SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 18, Issue 1179, 23 November 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

YjESTERDAY. ICONTISUED -EXQU LAST NIGHT'S TIMES.] ASSAULT. John Langhan was placed in the dock, charged with having assaulted Joseph Cowley on the 6th October last. (In this case the Grand Jury had thrown out the indictment charging the prisoner with the intent to do greivous bodily harm, and he w r as therefore indicted for a common assault.) The prisoner (who was defended by Mr Stedman) pleaded not guilty. The evidence in this case having been so recently published in our columns it is unnecessary to enter again into the details; and we will accordingly confine ourselves to such new matter as was brought forward. John Mabbett, Edward Mann, and T. Lynch, gave the same evidence as before. T. Lynch (cross examined by Mr Stedman) said : I took no brandy to Langhan's. I am a Rechabite, and have been so for nearly a year. I went to the Settler's Hotel to speak to a man of my acquaintance. I was out of work at the time My object in calling on Langhan that evening was to ask about some work. Joseph Cowley was sworn, but could throw no light on the subject. He seemed in a very confused and weak stale of mind, and his only intelligible statement was that he could not remember anything of the events of the evening in question. W. I. Spencer, M.R.C.S., deposed (jn addition to his previous evidence) that when he was called in to see Cowley, the man's life was in danger. A stonebreaker's hammer, if used with great force, might produce such injuries as those under which he was suffering. In a case of concussion of the brain, it was quite possible that there might be a temporary return to consciousness, before the worst symptoms set in, and the statement of the landlady that the man had come home, and appeared perfectly rational the next day, was not inconsistent with his experience in cases of a similar kind. Mrs Morton gave evidence as before. Mr Stedman, for the defence, said he would try to show that the blow was not given by the prisoner Langhan, but by the witness Lynch. That witness had stated that he was a Rechabite, and had not tasted intoxicating liquor for a year. Now if he (Mr Stedman) proved,

as he intended doing, that Lynch had some liquor at the Settlers' Hotel on the night in question, it would give the jury good grounds for doubting the whole of his statement. MrStedman then called Alice Stuart, who, on being sworn and confronted with the witness Lynch, said, " 0, that is not the man I served with liquor." Mr Stedman addressed the jury. His Honor then summed up. He saw no reason for doubting the evidence of Lynch, which a severe cross-examin-ation had failed to shake. The attempt to cast doubt on his statement that he was an abstainer had signally failed. The ca*e, though put in the form of a common assault, was of a much more serious natme. The prisoner seemed to thiiik he was justified in using any degree of violence because the man had trespassed on his property. God forbid that such should be the law ! ft could not be too well known that the law did not justify any violence in such a case beyond what was absolutely neces sary to eject an intruder. But the prisoner had not even this justification — Cowley was not on his premises when the assault took place. He had one further remark to make regarding the conduct, of the landlady. Under the circumstances —the man being conscious at the time, and saying there was nothing the matter with him, there was no reason to consider her guilty of any inhumanity. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to the leniency pf tho Court. His Honor : On what grounds 1 The foreman: That he has a large family, your Honor. His Honor cautioned the jury against making me of private knowledge. There was no evidence to this eiFect. Addressing the prisoner, he said that he might be thankful the Grand Jury had thrown out the more serious charge, for there was certainly a good primd facie case. According to the medical evidence, the man's life was for a long time in danger, it was evident that his memory had never returned,- he still suffered much pain, and it was quite possible that to the end of his days he would drag out a hopeless and weary existence—a burden to himself and others. For the offence of which he had been convicted, the highest penalty was one year's imprisonment with hard labor, but taking into consideration the recommendation of the jury, he would pass a sentence of nine month's imprisonment with hard labor—a very lenient sentence. The Grand Jury having found true bills against the other prisoners, they were here discharged by his Honor with the thanks of the Queen and the Colony. FALSE PRETENCES. John Lewis (a half-caste) was charged with obtaining articles of clothing from Capt. Bower/ by means of an order on Mr Bold, under the false pretence that Mr Bold owed him money. The evidence in this case was the same as was given in the Resident Ma gistrate's Court some time ago, and fully reported in our columns. His Honor, after summing up, said he could suggest no treasonable doubt of the prisoners guilt. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sergeant Brown, A.C., deposed that he had known the prisoner for 2| years. He was for a time in the Constabulary, but was dismissed by Col. Fraser for misconduct. His character since had not been good ; he did not do any work, and lived at Maoii pas. His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said he was afraid he had started early in a career of crime. He supposed he was one of the class known as '* loafers," w r ho would not work. Too lazy even to honestly earn money for the necessaries of life, he resorted to false pretences to obtain them Sentence— Eighteen months' imprisonment with haid labor. HORSE-STEALING. The Crown Prosecutor said that Charles Focett, the prisoner in this case, had absconded. He therefore applied that the recognizances should be estreated. The prisoner having been duly called, the order was made, his Honor remarking that the sureties, Mr Swan and Mr O'Donnell, would have the pleasure

