Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 8, Issue 392, 9 July 1866, Page 3

Beeteand’s Case. —The S. M. Herald says: — “ It will be in the recollection of our readers that Louis Bertrand, on the 1-lth February last, was arraigned for the murder of Henry Kinder on the 6th of October, 1863, and that on Saturday, the 17th, the jury were discharged, being unable to agree to a verdict. On the 22nd of February, Bertrand was again put on his trial, and the jury, on the following day, convicted him of murder. He was then condemned to be hanged, and shortly afterwards he was ordered for execution. Several points in the prisoner’s favor were raised, and these were subsequently argued before the full Court. A motion for a new trial was made on four different grounds, and the Judges decided, on the authority of Queen v. Scaife, (hat a new trial could be granted, but they refused the application by majority (Hargrave, J., dissenting) upon all points but one—that evidence of certain witnesses had (although at express request of prisoner and his counsel) been improperly read at second trial from Chief Justice’s notes of first trial. The Chief Justice and Faucett, J., were of opinion that the irregularity was waived by consent, and, therefore, not. to bo taken advantage of by prisoner under such circumstances. Hargrave, J., and Choeke, J., thought irregularity such as prisoner’s consent would not legalise, and that there had been a mis-trial. On application of prisoner’s counsel (Salomon’s), Faucett, J., withdrew his opinion, in order that a new trial m ight be granted, or leave to appeal to thei’rivy Council petitioned for. Bertrand was now restored to the position of a prisoner awaiting trial. The Atrornej-Gensral petitioned for and obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of the Supreme Court, but in the meantime Bertrand is ordered for trial at the approaching sitting of the Central Criminal Court, to commence on the I4th of Alay. One of the principal witnesses against Bertrand, is now absent from the colony, ami it is intended on this ground to apply for a postponement of the trial. It is morally certain that this application will be granted, and then the prisoner cannot bo tried until the 13th of August next. By the last mail au appeal against the decision of the Court, prepared by the Attorney-General, will go home, and it is expected that the Privy Council will, upon receipt of this appeal, order a stay of all further proceedings until they have decided upon the appeal, and that this order will arrive before Bertrand, can bo placed upon his trial. If the appeal, which has been prepared with great care by the Attorney-General, and who, after a minute examination of the legal points involved in the case, believes it will be sustained, Bertrand will revert to the position which ho occupied after his conviction and before the motion for a new trial was made; and of course could be executed on any day that the Minister (Colonial Secretary) might appoint. But even in the event of the order of the Privy Council not arriving in time to prevent the prisoner having a third trial, and should ho bo tried and acquited, and even discharged from custody, and aster that the decision of the Privy Council comes out sustaining the appeal, he would revert to the position of the convict attainted; ho would be liable to be arrested, wherever ho might be, and executed. Such are some of the leading features of this remarkable case.”

Parcels to and from the United Kingdom by Steamships. —Wo take the following from the Sydney Empire of the 22nd ult.: —Now that there is apparently competition in this department of maritime conveyance, it is not unreasonable to expect that one, if not both, of the existing companies will make satisfactory provision for the safe conveyance and prompt delivery of parcels at each end, and even at intermediate points of the line, at reasonable rates. Heretofore the charges upon all sizes of parcels have been so exorbitant, and the delivery of the smaller class at least, so tardy and uncertain, that the public were virtually precluded from the benefits of conveyance by steamers. As one illustration of these extortionate charges, and scandalous delay in delivery, a parcel sent out from London by last October mud steamer, and which was admitted to have arrived in Sydney in December, though not made known to the owner till some time last month (May), has just been exhibited at our office. The parcel in question is rather under eight ounces in weight, is about eleven inches in length, three and a half inches in breaoth, and less than one inch in thickness, and for the conveyance of this parcel we are infromed, there were seven shillings and sixpence paid in London in full of demands; but in Sydney an additional charge of six shillings and sixpence was added, making in all fourteen shillings, say, for one half-pound . weight. The same, or a like parcel as to weight, would have been conveyed as a letter, by post, and delivered in due course, at a sum not exceeding eight shillings ; thus incontestably proving, that under existing arrangements the post is by far the cheapest, safest, and quickest mode of conveying, the smaller, and perhaps the more numerous class of parcels.

Ejiigsation to Queensland. —Free Grants. —The London Times contains the following advertisement ; —“ Emigration to Queensland. —Free Grants of Land.—All persons, not having before resided in Queensland, paying their own passages to the colony, receive a £3O land order (equal to 30 acres of land), for each member of their families of twelve years and upwards, and a £ls land order for each child between twelve months and twelve years. Free and assisted passages are now given, without restrictions as to age, to persons of the following occupation ; —Shepherds, ploughmen, roadmakers, quarryman, profiled gardeners, minors, carpenters, masons, bricklayers, blacksmiths, wheelrights, shiprights, &c.; also female domestic servants of goood character.— Henke J okdan, Agent-General for Emigration for Queensland.”