to say, a tendency displayed on the part of the poiioe, as disolosed by some of the caaea, to make aomewhat too much of the caaes. This should not be, as a tendency to over-zeal in the poiioe was a state of things which ahould not exist. The most important oase was undoubtedly that of the charge of arson against one Buxton and bis wife. [His Honor then proceeded to comment on the faots of the case, and also the salient points of the other cases on the calendar.]] in speaking of the indecent assaults, he might say that in one case, that of Begina v W. J. Wileon, it waa proper for a committal to that Court, aa there appeared to have been a considerable amount of violence. The others did not call for any remarks. In the case of Begina v Horn, for making a falae declaration, he would refer to the atatute, and adviae them on it. If, however, they were satisfied of the fact that a false declaration had been made, thus aa it were defrauding the statute, they could find a true bill. As regarded the libel case, they must be satisfied that it waa a libel, which was anything which would tend to bring a man into contempt and disrepute. Of course every man had a right to ridicule his character, but perhaps they would feel that it would have been better if the oase had not come into Court. The proseoutor was Mr J. Ivesa, a journalist, and the defendant Mr O'Beilly, a member of the legal profession. If they were satisfied that the alleged libel was euoh as would tend to bring a respectable citizen into contempt and disrepute, they could find a true bill. However, they would have to exercise their own discretion in the mattor, as he offered no suggestion whatever.

The Grand Jury then retired to consider the bills sent in to them. Several excuses of a varied character were allowed in the cages of oommon jurymen. BBEAKIHG AND BNTBBIN&. Thomas Lambert was charged with having on the 9th August last broken into a house belonging to one Samuel Mumford and stealing certain articles therefrom. The prisoner who was undefended, pleaded " Not Guilty," and applied for subpconas for certain witnesses. His Honor granted the request for the production of the witnesses. The prisoner asked his Honor, as he was undefended and had been in gaol before, whether he would give him as muoh assistance as possible while he saw he was telling the truth. His Honor said that he should, as he always did, see that justioe was done, and would of course help the prisoner so far as was consistent with the ends of justice. Perhaps some member of the profession would proffer his services to the prisoner. Mr Spaokman volunteered to take a brief for the prisoner free of charge. AfIBAULT WITH INTENT TO 808. James Nolan and Henry Hargreaves were charged with having, on September Bth, assaulted one George White with intent to rob him. The prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr Duncan, with him Mr J. O. Martin, appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Grown. The case for the Crown was that on the night of the date mentioned the prosecutor was drinking at the Royal Hotel, Ashburton. The prosecutor left about 10.30 p.m. to return to Tinwald, on reaching the south end of the bridge the prosecutor saw two men standing there. One of these came up to him and asked him for his money. Froaeoutor told

him he had none -when the person knocked him down. The prisoner Nolan kioked him twioe in the faoo knocking five teeth in. The prosecutor became senseless, and on recovering found that hit trowsers pookets had been turned inside out.

Evidence was led by Mr Duncan to prove the oase as stated by the Crown. One of the witnesses, Wm. Toppin, barman at the Boyal Hotel, deposed to the prisoners leaving at ten minutes to eleven ; prosecutor leaving at twenty-five minutes' to elven, or about a quarter of an hour before the prisoners. Another witness Ebenezer Broadfoot deposed to seeing the prisoner Hargreaves come into the Tmwald Hotel with his hand covered with blood. Sergeant Pelton depos 'd to the identification of Nolan at the lock-up by the prosecutor. The prisoner Nolan addressed the jury, denying that he had taken any part in the assault, but had found the proseoutor on the bridge insensible. He picked him up, and it was then that the witness Groves saw him. The prisoner Hargreaves pointed out that the proseoutor had failed entirely in recognising or identifying him as one of those who assaulted him. His Honor summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor characterised this as one of the worst possible cases ever brought before him, and regretted the maximum penalty he could inflst was not more. The sentence was that they be each kept in penal servitude for three years. The Court then adjourned till half-past two o'clock. HOBBE BTEAUHCt. On resuming, John Gleeson pleaded guilty to stealing two horses, belonging respectively to Frederick Schmidt and William Wilson, on July 6th and 12th respectively. His Honor, having remarked on the heinousnees'of the offence, said he would not sentence him to penal servitude, but concurrent sentences of two years' hard labour.

BBBAKINO AND BNTEBING. Albert Adams, who pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into a dwelling-house at the Oust on the 12th of July, and stealing therefrom, was senteneed to hard labour for twelve calendar months. James Lambert, alias James AsLby, was charged with breaking and entering into a shop and dwelling house, belonging to Samuel Mumford, at Sydenham, on August 9th, and stealing certain articles therefrom. The prisoner, who pleaded " Not Guilty," was defended by Mr Spackman. Mr Duncan briefly stated the case for the prosecution. Samuel Mumford, the proseoutor, sworn, deposed that he was in business as a fruiterer at Sydenham, and gave evidence similar to that reoorded in the Magistrates' Oonrt. Charles Birmingham, a lad thirteen years of age, who was in attendance from Burnham School, being questioned as to the nature of an oath, was then examined, his evidenee being a repetition of that previously given. [Left sitting.]