Supreme Court of New Zealand.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 8, Issue 401, 9 August 1866, Page 3

Supreme Court of New Zealand.

MONDAY 6th AUGUST. His Honor Ma Justice Johnston opened the Court for Criminal proceedings at 10 a.m. The following gentleman were sworn as Grand Jury —James Anderson, Samuel Begg, S. G. Brandon, J. B. Brathwaite, Oswarld Carr, John Chambers, T. E. Gordon, Kenrick J. Hill, Alexander Irvine, Vautier L. M. Janisch, Alexander Kennedy, J. G. Kinross, Edward Lyndon. William Maltby, William Marshall, Thomas K. Newton, G. E. G. Richardson, W. Routledge Esquires. The calendar was but a very light one and the Grand Jury found a true bill upon all the mdiictments.

The following gentleman were then sworn as petit jury :—Paul Badley, Michael M’Grath, Widiam Burton, Edward Sutton, Horace Eord, James Chase, John Murphy, John Tillers, David Leslie, Edward Bryan, Edward Cook, B. D. Danvers (foreman.)

Edward LeVert was charged with having, on the 16th February last, stolen four £1 notes, the property of Jacob Monteith. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Lee. Jacob Monteith deposed to having occupied the same room with prisoner—to his losing his purse and giving prisoner into custody on suspicion of having stolen it; also to having obtained a confesion from prisoner by a promise to try and get him off.

His Honor decided that the admission so obtained could not be received, in evidence. Prisoner aquitted.

Thomas Shackel was then indicted for having stolen a black gelding, the property of William Onslow. The particulars of this case have been but recently before the public. The prisoner, who was attempting to sell the horse, stated that he intended to pay the proceeds to the owner, who had been his comrade in the Military Settlers, and had come to Hawke’s Bay with him from Otago. But there was no proof of such intention, and he was found guilty, aud was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor. James Kelly, a private of H.M, 12th Regiment, pleaded guiity to having, in February last, assaulted Thomas Bamaby, Warden of Napier Gaol, when in the execution of his duty. Prisoner had previously borne a good character in his regiment, but was, at the time of the assault, uudergoing imprisonment for theft. Sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Thomas Floyd was charged with having, on the Ilth June, stolen one £5 note and eight £1 notes, the property of Charles O’Donnell, The prosecutor lost Ms purse and £l3 in notes on the night of the 11th June, somewhere between the barracks and Shakespeare-road j and circumstances pointed to Floyd as having picked it up. Our readers will remember the circumstances as they were recently reported in this journal. The admission of guilt was obtained from, prisoner by prosecutor telling him “he had better confess’’; which tended to render the evidence inadmissable. His Honor reserved the point for the Court of Appeal, and sentenced the prisoner to three months* imprisonment with hard labor. Stephen Clune was indicted with having, on the 27th J une last, broken into the house of Colin Campbell, and stolen therefrom a work box containing a quantity of jewellery, valued in all at £35. It is only a few weeks since the evidence in this case was placed before our readers. Prisoner had borne a bad character in his regiment. Ho was found guilty, and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with hard labor. TUESDAY, 7tii AUGUST. ABBOTT V. SMITH. This was a claim for money due for supplies. Plaintiff deposed that in June, 1861, he employed defendant to work for him, engaging to pay him £1 per week wages, and find him in rations, which he was to obtain, with other articles he might require, at Mr Kathbone’s store. He had recently discharged defendant, and now sued him for the amount of the stores (excluding rations,) which he had obtained of Mr Rathbone. In his defence defendant produced a contra account, for sawing timber, &a, previous to 1861, and also for work of other kinds done since. He denied that any such arrangement as that described by Mr Abbott had been entered into, and said that he had to be paid according to the nature of the work he had been engaged in, at the current rates and find bia own rations. Three issues wore given to the jury to decide:— 1. Was defendant employed as general servant at £1 a week and rations P 2. If not was defendant employed to do various works at the current rates of payment for those works ? 3. What were the current rates for the work he was engaged in, viz. sawing and cutting timber, making rails, and general work. The jury not being able to agree on these issues after being locked up six hours, they were discharged.