SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 1014, 11 May 1871, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

[Before his Honor Mr. Justice Johnston/] • WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1871. His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m. ? CONTEMPT OF COURT. [ ' A juryman, named James Cheer, was brought up, charged with this offence. Constable Rice, being sworn, deposed that in Court, on Tuesday, he saw the prisoner, who was drunk. Constable Raven took him into custody. He had been locked up all night, and was now sober. His Honor said that the prisoner appeared to him to be now in a state of high nervous excitement. Was he addicted to drink ? Constable Farmer deposed that he had known the prisoner five years, and that all that time he had been addicted to drink. Dr. Hitcbings said that the prisoner applied to him on Tuesday for a certificate that he was" unwell, and unable to perform Lis duty as a juryman. As he saw that the prisoner was suffering from the effects of liqucr, he refused to grant the certificate. His Honor said that the prisoner, in coming to the Court in a state of drunkenness, had been guilty of gross contempt. It was necessary to make an example of auch a case, for these things were not to be toh rated for a moment. What would become of the administration of justice if any large proportion of jurymen were to come in such a condition ? From present appearances, the prisoner, if now released, would just go to the nearest public-house, and drink himself into delirium tremens. The greatest kindness he could do him would be to order him to be locked-up svhere he would be kept from the liquor. Ordered to be imprisoned for 48 hours. MISDEMEANOR. Frederick Harrison was brought up on a charge of having committed certain misdemeanors under the Bankruptcy Act. Full particulars of this case having already appeared in our columns, it is unnecessary to enter into the details of the offences with which he was charged. The first misdemeanor with which he was charged was, that he, within six months previous to his bankruptcy, did obtain certain goods on credit, under the false pretence that he required them to on his business.

Mr. Lee appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Stedman for the defence.

Mr. Harrison wag permitted by his Honor, on the application of Mr. Stedman, to take his seat at the foot of the table of the Court.

Paramena, a native, deposed that he had lent Air. Harrison the sum of £SO. Mr. Harrison -said, when he borrowed the money, that it was to pay a debt he owed Mr. Vautier.

Mr. Lyndon, trustee of the estate, deposed that lie had examined the accounts, and found a deficiency of £2,400. Shortly before the bankruptcy, a sum of money had been paid to Mr. Vautier. His Honor said that the evidence did not go far to bear out the charge. Money borrowed could not, he thought, be described as goods bought on credit, and there was no proof of false pretence. It appeared that he borrowed the money to pay Mr. Vautier, and used it for that purpose. He might have transgressed the Act by unduly favoring one of his creditors; but with that the jury had nothing to do. The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty." His Honor, finding there was no evidence in support of the other charges of misdemeanor, instructed the jury to find a similar verdict in these cases also. Mr. Harrison then left the Court. miSON-BREAKING. Henry Williams was brought up, under a writ of habeas corpus, ou a charge of prison-breaking. His Honor said that as far as he understood the case, the charge of prisonbreaking could not be supported. It appeared to him to be simply a ease of escape from the lawful custody of the keepers. The prisoner elected Mr. Stedman to defend him, and the Court adjourned for balf-an-hour that certain legal formalities auight be complied with. Mr. Stedman put in a demurrer to the effect that no physical gaol having been actually broken, the oil nee in the indictment was not breach of prison.

11 is Honor said that the only authority an the question was against the .prisoner. He, therefore, overruled the demurrer. Mr. Lee, who appeared for the prosecution, said that he would firbt bring evidence

t,b prove that the prisoner was in lawful custody at the time of his escape. Mr. Miller, warden of Napier gaol, was accordingly called, and shewed that the prisoner had been sentenced to ten years' penal servitude; that the terra of his sentence had not expired at the' time of the escape. He stated further that having left the prisoner working at the rifle butts with the remainder of the hard-labor gang, he returned in about half-an-hour and saw him and three others in a boat going across the lagoon; that he (Mr. Miller) and others pursued, but the prisoners escaped. Nine days afterwards the prisoner was brought back. At the time of the escape the prisoners were in charge of two men, Brown and Scanlan, one of whom was armed. Michael Scanlan, overseer of the hard labor gang, was sworn, and deposed that he was in charge of the prisoner and others on the 21st November. He then detailed the circumstances of the escape ; how he himself was knocked down with a spade in the attempt to prevent it. These details have already been very fully reported in our columns. Daniel Brown, sentry, was next called, and fully confirmed and supplemented the evidence of Scanlan. Ex-Constable Hebberly, being sworn, confirmed the evidence of the previous witnesses. His Honor ruled that when even a show of physical coercion was used, prisoners were to be regarded as in custody. He pointed out to the jury that they had now only to decide as to the points of fact which were sufficiently clear against the prisoners. A verdict of guilty was returned. The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes to allow of the other three prisoners being brought up for trial. A verdict of guilty was returned in reference to all of them, and they were each sentenced to two years' penal servitude, to be undergone at the conclusion of their present term.