Supreme Court of New Zealand.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 8, Issue 402, 13 August 1866, Page 5

Supreme Court of New Zealand.

SATURDAY, 4th AUGUST.

The usual half-yearly sittings of the Supreme Court commenced at 10 a.m., before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston. The first business brought before the Court was a case of alleged lunacy, iu which Isaac Eogers Sutton was defendant His Honor having explained the nature of the law to the jury, the case was opened by Mr Wilson for the prosecution, who entered fully into it, endeavouring to show from certain acts of the defendant—and particularly from certain letters he had written that he was a lunatic and not not sufficient for the management of his affairs ; and called a mass of evidence, which, however, was of a conflicting nature. The principal gronnd of the prosecution rested on the contents of the letters before referred to, which His Honor handed to the jury, not giving them publicity in the court. Mr Sutton conducted his own defence, and showed that, notwithstanding the charge made against him, he had conducted his own affairs in a busi-ness-like way j and when cross-examining the witnesses against him, exhibited no sign of the alleged insanity. The jusy, after a short consultation, gave their verdict that the defendant was not of unsound mind, and was capable of the management of his affairs.

MONDAY, 6th AUGUST.

His Honor Mb 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, Oswald Carr, John [Chambers, T. E. Gordon, Konrick J. Hill, Alexander Irvine, Tautior L. M. Janiscb, Alexander Kennedy, J. G. Kinross, Edward Lyndon. William Maltby, William Marshall, Thomas K. Newton, G. E. G. Eichardson, W. Eoutledge, Esquires. The calendar was but a very light one and the Grand Jury found true bills upon all the indiictments. The following gentleman were then sworn as petit jury;—Paul Badloy, Michael M'Grath, William Burton, Edward Sutton, Horace Ford, James Chase, John Murphy, Johu Tillers, David Leslie, Edward Bryan, Edward Cook, B. D. Danvers (foreman.) Edward LeYert 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 derided that the admission so obtained could not be received, iu evidence. Prisoner acquitted. 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 ho 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, and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor. James Kelly, a private of H.M. 12th Regiment, pleaded guilty to having, in February last, assaulted Thomas Bamabv, Warden of Napier Gaol, when in the execution of his duty. Prisoner had previously borne a good character in his regiment, but was, at tbs time of the assault, undergoing imprisonment for theft. Sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Thomas Floyd was charged with having, on the 11th June, stolen one £5 note and eight £1 notes, the property of Charles O’Donnell. The prosecutor lost bis purse and £l3 in notes on the night of the llth June, somewhere between the barracks and Shakespeare-road; 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 ”s which tended to render the evidence inadmissable. His Honor reserved the point for the Court of Appeal, and sentenced the prisoner to three mouths’ imprisonment with hard labor. Stephen Clune was indicted with having, on the 27th June 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. He was found guilty, and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with hard labor.

TUESDAY, 7th 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 Eathbone’s store. He had recently discharged defendant, and now sued him for the amount of the stores (including rations,) which he had obtained of Mr Eathbone,

In bis defence defendant produced a contra account, for sawing timber, &0., 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 his own rations.

Three issues wore given to the jury to decide:—

1. Was defendant employed as general servant at £1 a week and rations ?

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.

THURSDAY, 9th AUGUST.

A sitting under the Debtors and Creditors Act was announced for this day. A few matters of private interest were arranged, but there were no cases.

FRIDAY 10th AUGUST.

HARDING r. tanner. , This was an action for damages for alleged conversion by defendant of a cow, calf, and steer, plaintiff’s property, in October, 1863. This case was heard before a special jury—Mr G. E. Lee appearing for plaintiff, and Mr J. N. Wilson for defendant. About the time stated (October, 1863), defendant sold some cattle to the late William Eicb, which were driven to that gentleman’s place, and the cattle now claimed for were found among Mr Eich’s at the Pakowhai. The evidence proved that the cow referred to was brought with the mob to the Pakowhai, but, owing to MrEich not being living, it failed to prove that defendant had delivered the cow to him. Defendant has always denied that he delivered the cow to Eich, but he had offered to send it back to plaintiff, as it had mixed with the mob on the road. Five witnesses (including plaintiff and defendant) having been examined, plaintiff elected to be non-suited.

Who Watered the Milk? or, the Fish out oe the Water. — It is said that it is a trade usage with milk-sellers to dilute the richness of their commodity with the thin and harmless liquid that is supplied by the cow with iron tail, named the “vendor’s pump.” Seeing that people can obtain that important liquid at a good deal less that; sixpence per quart, we have a notion that consumers would prefer to be their own adulterators ; but the vendors are of a different opinion, and do it themselves. Let it be hoped that they will use nature’s limpid liquid sparingly, and lot people have an opportunity of tasting cream now and then. At any rate they will in future take warnhig, wheu they draw their supply from the river, to be careful that no living tell-tales shall unwittingly find their way from their native clement, and be vended with the lacteal fluid. This actually occurred the other day, in a p’aoe which shall be nameless, supplied with milk by a dealer whom we da not desire to name, the morning milk was near divided, when out plumbed a lively little fish about three inches long, known to children ns a “ tiddler,” which was no doubt as much suprisod at its change of diet, as the consumer was at his mixture of fish with nominal produce of flesh. Such is the fact, and the little fish was carefully preserved in a tumbler to bear witness to the story. A more telling piece of circumstantial evidence was never produced iu a court of justice; its moral (if there is any morality in the case) is plainly this, by way of teaching to milk dealers : —lf the morning is dark, take a candle with you when the mixing process is being performed.” A better moral would be “don’t water the milk at all,” but will such advice be efficacious ? If not, it is a fishy transaction.—Nelson Colonist* 3ist July.