SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2495, 5 April 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, April 4. LBofora His Honor Sir James Prondergast, Chief Justice.] aggravated assault. John Gilpin was indicted for assaulting William Clements on the 25th February lust. The following is lha continuation of this case after our going to press yesterday : Edward Chamberlain, npred seventeen, chainman to a surveyor, corroborated the evidence given by the last witness. Neither ho nor his . cousin struck Clements. Dr. Patrick, who attended the prosecutor on j tho 27th February, described the injuries ho had ; received. This was all the evidence for the prosecution. The prisoner in his defence celled Charles Chamberlain, aged seventeen, who denied that bo told prisoner when in the police cell, and in the pre ence of Thomas Fahr, that it was his brother Lick who broke the prosecutor’s jaw. Thomas Fahr, aged s"v. nteon, was sworn at the request of the prisoner, but said he knew nothing about the ease. His Honor then summed up the evidence. _ The jury, after about ten minute's’ consultation, returned a verdict of guilty. Jn answer to the Court, Mr Brobam said the prisoner was now undergoing sentence for four other assaults committed on the same night, and was known to the police as the loader of a baud of larrikins who wore a great nuisance to the public. bis Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. JOHN o’brien. The Crown Prosecutor informed the Court that ho did not intend to proceed with the indictment against John O’Brien for larceny of a one pound note, in respect to which tho accused had withdrawn his plea of guilty. In tho other case of larceny of a watch and other articles from a dwelling, in which the prisoner had pleaded guilty, his Honor passed sentence of three years’ penal servitude. There was a previous conviction for horse stealing. FALSE PRETENCES. Alexander Johnston was indicted for obtaining goods under false pretences. The prisoner pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Marlin, for the prosecution, cal'cd tho following evidence: Charles Benjamin Taylor, merchant, who deposed that on tho Bth February the prisoner came to him with a blank cheque on the Union Bank, and asked him to fill it up for £2. Tie said he was a stranger, and came to witness because ha was American Consul, he himself being an American citizen. Witness filled in the cheque as requested, and prisoner signed it. The cheque produced was the one. By tho Prisoner—At your request I dated the cheque the 12th February. By his Honor—l had some little hesitation at first in filling up the cheque, as the prisoner appeared to be slightly under the influence of liquor, Ernest Alfred Garnett, hairdresser, of Cashel street, deposed that on the evening of the Sth February, tho prisoner came to his shop and tendered a cheque for £2 in payment for some goods Witness asked who “ Alexander Johnstone ” was, and prisoner said he was a farmer at Tai Tapn, and his employer. Asked the prisoner to endorse the cheque, which ha did in the name of Morton. The goods purchased we'e a hair brush, pipe and tobacco, and a bottle of hair lotion. The cheque was dishonored. Tho goods came to 11s, and witness gave prisoner the balance in cash. Samuel Gordon, clerk in the Union Bank, deposed that no perron with a signature like the one on the cheque produced had an account at the Bank. An Alexander Johnstone had an account there, but his signature was not like the one produced. Detective O’Connor taid ho saw the prisoner on Lincoln road on 11th February, and spoke to him about the cheque. He said that ho got it from his employer at Tai Tapn, and if witness would go with him to Tai Tapu it would be a'l right. They met some people coming from Tai Tapn, who said there was no farmer named Alexander Johnstone in tho district. The

prisoner then said it was better to tell the truth, and confessed to having drawn the cheque himself as he had been drinking and wanted some money. He said he intended to pay money into tho Bmk to meet the cheque. By the Prisoner —I heard you promise the prosecutor that you would make tho cheque right by the 13th. The prisoner addressed the jury in his defence. He said that when he gave the cheque ho dated it tha 12th, intending to pay money into the Bank before that date to meet it, and ho would have done so had he not been arrested on tho 11th, before tVe cheque was due. His Honor summed up the evidence. The jury, after a long absence, returned into Court with a verdict of “ Not Guilty," and the prisoner was discharged.

Wednesday, Aphid 5. [Before hie Honor Sir James Prondorgast, Chief Justice.! His Honor took hie seat at ten o’clock. SENTENCES. William Hart, who was found guilty of rape at Kaiapoi, was brought up for sentence. His Honor sentenced him to eight years’ penal servitude, and to be twice privately whipped with the “ oat,” at each whipping to receive thirty strokes. Charles James Emmett, convicted on the previous day of attempted rape, was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude, and to receive a whipping of twenty strokes. INFANTICIDE. Elizabeth Harris was arraigned upon an indictment charged with this offence. The prisoner pleaded “ Not Guilty,” and was defended by Mr Stringer. Mr Duncan, Crown Prosecutor, called evidence as follows :

James Miller, a laborer, living at Prebblaton, deposed that on the 12th November he found the body of an infant in the River Avon, opposite the Eicoarton Hotel. It was tied up in a bundle in which there were a few stones. He reported the matter to the police. Detective Thomas Neil deposed that ha took the body of the child to the morgue. Cross-examined by Mr Stringer The bundle was sown up carefully with thread. Elizabeth Eliasson deposed that she kept a boarding-house at the corner of Lincoln road, Addington. She knew the prisoner as Mis Nelson, wife of Fred, Nelson. She lived at witness’ house, and was confined there on the 18th September of a female child. Bhe had then been living with witness for four or six weeks. She was attended in her confinement by Dr. Patrick. She left about three weeks afterwards, when the baby was seventeen days old, saying she was going to stay with her friends at Lincoln until her husband should send for her from Sydney. ' Pri« souer returned about a week afterwards without the child, which she said she had left at Lincoln with her friends. Sho only stayed to have lunch and then went to town. She came to witness’ house again about a fortnight afterwards, and did some needlework for witness. Asked her then about the baby, and she said Mrs Power at Lincoln was taking care of it until she could go away. She remained with witness for about three weeks, and then left to go to Ashburton to stay with her friends until she could join her husband. During the three weeks nothing was said about the baby, and witness never saw it after the prisoner first took it away. On the day of her confinement the prisoner wore a brown wincey dress. It was lighter in color than tho piece of wincey produced, which was stained and the color partly obliterated. Tho prisoner had comfortable clothing prepared for the child before it was born. When she went oway she left her clothing behind, and did not take it with it when she returned a week afterwards. Did not remember seeing the brown wincey dress after prisoner’s confinement.