of paying £25 each to he r Majesty, in addition to the costs of the Court, and that the prisoner was no more a free man than he -was before, but liable to arrest whenever found. ROBBERY FROM THE PER3ON. William Brown was charged with, having, on the 7th October, stolen the sum of «£9 from the person of Wright Conn. bright Conn deposed : 1 reside at Poverty Bav. On the 7th October I was on board the ss. Napier at Tauranga. Prisoner *as the ship's cook. I went on shore at Tauranga, had a glass of beer at the public-house, shouted for two chaps, and bought two bottles of beer, which I took on board. After dinner I laid down in the prisoner's bunk, having then nine M notes in my purse. When I awoke, ray purse and money was gone. I offered £2 to the person who should return it to me. On arrival at Poverty Bay the ptisoner was. taken in charge for drunkenness, I saw him in the blockhouse, where he was locked up. He said he had taken the money to keep for me until we got to Napier. He said he would give me £6 when he was released, and the rest at Napier. I told him that would do, Next morning, when released, he gave me the .£9. He never told me he knew nothing about my money. By Mr Stedman : I was not the, worse for liquor at the time of the robbery. Sergt. H. IJallett deposed: I saw the prisoner drunk a I Gisbarne on the the 10th October, and locked him up* He had twelve £1 notes in his possession. 1 released the prisoner on his paying his bail, and he then gave £9 to Conn and <£3 to the steward. An hour and a hall after, the prisoner was. brought back, and this information laid against him. [The witness here related how, at Conn's suggestion, with a view to obtain an admission of the theft, he had locked Ooun.up in a cell near the prisoner, on a supposed chaige of drunkenness, and had listened himself to their conversation.] His Honor severely reprimanded the witness for such un-English conduct. The law of the land was entirely op* posed to any deceit being practised upon a prisoner, or any falsehood told him, to lead him to confess a crime. By Mr Stedman: Conn took two bottles of brandy with him into the Jock up His Honor : Into the lock-up 1 Witness : Yes, your Honor. His Honor : Do you not know that in allowing him to do so you committed a breach of the law ? What became of the brandy ? Witness : After Conn had gone I threw it away. F. S. Tgo, steward of the Napier, deposed : On the 10th October the prisoner asked me for a settlement, as he wanted to send £2 to his wife, and to give £1 to the man who had lost his money, as he did not like to see him without any. I found there was only 13s 6d due to him, and I gave him that amount. Prisoner had told me he knew nothing about the lost money. The prisoner's statement before the magistrates was read. It was to the effect that Conn came on board at Taunanga intoxicated and laid down in prisoner's bunk. Seeing the purse lying exposed on the r-ig, he took it in charge, and when Conn complained of his loss, he said to him, " Don't be in a flurry, it will very likely turn up." Mr Stedman addressed the jury, arguing that there was no felonious intent in the case. His Honor said there was not a tittle of evidence in support of the prisoner's statement. There was no proof that Conn was intoxicated, and if he had been, *he prisoner's subsequent conduct was not consistent with the supposition of his innocence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor said the crime and the defence set up were of a most impudent character. The prisoner had rendered himself liable to 14 years imprisonment with hard labor.—The sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for the space of twelve calendar months. HOUSEBREAKING. His Honor said it was now six o'clock. There was one more case, which would probably occupy W$