REGINA VERSUS HUGHES AND MALONEY.

Kumara Times, Issue 2384, 19 April 1884, Page 2

REGINA VERSUS HUGHES AND MALONEY.

SUPREME COURT, CHRISTCHURCH [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] Thursday, April 10. In this case Mr Martiu applied for a change of venue herein from Hokitika to Nelson. Mr Stringer, for the prisoners, objected to the venue being changed as applied for by his learned friend. In this case, Mr Martin for the Crown Prosecutor at Westland, applied that the venue might might be changed. The case was heard at Plokitika on the 14th March last, the prisoners bein.' charged with arson. The jury were unable to agree, and were discharged. The prisoners were again tried on the 17th March, but the jury were unable to agree, and were discharged a secend time. The Crown Prosecutor, in his affidavit, stated that he was of opinion (hat from the public feeling excited by the trial in Hokitika a fair' trial could not be got. An affidavit from Mr Turner, of Hokitika. s'ared t!>:;- ■.!;;. |.riw:uvs wuv r,- I:; |, ;;, ~,,.,. . (Vtjioiics; <lnt a large mil-.. ■ : u-.-.-.- . i:s prc\sen6 iu Cowri were uisy iiywau CaClwJiw,

and sympathised openly with the prisoners. His Honour said this was a most impertinent and unwarranted affidavit. Here was a man, who might be the man in the street, standing forward to say that a certain class of the residents in Hokitika were in sympathy with the prisoners and with arson because they were countrymen and coreligionists, and to defend thorn from the law under such circumstances. He should most distinctly and positively refuse to act upon such an affidavit, as he had no knowledge of the man making it. He obtruded his opinion on the Court because he happened to be present, that it would be impossible to get a jury to fairly try the case because the prisoners were Homan Catholics. It was a libel on the whole community to say that this was so, and he could hardly speak too strongly in stigmatising the affidavit made in such a manner. At the same time, putting this affidavit on one side altogether, there was the very startling fact that two trials had alreeady been had. If Mr Turner had any grounds for his statements, the prisoners would have beeu acquitted at once. The fact that two juries bad disagreed seemed to him entirely to disprove the unsupported statements made with regard to the Catholic residents of Hokitika by Mr Turner. . Mr Stringer directed His Honor’s attention to section 157 and 158 of the Juries Act, His Honour said that the difficulty the Judge had who tried the case was that he did not think he had power to order a third trial at the same sittings. He thought Mr Martin ought to file other affidavits as to the suitability of Nelson and the readiness of the Crown to pay expenses of witnesses. In order to allow of this being done the case would stand over. He felt very strongly, he might say, on the affidavit of Mr Turner, which amounted simply to this, that neither Protestants nor Catholics at Hokitika would give a proper verdict.