Supreme Court.

Hawke's Bay Times, Issue 1584, 12 June 1874, Page 250

Supreme Court.

—_♦- —- TUESDAY, 9th JUNE.

George Saunders, of Waerenga-a-hika, Poverty Bay, was charged with having on the 6th January, feloniously received thirty hushels of grass-seed, the property of R. Cooper, knowing the same to be stolen. Prisoner, who was defended by Mr Cornford, pleaded not guilty. This case occupied the Court the whole day. : His Honor, at the outset of the case, stated that he found the depositions quite unavailable as evidence. There was-no certificate by the magistrate that the accused had been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses: and the Maori witnesses had sighed the English translation of their depositions instead of a Maori copy ; there were other irregularities, and, in fact, the whole thing was a perfect farce. On this occasion lie had decided to take no official notice of the irregularity, but should it occur again, he would feel bound to exercise the powers of his Court.—ln the course of the plaintiff's evidence it also transpired that the depositions, though taken six months ago, were only signed about .a fortnight since. His Honor also commented strongly on th. ; s additional irregularity. From the prosecutor's evidence it appeared that" he rented a forty-acre grass paddock from the natives, and employed a large number of them to harvest the grassseed at 3s per bushel. It afterwards came to his knowledge that the quantity stated in the indictment had been stolen by some of the natives and sold to the defendant) who had already been cautioned against buying it. The defence was to the effect that Mr Cooper held no lease ; that the grass-seed was the property of the natives, and that they were paid for each bushel harvested and delivered.

The most singular part of the case, however, was that disclosing a bargain of a most extraordinary nature entered into between the parties. In examination-in-chief, Cooper thus described the agreement :—Saunders offered me £7O not to take the matter to Court: but I refused to accept it. He afterwards offered £IOO, of which I took £lO down. (The witness was here cautioned by the Court that this evidence might be used against him). An agreement was drawn, and was to be held by Mills, whom I have subpoenaed to produce it—it was to the effect that in consideration of prisonei paying me £lOO,l would not appear and prosecute. In crossexamination by Mr Cornford the witness added : It was in March last that Saunders offered me the £7O. He told me I had been very nasty with him, in pushing the thing to the'utmost; that the case was sure to fall through in tho Supreme Court; but that rather than be bothered with a trial he would give me the money. He said "As God is my judge, I never had a bag of your grass-seed." I told him I would not consent; if tho case fell through, well and good. I swear that the proposition did not in the first instance emanate from me. I took the £lO at the end of May, a week before I left for Napier. I was quite satisfied with the £lO that I got; I had been advised to take it, and I took it for a purpose. I told the prisoner this afterwards, and he said he would make me a present of the £lO. The document was here produced by Mr Mills, and read by the Registrar. It was a formal agreement, in which the prosecutor covenanted, in consideration of £IOO sterling, (receipt of £lO of which was acknowledged, balance to be paid on the following Tuesday), to keep away from the Supreme Court, and to keep his witnesses from attending, until the June sitting of the Court was over, and entiiely to abandon the case against Saunders. The document bore two sixpenny duty stamps. His Honor remarked that the parties to an illegal agreement, which purported to compound a felony, every party connected with which had subjected himself to an action for misdemeanor, had not only drawn up a solenm document, but had affixed thereto the revenue stamp ! Mr Wilson said he should have supposed a document of this nature to be exempt from the operation of the Stamp Act. His Honor : Who drew this agreement ? Witness : Mr Mills. His Honor: Did he receive anything for so doing ? Witness : No.

His Honor: Because, if he had, 1 should have instructed Mr Guy to sue him for the sum of £so.—Why did you not abide by your agreement ? Witness : I never intended to keep it. His Honor: So you took the man's money with the deliberate intention of breaking your solemn agreement, under which you had undertaken, for the sum of £IOO, to condone a felony, and defeat the ends of justice ?

Witness: I was advised to do so. Some o£*.my witnesses had gone, and it was doubtful whether I could secure a conviction. I was advised that if the defendant could be induced to make this arrangement, it would sufficiently establish my case, without further evidence. His Honor: I see—a kind of double roguery. Your agreement to let the prisoner off was entered into simply as a trap to secure his conviction. This matter has assumed such importance that I shall order that document to be impounded by the Court in case it be found advisable to order a prosecution against you. The case appears to have been one of conspiracy. If the- £9O balance had been paid, would you have gone on with the case? Witness : Just the same, your Honor. His Honor :,Then you put your signature to a solemnly stamped and witnessed document—to a lie ? Witness: I was advised to do so.

His Honor: Do not shelteryourself under " advice." The jury must clearly understand you. You entered into this engagement with the intention of breaking it, at the same time taking the defeudant's £lO. —What did-you do with the money ?

Witness: I offered it to the Crown Prosecutor.

His Honor: It was not, I presume, under his " advice" that you entered into this agreement. Mr Wilson stated that he had been unable to summon witnesses whoso testimony was of great importance in this case.

