SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2355, 20 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Wednesday, Ootobbb 19. laeobny as a bailee. Thomas Oolyor was charged with having, whilst bailee of a horse, dray, and harness, the property of one O. Q. Parker, disposed of the same for his own use and benefit. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Holmes, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The following is in continuation after our goirg to press yesterday : Mr Holmes having addressed the jury, His Honor summed up, and the jmy retired at 4 5 p.m. At 5.45 p.m. the foreman came into Court and stated that there was no possibility of their agreeing. Could his Honor take the verdict of the jury except the one who stood out. His Honor said that he could not by law tako any part verdict until the jury had been looked up for twelve hours. If, therefore, they could not agree, they would have to remain twelve hours before a part verdict was taken. INDECENT ASSAULT. William John Wilson was indicted for this offence. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Duncan led evidence in support of the charge. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “Guilty.” Detective John Neil deposed that he had no knowledge whatever of the prosecutrix being a prostitute, nor did he believe such was the case.

His Honor, after remarking upen the enormity of the offence, sentenced the prisoner to three years’ penal servitude. Prisoner —It’s a slice of bad luck, sir. LARCENY. Frederick Lane was indicted for having stolen twenty copper boilers, the property of Solomon Nashelski. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded ’“Not guilty.” The case for the Crown was that the prisoner went to Nashelski’s yard, and there asked for two copper boilers, for which he had a customer. At this time there were about twenty boilers in the yard. One night after this the whole lot were missed, and ultimately the boilers were traced as having been sold by the prisoner to various persons. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Evidence wes led as to the identity of the boilers, and also as to the sale to various persons of them by prisoner. The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” Mr Superintendent Broham said the prisoner had been five times previously con. victed of larceny, and several times for other offences. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. INDECENT ASSAULT. John Fry was charged with this offence. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty” at first, but subsequently in the box withdrew the plea, and pleaded “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment with bard labor. LABCENY FROM THB PEBSON.

William Douglas and William Burden were indicted for having, on September Ist, stolen certain moneys from the person of Wm. Quibble. The prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The case for the Crown was, that the prisoners and prosecutor were drinking about together, the latter having some money in notes in his coat pocket, which it was alleged they had stolen from him, they suddenly, after the notes were missed, becoming flush of money Mr Duncan called evidence in support of the case for the Crown. The prisoners addressed the jury, and his Honor summed up. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty ” against both prisoners. Mr Superintendent Broham produced several convictions for larceny, &0., against both prisoners. His Honor sentenced the prisoners as follows : Douglas to penal servitude for three years ; Burden to two years’ hard labor. This Day. The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. The jury in the case of Begins v Oolyer came into Court and stated that they could not agree. Mr Duncan applied for a fresh trial to be had at once. After some discussion.

His Honor said that he would allow the trial to be taken again, it being understood that the jurors who had served upon the previous jury should stand aside. This was done, and the prisoner was rearraigned. Mr Holmes appeared for the defence, Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case was then re-heard, the same evidence being offered by the Crown. Mr Martin led evidence in support of the charge, the witnesses being cross-examined at some length by Mr Holmes. Mr Holmes having addressed the jury for the defence, His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 12,15 to consider their verdict.

At 12 25 they returned into Court with a verdict of “Guilty” with a strong reoommendation|to mercy. His Honor said that the jury having made a strong recommendation to mercy, he should give due weight to itIn reply to his Honor, Mr Parker, the prosecutor, said that the prisoner could get employment in the district if a merely nominal punishment were inflicted. The foreman of the jury, Mr Gilmour, said that he would be willing to employ the prisoner if bis Honor gave but a nominal punishment.

His Honor said he doubted whether he had power, this being a case of felony, to order the prisoner to be discharged on his own recognizances to come up for judgment. What he would do was this, that if the foreman entered into an undertaking to give the prisoner six months’ employment, so long as he behaved himself, the sentence would be that the prisner be imprisoned for forty-eight hours at Addington. THE ABHBUBTON LIBEL CASE.

On the case being called on against Francis Philip O’Reilly for libel on Joseph Ivess, of Ashburton,

Mr Wilding, who appeared for the prosecution, rose and said that, an apology having been tendered, it had been accepted, and the prosecution therefore withdrew from the ease, not proposing to offer any evidence. His Honor said that this was, ho thought, the wisest and best course that could be pursued. A jury would have to bo empanelled and return a verdict of not guilty. A jury having been empanelled, returned, under his Honor’s direction, a verdict of “Not guilty.” APPLICATION. Mr Martin applied for the restitution to Mr Parker of the horse, dray, &c. Mr Holmes opposed the application. His Honor said the jury nad decided that the property was Mr Parker’s, and had accepted his dictum thereon. Mr Holmes, with all respect, desired to question the soundness of that dictum, as there were other interests besides that of Mr Parker, involved. Ho was instructed by the owners to resist the claim made by Mr Parker. His Honor said that there was a statute against Mr Holmes. His clients had purchased stolen property. Mr Holmes should submit that there had been no sale whatever to Mr Parker under the Statute of Frauds.

His Honor said the law was plain. Ho should grant the order for restitution of the property to Mr Parker. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, when the arson case of Begina v Buxton will be proceeded with.