SUPREME COURT OE NEW ZEALAND.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VII, Issue 467, 25 April 1857, Page 6

SUPREME COURT OE NEW ZEALAND.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT. Tuesday, 21st April, 1857.

Upon the opening of the Session of this Court this morningl, the Deputy Registrar read the Proclamation of His Excellency the Governor, appointing His Honor the Chief Justice to be judge of this District for the present Session, in the room of Mr. Justice Wakefield, who is incapacitated by illness from acting. The following gentlemen were then called on the Grand Jury: —M. P. Stoddart, foreman; H. J. Le Cren, J. L'ongden, I. Luck, J. Marshman, E. C. Miuchin, A. Moore, W. Morgan, J. Ollivier, J. Palmer, J. T. Peacock, F. Peel, R. H. Rhodes, G. A. E. Ross, T. Rowley, H. A. ScotCJ. 'Shand. W. Stevens. The Grand Jury was then sworn, and His Honor proceeded to charge them as follows: Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—-There are eight cases of crime of various descriptions in the calendar which .will be laid before you, but there is not among them any case presenting features of much importance. There is not one which can he called an aggravated offence. It is now some six or eight months or more since the last Session of the Supreme Court was held in this Province, and, taking that fact into, consideration, the amount of crime on the calendar is not great. Indeed, it is pretty much the same in this as in the other settlements of New. Zealand. On the whole there is very little crime committed in this colony, and particularly dishonesty. Three persons are .charged with escape., It is certainly a serious offence. Id f small community it is impossible to have a sutficient body of men and all other means necessary to guard prisoners, effectually. A great deal must therefore depend upon the prisoners themselves, and upon their willingness toexpiate the offences they have committed against the laws of their country, and, therefore, not to avail themselves of the means o* escape which may he in their power. A prieo-

ner may think that he is under the hand of the law 5 and that, if he have an opportunity of escaping, he has every right to do so ; so that, although his offence is a serious one, it is not one which must always affect his moral character. There are very few chai'ges of assault to come hefore you. That is a dime that may also he committed without reflecting seriously upon a man's moral character. A man may at the time of committing the offence be under strong feelings of. indignation; or may be greatly agravated by some imaginary or real insult; and therefore, though it is a punishable offence, it is also not always considered one to atfeet a man's moral character. There is one case in the list of receiving stolen goods, but it is not to be proceeded with. This a very serious crime; a receiver is woi*se than a thief, and is more severely punished. I attribute the small amount of larceny to the fact that there are no receivers; the old adage is a very true one, "If there were no receivers there would be no thieves." A thief needs some person to whom to dispose of the property he has stolen. A man cannot easily dispose of stolen property in a small community, and connot afford to give so high a price for it to the thief. Consequently a thief does not think it worth his while stealing, since he cannot get much profit on the articles stolen. In the colonies there is a prevailing desire to make good bargains, but persons should take care not to get into trouble thereby. When property is offered for sale at a price much below its value, there should be very strong suspicion that it has been stolen. The Crown prosecutor does not mean to proceed with the present case. Several bills of indictment will be sent up to you. If you consider the evidence that will be offered to you sufficient to establish the charges, you will then send in the bills. • You are at liberty to send for all parties, although not named to you as witnesses, whose evidence you may think necessary to establish a case. You need not have evidence for the defence, but if you think there is a probable case made out you may send it before a common jury, without going nicely into particulars. All persons who.come before you as witnesses are to be examined by you privately. You are not to have the depositions previously made by the witnesses; you must know nothing of the case, but you are to be altogether dependent on the integrity of the witnesses: -When a party is placed on hia trial, he is£at' f liberty, if he can do ao, to reduce the offence from a higher to a lower charge. For that reason the charge should always be laid for a higher offence. It is necessary that twelve grand jurors should agree in finding a bill of indictment, therefore, thirteen at least are placed on the grand jury, to leave room for one to disagree.

James Hare was brought up to be discharged, the Crown Prosecutor not proceeding with his case (receiving stolen goods). He was addressed by the Court, and solemnly warned to be more careful and guarded for the future. He was then discharged.

The grand jury in the course of the day sent up true bills in the following cases :— Against: Samuel Charles Smith for escape; pleaded guilty, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Against William Morris., for stealing clothing; pleaded guilty, and received a similar sentence. Against James Sullivan, for assaulting Police Constable Price ; found guilty, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.

The particulars of the latter case have been lately before the public, and nothing new was elicited at the trial. ,

The business occupied but a short space of time, and the court adjourned at an early hour till the next day.