Cross-examined—To tho best of my belief the brown dress after it was washed was put awoyinono cf the prisoner’s boxer. The boxes were loft at my housa until the prisoner went to Ashburton. Wincey is a very common material for dresses. Prisoner in no way neglected tho child while it was at my house, and suckled it all the time.

Mary Ann Hunt, widow, residing at Addington, deposed that she attended the prisoner in her confinement. Saw her on tho evening previous when she wore a brown wincey dress. It was similar to the material produced, but would not say it was tho same, us tho latter was very much stained and discolored.

Cross-examined—Only saw tho prisoner’s dress once, and could not say that its color was within several shades of that of the material produced. Wincoy was much used for dresses. It was generally a plain material, and if varicn shades of color.

Esther Powell deposed that she resided at Lincoln. First saw the prisoner in October last, when she came to see witness’s daughter. She had no child with her. She stayed for two or three days, and then left for Christchurch. During her stay nothing was said about a child. She did cot represent herself ns a married woman. She came again in October, and stayed two nights, when she loft for Christchurch. She did not then say anything about a child or about being married. Did not see her again until the slh March, when she said she

brought a message from witness’ daughter, who would bo home shortly. She said someone had been to her about registering her child in a wrong name, and that she was afraid she would get into a moss. She asked : if she could have witness’ little girl as her i own. Witness said, No, that wouldn’t d°The little girl was ten months old. - Dr. Patrick deposed that he attended the accused during her confinement, which took place on tho 18th September. Last saw her and the child on the Ist October. The child had inflamation of the eyes, but was otherwise in good health. Cross-examined—Young children ware subject to convulsion, which sometimes terminated fatally in a day. That might happen, but it was not the rule iu cases of convulsions. Dr. Symes deposed to having made a post mortem examination of the body of an infant in tho morgue. It was very much decomposed, The body was well nourished. There were no external marks of violence. The child appeared to bo about one or two months old. The lungs wore expanded, which showed that the child had lived. Could not say whether it was alive when immersed in the water. It appeared to be in tho water for some weeks. Cross-examined—Conld not swear that the child might nob have been three months old, but thought it highly improbable it was more than two months. It was difficult to say but the body micht have been in the water for about two or three weeks. Detective John Neill said he saw tho accused in a private house in Montreal street on tho Sth March, and asked her where her child was, as be noticed that it had not been registered. She said it was at W. Powell’s, a laborer living two miles from Lincoln, and if ho liked she would go and fetch it and show it to him. She said she registered it in the name of Nelson. On the 11th March ha saw her at Lyttelton, and told her that unless she could satisfactorily account for her child, he would arrest her ss being the mother of the infant found dead in the Avon on the 12th November. She said, “ I cannot account for the child. Nelson took it away. I heard he was in Wellington, and I was going up to see if I could find him.” Went down on board the Hawea, and got a small shawl and bag belonging to prisoner. They were in one of the borths. Took from the prisoner a passage ticket to Wellington in the name of Miss Smith. Then came with accused to Christchurch. She said in the look-up, " I hope you will forgive me, Mr Neil, for the lies I told you last Sunday. It was dead when it went into the river.” On the 12th March, witness took a letter from one of the boxes of accused, in her presence, which he found between a blotting pad. She said she did not send it. He also found a Registrar’s form in tho box partly filled in. Searched prisoner's boxes, and could not find a brown wincey dress (Tl o letter referred to (was read. It was addressed "Dear Fred,” and contained a statement by the accused that she felt broken-hearted for her poor little girl was dead, and she supposed she would get into trouble for register-ing the ohild in his name. James Woods Parkinson, registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, Christchurch, deposed that the form produced found in the box of accused was a vaccination paper issued by him on the occasion of tho registration of a birth by a girl calling herself Eliza Nelson, the father's name being registered as Nohon, and that of the mother before marriage, as Harris, The mother represented that she was married at Oxford, England, on the 23rd December, 1»80. The statement of the mother was that tho child was born in the South bolt, Sydenham. This was the case for tho prosecution. Mr Stringer submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. In tho first place the prosecution had not sufficienlly identified the body of the infant found in the river with the

child of the accused. Ho quoted from “ Wills on Circumstantial Evidence,” p. 211. The Crown should have established the fact that a murder h;d been committed. Hi* Honor thought the case was one which he ought to send to the jury. Identity would of course have to be proved, and also that the child was killed. But there was an onus cn tho accused to show how her infant came by its death. Mr Stringer having addressed The jury, his Honor summed up the evidence. The jury, after an absence of twenty minutes, returned into Court with a verdict of “ Not guilty.’’ ABSATOT. In the oaso of P. O'Shanassy and Jno. Kellar, indicted for assault, the Crown Prosecutor said that the police had been unable to find one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution named Ohudleigb, and applied that the accused might be required to enter into recognisances at next assizes.

His Honor said the application must be supported by an affidavit, and therefore it would have to be renewed at a subsequent stage. The Crown Prosecutor said it would be impossible for him to go on with the case without tho witness Ohudleigb. [Left sitting.J