SUPREME COURT, NELSON.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 125, 11 July 1868, Page 4

SUPREME COURT, NELSON.

Wednesday, July Ist. [Before His Honor Mr. Jdstick Richmond.] HORSE STEALING. Henry Oopart was indicted for stealing a horse, the property of W. H. Eyes, Esq., Superintendent of Marlborough, who with Inspector Emerson, and Mr. T. Webster, of Picton, gave evidence, which it will be unnecessary to repeat here. Mr. W. Adams appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner being undefended was told that he might address the Jury. He stated that he bought the horse in Saunders’s store ot a man named Johnstone, and produced a receipt lor £l2, for a bay mare branded on near sine with an S. Witness Webster re-called : The colour of the horse is a dark bay. Prisoner : I sold the mare in May, 1864. I was only two days in possession of her. The Judge then shortly addressed the Jury upon the nature of the case, pointing out that according to law a person found in recent possession of stolen property may have presumed to have stolen it unless ha could give a satisfactory account of his possession of it, and this would have been the position of the prisoner if the prosecution had been instituted some years ago, but coming before the Court at that distance of time from the alleged offence, there would be some hardship if he was now called upon so to prove. There were some not inconsiderable possibilities of the innocence of the prisoner, and it was possible at that time and amongst a gold digging community that transactions such as the prisoner described might have taken place. The receipt which he produced on examination did not give the idea of recent manufacture, but it was of no further value, and could be viewed in no other light than as a part of the prisoner’s statement. The branding was wrong, and it might have referred to a different horse. He had nut stopped the case, as it was specially one for the Jury to decide on, but the point of the enquiry was, as to whether a conviction of the larceny of the horse could be established, as upon the second count of the indictment, there were insufficient grounds to proceed upon. The Jury, after retiring for twenty minutes, returned a verdict of Hot Guilty. The prisoner was then discharged.

THE KAIKOBIU CASE. Edward Plowden was charged with having stolen a horse on the 2ith March last; hired from a Maori named Hoani Parateuo, at Kuikoura, which he sold at VVoodend, in Canterbury. At the opening of the case, His Honor said that a difficulty existed with regard to proceeding with it, as he doubted his ability to adjudicate upon a case which he lound belonged to another Province. A question of verm had arisen (which was a new feature and a difficulty that had hitherto been avoided), inasmuch as the locality was beyond the Uurunui river, and therefore within the Province of Canterbury, Justices were empowered to commit to any public gaol, but there was nothing to show that J udges could try in such a case as was now before him. Ho was very sorry, especially as the prosecutor was a native, but not oven by implication was there anything to show that he could proceed with it. He would like to consult a brother Judge upon the matter, and would therefore adjourn the Court until two o’clock. Upou the Court resuming, his Honor said that he had couclu.ied that he had jurisdiction in this case. He had not consulted on the matter, but had been influenced in this opinion by the bearing which the “ indictable Olfeuces Act, 181J6,” had upou it, and which- sufficiently cleared away the difficulty that he hud previously considered to exist. According to the normal course of procedure, the case would have been sent to Christchurch. The case was then proceeded with, when the prisoner said it was the first time he had been placed in a dock, and being incapable of conducting his own defence, he would pi. ad Guilty. The Judge : Do not let any fear that justice will not he doue you lead you to do so. 1 will myself take caie that auythmg in your favour shall uot bo overlooked. Do you meau a confession of guilt ? Prisoner: 1 desire to plead guilty. The Judge: in that case 1 must take time to read the depositions and consider them. Let the prisoner be brought up to-morrow for seutence. He was afterwards sentenced to be imprisoned in Picton Gaol, with hard labour, for twelve calendar mouths.—Abridged from the Colonist.