SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1586, 4 September 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Gresson,

SHOOTING WITH INTENT.

On Monday, Peter Mulvej T was indicted for that he did on the 26th day of July last feloniously, maliciously, &c, shoot with a loaded gun at Hugh Calder, with intent to kill and murder the said Hugh Calder. A second count charged r.he prisoner with intending to do grievous bodily harm. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Staite.. The witnesses examined • were Hugh Calder, Henry Jonathan Lewis, Margaret Purkiss, and Andrew Ryan. On the following day the witnesses examined were James Purkiss, Samuel Goodall, John M'Arthur, Uriah Hannah, and James M'Laughlin.- . : . .

Mr Staite then addressed the jury, pointing out that the charge against the prisoner was equal to murder, for if the evidence of the prosecutor was to be believed, it was not the prisoner's fault that the prosecutor was not killed. It would be, therefore, for the jury to decide whether the prisoner was guilty of the crime imputed to him, or that he 'was entirely free of guilt. The learned counsel then referred to the evidence, and particularly to that of the prosecutor, which latter Mr Staite submitted was unworthy of belief. After a lengthened, and in many respects an eloquent address, he concluded with asking the , jury to acquit the prisoner of the awful crime charged against him. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr South) then went through the evidence, contrasting the case for the defence with that which ihe had presented to the jury for the prosecution. Mr South defended the evidence of the prosecutor and of the other witnesses for the Crown from the imputations cast upon it by the' counsel for the prisoner, and put it to the jury that it was clear that the theory of the defence as to the shot glancing, off the stone was irreconcileable with the facts that had been proved, and even with probabilities. \ It was necessary, said the learned gentleman, that the ends of justice should be conserved, and if a man gave way to jhis feelings and was led to a crime of this kind, he must take the consequence, i It was, however, for the jury to say whether the case against the prisoner had been proved by the Grown to their satisfaction. His Honor, in summing up, said that he always regretted^ 1 for the sake of the jury, when a case was prolonged such as in the present instance. He then asked the jury to look at the case in the various points of view in which it had been presented by the Crown and for the defence, and having gone carefully and minutely through the evidence he charged the jury that if they had any doubt on their minds as to the case against the prisoner being sustained by the evidence, to acquit him. The jury retired to th«ir room shortly before six o'clock, and at half-past ei«ht returned wiih a verdict of guilty. The foreman added that the jury unanimously recommended the prisoner to mercy on the grounds of the excitement of the moment and the bad feeling entertained towards him by the prosecutor and his friends.

The prisoner was remanded for sentence until Wednesday morning, when he was sentenced to eight years' penal servitude.