SUPREME COURT—WESTLAND DISTRICT.

Grey River Argus, Volume IV, Issue 264, 21 September 1867, Page 2

SUPREME COURT— WESTLAND DISTRICT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (^bridged from the |lokitika papers. ) Wednesday, September 18. MANSLAUGHTER. Griffith Jones convicted of the manslaughter of. John Smith was brought up for sentence. His Honor in passing sentence said he had considered the case with great anxiety, the jury had been looted up for tiours, arid had come to a right and judicious conclusion. The features of the case show that you have used an extreme of violence under great passion, but the law will not allow that I think it very unlikely, that the deceased picked up the axe first. The blood of your victim is on your head, although the deceased had made a mq3t outrageous attempt on your house, yet that did not justify you in the extreme violence you used, the effect of which caused the man Smith's death. However, you will receive the benefit of the attempt on his part to enter your house. "Therefore under the circumstances 1 will pass what may be considered a light sentence. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for one year with hard labor. EMBEZZLEMENT. Arthur Tanner was^ndicted for that he did embezzle the full owing amounts on the 11th March, 1867, the sum of L 25, on the 25th May, the snmof ,L 7 10s, and on the 22nd June, the suni of Ll7 10s, being the monies of the Hokitika Municipal Council, whose servant he was. The prisoner pleaded " Nor Guilty." The Crown Prosecutor, with whom was | Mr Harvey, conducted the j>rosecution. Mr Rees appeared for the prisoner. Some conversation ensued in reference/ to the wording of the indictment. / His Honor stated that the indictineift did not state that the money had been ifeceived by prisoner, by virtue of his office as clerk or rates collector, the prisoner was therefore not- in peril on this indictment. ' 7 His Honor therefore directed ttie iury to report a verdict of " Not Guilty" on the present indictment. . / The prisoner was then removed in custody of the gaoler. / Another bill will be presented to the Grand Jury. / perjury. :■•■■• Adrian Van Renan was indicted for

wilful and corrupt perjury at ff-' r( B^H on the 11th July last. '■ H^H The prisoner pleaded " } W^M Mr South appeared for thcSrisoHl^H The Crown Prosecutor bw v H^H the case, and stated to the Wr i '^B^M soner had denied on his Sfi .HHM signed a promissory note.for SQiiiHlj' I of one Alexander Montgomery Hi I Constable Michael SlatteSdej^B . 1 Recollects 11th July last. l»s >'^H A Resident Magistrate's Court ajfkyj^B j on that day . I remember thfflse J^^k gomery v. Van Renan. sworn on the gospeL The c*as h^H|; before Mr Revell. Harry Brick Hra posed : I am Clerk of the Begit Gr^MjJ mouth. I remember the lm^Y JaJB I was in the Resident Magisß's QoMJ -< on that day. Mr Revell, R.Bresidelm 1 remember an action bet\mfchenJ[lß soner and ' one Montgomeryfigif*" ■ on that day. I produce th«sr ■ formed the ground of the' Mi. 1 ■ defence set up was that thelvtii ■ the note was a forgery. Tlußwal ■ . missed; and judgmentgiven.fßena ■ Prisoner stated in. Court tfle sit ■ ture was not his, and he hawr gl I any promissory note to Monßry. ■ I said he hadf never seen tßcuml I before. The signature -res'eß his 1 I he had not signed it. ■ I Cross-examined : Prisone Jiatfl I signature resembled his, "bi sartM I I newer signed it." He sa 'isuafi I signed his name in fulL I b n thrM I different signatures.' .".of .the ler's 9 I Court on two occasions. I led hS 1 •name in full. Prisoner dis ' stateM in Court that he never sign r notejß Prisoner stated in his evid liattheM wri ting in the body of the. n Mpntil gomery's. On being sworn, >te was ■ ' put into the prisoner's hai d after m examination pronounced it o have* -'j ! been signed by him". Prisn id that" m the signature resembled his after- « wards stated that it was i usual ffl signature. It is rather a signa- « ture. The document (pro when 9 produced in Court at Grej I did S not think like -his signal vi eA in Adrian is different, such isßas my j^p opinion. 1 have' had occali'ice toJ^B compare the signature on thliissory|Bt note with the signature ol CourtlMf Book. lam of opinion that Jnaturajß" on the promissory note is noi«Mr'9^| signature. There is, a differ^«|||»« manner of forming the R in RenM |f|| The Crown Prosecutor thenßefil, summed up the evidence. Hi Ancli summed up, and having pointe(» til; leading features of the case then rnvl : the notes of the. evidence and »t» ■; matter in the hands of the jury, m 1 The prisoner was found guilManm remanded for sentence. ' 1 ■ INDECENT ASSAULT. I ■ James M'Kenna, charged with iiwceil assault was discharged, the GrancßJuiß having ignored the bill. ■ ■ ASSAULT WITg INTENT. 1 , I James Gaffeney charged with paviM assaulted, one Hannah Gott, withpntJil tocoinm.it a rape, was found guilty m :j remanded for sentence. HI Thursday, September 19.' , ;|^ James Gaffeney, who had been- c'Mi victed the previous day of an assault wiM attempt to commit a rape, was sentencH to two years' imprisonment with h» la.bor, Adrian Van Renah, who had tl day before been convicted' of perjus^", vfl arraigned on a similar charge arismg<jjPj of the same transaction," but as the Crowj' Prosecutor- decliped to offer any. evidenfl the jury, under the direction of the Ju'djfl returned a verdict of not guilty. Dennis Fraher was . then indicted fH perjury committed at the Resident MagU trate's- Courtj Hokitika, but the assiglf meat of perjury in the indictment \vm founded hot upon the testimony of th| prisoner given at the Resident Magi J trate's Court, but upon the evidencegivel by one John Kiley as to what the prison* said when he was before the, ResideM Magistrate, charged with perjj&r. TH Judge ruled the indictment J^^^^afl the jury, under his-directio-n^^^fflp the prisoner, who was dischargeds^^^gl John Allen was then indictee! for forging a. certain warrant or order for. thejrf^ment of money. Tliis indictm||^^is also ruled to be bad maßmud|iH«jie. alleged forgery, viz., the indonwffl^of the name of Thomas T hyte,M^Ma\ deposit receipt, in order to o^f^^^^y standing in the name of " Jon^^pm^,'* but whose name did not appel»limf,ifchei face of the receipt, was not a forgerjfe^ The next case was that of Catherinl Stewart, who was found guilty of stealing a L2O note, 'and remanded for sentence. "! Robert Hamstead, charged with sheep stealing, was found npt guilty and dis? charged.