His Honor was sorry if this was the case, as the matter was ono the importance of which it would be difficult to over-estimate. If it were true, as suggested, that the defendant, an inn-keeper and storekeeper, had aided and abetted the native population in a robbery—of an article, too, so difficult of identification as grass-seed, the matter was one of most serious importance, and any failure of justice would be much to be deplored. The case then proceeded, and some native witnesses were examined-at great length. The evidence was conflicting, and the case resulted in a verdict of " not guilty." WEDNESDAY, 10th JUNE. Charles McCalmont was charged with having, on the 7th April, committed an assault with intent on Kate Bowyer. A second count charged the prisoner with an indecent assault. , Prisoner, who was defended by Mr Cornford, pleaded not guilty. The prosecutrix deposed that she was, at the time of the indictment, in the employment of Mr Lloyd, innkeeper, Waipukurau. Knew the prisoner, and had twice seen him before the date in question at Rechabite " tea-fights." On the 7th April, about 11 a.m., was in a bedroom in the hotel, eugaged in housemaid's work, when prisoner entered and laid his hands upon her. She resisted him, and a great struggle took place, lasting half-an-hour. Prisoner threw her down, and dragged her violently about the room. Finally she fainted, and when she recovered, he was gone. She went at once downstairs and complained to her fellow-servant. Her dress had not been torn in the scuffle, but her hair was " untidy." Later in the day she saw prisoner, who asked her to forgive him, aud not think any more about it. She called him a '* humbug," and said she would have no more to do with him. Mr Lloyd fetched a constable next morning, and had McCalmont arrested ; witness had not asked him to do so. —In cross-examination by Mr Cornford, witness stated that she walked home with the prisoner from the first " tea-fight," in company with her fellow-servant and another young man. They were rather late home, having taken a walk. Prisoner put his arm round her waist and kissed her at parting. At the time of the assault there was a wash going on in the back yard, not many yards from the room. Did not scream during the struggle, but told prisoner she would do so. He had not been paying her his addresses—in fact had been trying to make love to her fellow-servant. »

Elizabeth Withyman, the fellow-ser-vant, deposed that the prosecutrix complained to her of the prisoner's conduct about noon on the 7th April. She seemed to have been crying, but her dress and hair were not disarranged. Witness sent for prisoner at 5 p.m, and told him she was surprised at his taking such a liberty with Kate. Witness then told Lloyd. Prisoner, never, so far as she was aware, "made love " to her,*or paid her any attention.

Dr. Todd deposed that he examined the prosecutrix the day after the alleged occurrence. Found no bruises or other marks of violence upon her. Noticed certain slight scratches on her limbs, such as might have been made with a pin. Her eyes were swollen,, as though she had been weeping.

Mr Lloyd deposed that he heard of the affair after coining home about 5 p.m. on the 7th. Prisoner denied the charge, and wanted to see the prosecutrix, but she locked the kitchen-door, and would not see him. Prisoner afterwards said he wished to apologize to the girl. In cross-examina-tion, the witness admitted saying that he would have the prisoner punished if it cost him £SOO, but he added "if you are guilty." At the close of this witness's evidence, Mr Wilson withdrew the first count of the indictment, reducing the charge to one of indecent assault.

Mrs Lloyd deposed that she heard of the affair in the evening. Had seen the prosecutrix during the day, but had not noticed anything unusual in her appearance, except that she looked a little curiousAbout 8 o'clock in the evening' went into the girl's room and saw her. She had then been crying. Frederick Shugar, a " circular sawyer," deposed that he had known the prisoner eight months. Was in Lloyd's on the day in question ; being all the morning in the tap-room, almost directly under the bedroom where the affair was alleged to have taken place. Must have heard any scuffle or struggle if such had occurred, but had hoard nothing' of the kind. Mr Cornford summed up. He poioted out that this case was originally a charge of rape. The Grand Jury had thrown out the most serious charge ; tho second count had been abandoned, and regarding the third, his client gave it an emphatic denial. He then proceeded to indicate the weak points in tho story of the prosecutrix. The charge, he maintained had originated through a little jealousy between the two girls ; it had not lost by repetition, and reaching the landlord's ears, he had urged the girl to lay the information. It was shown that she exhibited no signs of the alleged desperate struggle, either upon her clothes or her person, that sh»3 went about her usual work, called the prisoner, when he spoke to her, " a humbug "—certainly not the language of outraged virtue ; and the grief and emotion subsequently shown was fairly attributable to the fact that she knew the matter was to come before ag open Court. Mr Wilson summed up, and told the jury to pay no attention to any denial by the prisoner—it was the very thing they might expect.

His Honor, in summing up, said the prosecutrix was not overburdened with timidity—she had given her evidence in a self-possessed manner, and had doubtless placed the circumstances in the light most favorable to herself. In a case of assault, of course there could be no consent on the part of the person assaulted. It was for the jury to decide whether the story told by the prosecutrix was consistent with itself, and with the other facts in evidence. >

The jury retired, and after a brief absence found the prisoner not guilty on both counts. The veidiet was received with certain demonstrations of approval in the body of the Court, which the police promptly checked.