DISTRICT COURT;

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1417, 14 February 1873, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Harvey.) Thursday, February 13. Andrew C. ,F. Morrison, who had on the previous day been charged with obtaining a sum of 25s by false pretences, was again brought up, and a jury was empanneled for the purpose of declaring whether or not he was insane. Mr Perkins, who appeared for the prisoner, said that although he was prepared to contend that, on the depositions, there was no case, certain circumstances had come to his knowledge which made it. desirable to inquire whether the man was in sound mental health or otherwise, and, with the compliance of the Crown Prosecutor, he would call evidence as to that question. He did not think there could be shown any serious case of insanity, but he believed he could adduce sufficient eyidance to show that the prisoner, at the time of the alleged offence with which he wa9 charged, was not a responsible agent. Dr Morice, who was the first witness called, stated that he had visited the prisoner professionally, and found him suffering from stomach derangement, and from mental delusions as to properly having been left to him, as to the amount of credit he possessed among residents of the town and elsewhere, and as to his ~SF getting married on the following day.. He i had not been treated for any accident, but he made the statement that, on his way to Reefton, he had fallen over a precipice 70ft high. From conversations he had with him, he (Dr Morice) did not consider him at present a responsible agent. He had known the prisoner ten years ago. Alexander Reid, Frederick B. Waters, Joseph Kilgour, John Gillanders, and Miss A. IVfapdonald were called, and gave testimony generally corroborating the medical evidence. They described conduct and conversations on the part of the prisoner indicating that he had for a short time past been mentally ill, and several letters were produced the contents of which confirmed that impression. The. witnesses spoke also as to the prisoner's general good character during the years they had known him, and of his perfectly sober habits. Mr South said that he was satisfied after hearing the evidence of Dr Morice and Messrs Reid and Kilgour. The inquiry was only held for the purpose of determining the degree of the prisoner's responsibility, for persons accused of crime might be odd in their conduct but still responsible for their actions. As it was, he was quite satisfied, and would not oppose the jury's finding. His Honor pointed out that the only duty of the jury was to say on their oaths whether the prisoner at the bar was sane or insane. The evidence was very strongly in favor of the allegation of his insanity, and he did not think that the jury could have any doubt as to their decision. After a very short consultation, the jury found that the accused was not responsible for his actions. < - His Honor said that, nnder the circumstances, it was desirable that the accused should be accommodated in "an asylum, but he could not see how that could \\e done except by representations to the Colonial Secretary. It was ior the Colonial Secretary to arrange that, and he would be detained in an asylum until he was considered fit to be at large. Of course he should in the interval have every reasonable indulgence, Inspector Hipkspn said that he would take care to see that such were 4pne. His Honor said he s,aw by the depositions that there was no case against fhe accused. He thought it advisable, however, to have the question of sanity determined, because, although there was no +d .case und,er the present charge, a cage of forgery might be made out afterwards; and his Honor thought it better, if thecircum- ~y stances were as now held by the jury, that » the country should not be put to' expense. There was nq case, on the oppositions. 3$ all— not the slightest. 4. cas.e of forgery might, however, have been made out, hat for the finding of the jury on the plea that had been raised. Mr South said he had already mentioned, that if the result were as it now proved to be, it would put an end to all proceedings. The accused was then removed in the care of the police. CIVIL CASES. J. Card v. J. Hamilton and Co.~This was a claim for L4O, damages done to a paddock near Marsden by the defendant's pigs. The claim extended over a period of several mcnthß, the trespass being committed continuously, and the plaintiff sued for ordinary damages, special damages, an amount for grazing the pigs, and also for keeping a man to drive the pigs out of the paddock. Mr Newton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Perkins for the defend: ants. Five witnesses were called for the plaintiff to prove the frequent cases of trespass and destruction of crops, and three for the defence, to prove that the ! plaintiff's paddock was not sufficiently I fenced. In the course of his examination Mr Hamilton admitted that ne thought he could run his pigs on the plaintiff's ground because it was not sufficiently fenced to keep them out. After counsel had addressed the pourt, the J. udge said this was simply a claim for damages for trespass by pigs, and the jury must find from the evidence that some amount of trespass had been done. , This was admitted by the defendant, who, iti his evidence, seemed to think that he could * allow his pigs to travel about the country with impunity, and that it was the duty of his neighbors to fence them out. That was a great miitake, as the law requiafed

the^owners of such animals to keep them in. There was plenty of evidence to show that the defendants knew that their pigs were trespassing, and ignorance on the point could not be pleaded. The assessment of the amount of damage he would leave entirely to the jury. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff as Toljto«a :— Ordinary damage, L 2 10s ; special damage on the 4th December, L 3; do on the 9th December, L 4; for grazing, nothing; for loss of time in watching the pigs, L 5 10s ; total, Lls. The costs amounted to LlO fs. The Court was adjourned until this morning at ten o'clock.