Wednesday, April 22nd.. There were several Civil cases on the list, but most of them were settled out of court. On pne (Rule v. Eades) a verdict against defendant was taken by consent, and another, (Hornbrook v. Moore,) was referred to arbitration. The court adjourned at an early hour till next day.

Thursday, April 23rd. The Court sat at 11, a.m. BEGIN A V. EONNAGE.

The grand Jury sent up a true bill against Alfred Ronnage, on an indictment for robbery and felonious assault upon James Nelson, on the night of July 12, 1856. Mr. Gresson conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended.

The particulars of this case were published in the papers at the time, and nothing new appeared at the trial. The evidence was briefly as follows:—

James Nelson deposed that he went with Ronnage, on the night in question, to find a bed in Christchurch, having been refused at the Golden Fleece Hotel. Having occasion to stop near the river, Ronnage pulled him down, seized him by the throat,, and .took away his watch. He afterwards missed his neckcloth, cap, and belt. Ronnage on leaving him gave him a blow in the mouth which broke his jaw. He heard some one pass by at the time and ask if he wanted help, but he could not answer. He was sober at the time, but had been drinking. He had not seen any of "the property since. In answer to questions by the prisoner, Nelson stated that he had been up the country, on his private business. He did not think any one had seen the articles mentioned, the same day that they were stolen. He had seen Ronnage first on the night in question, and gave a description of him to the police. John Parker deposed that he had passed the two men On the night in question on the river bank ; one was standing, the other lying d3\vn. Thinking them in danger, he returned and asked if he could give any help. Being asked his name by the one standing up, who was the prisoner, he told him. Ronnage then sprang up and ran away. Nelson afterwards told him he had been robbed, and they went together, first to the Royal Hotel, and then to the police station, where he gave information and left Nelson. He had known Ronnage very well previously, and could not be mistaken.

The prisoner, in cross-examination, tried to prove the use of threats on a previous occasion as evidence of malice in the last witness. No more witnesses were called for prosecution.

The prisoner, addressing the jury in his defence, said, I was in Christchurch that Saturday, in order to return to a gentleman a pocket book, which I had found, and also to reclaim some property of mine, which had been taken from me b^ the police. I took some glasses, and when it got late, I set off for Harvey's bush, eight miles off, where a friend of mine lived. This was Saturday. As I had not been able to get my property, I returned to Christchurch on Tuesday, and went about it to the pelice station, and was told I was in custody t The charge is quite false; there has been noi'e of the property found that was said to be stolen. Nelson had been drinking, and slept for five hours afterwards, arid his intellects could not be clear at the time.

The prisoner then complained of the treatment he had received in gaol, and remarked upon the difficulty of obtaining witnesses who might have proved his absence. No robbery, he said, had ever occurred, and the police,though they searched every place where he had been, had not found any of the property spoken of. He left his. case to the jury and was willing to submit to whatever their verdict might be. His Honor shortly summed up, and the jury, after retiring for a few minutes, brought in a verdict of not guilty of. the robbery, but guilty of the rest of the indictment.

His Honor, having asked if the prisoner had anything further, to say, proceeded to pass sentence. The jury, he said, addressing the prisoner, had taken a most merciful view of the case, and had only brought in a verdict of violent assault, so that he would receive a very light sentence. He might have been imprisoned from four to eight years; and he might have been indicted for escape but that was withdrawn. This was strange good fortune. His Honor had no doubt in the case at all and could not agree with the verdict of the jury. He hoped the ;light sentence would have a permanent good effect. Sentence: Twelve months imprisonment with-hard labour.

Before the Court adjourned the Grand Jury made a presentment on the state of the Gaol, which was read^bv the Registrar of the Court. It stated that the Grand Jury had inspected the Gaol, and found that, notwithstanding recent improvements, it was still in many points injurious to the health of those confined therein, the, cells being small and dark; and that it was -natural that such a state of things should add to the desire of prisoners to escape. They not only urged the propriety of removing these evils but hoped that advantages of instruction, such as books, n;ij>'ht be afforded. Another evident objection to the present state of things was the

want of classification. Felons now communicated with those only suspected of crime. They recommended that aHouse of Correction should be established in some central locality, by the aid of which a better system might be carried out.

His Honor said that he entirely agreed with the sentiments expressed in the presentment; so much so that he would direct that copies should be sent both to his Honor the Superintendent and His Excellency the Governor. Until the present state of things was altered, he should deem it his duty to inflict penalties as light as would be consistent with law.

The Court then adjourned Sine die.

The telegraph operator of Vera Cruz, on the arrival of the barque Pegasus, on Oct. 1, telegraphed to the city of Mexico the astounding intelligence of the failure of the Bank of England. He fancied that the "Royal British" Bank could be no other than the great national banking institution of the British people.