SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 999, 1 June 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON SITTINGS. The Supreme Court sessions opened ou Tuesday. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. Wilson Howard appeared on retrial charged with receiving stolen property. Mr Lougbnau prosecuted, and Mr Cooper appeared ou behalf of the accused. The following jury were empannelled D. Gordon (foreman), T. Hackett, G. W. Archer, W. Hudson, C. D. Fraser, D. Weir, R. W. Munro, A. W. Jenkins, W. Balsillie, A. Rutledge, B. Henderson and E. Jones. The case was heard at the last sittings of the Supreme Court, Palmerston. The Jury on that occasion referred the case to the Court of Appeal, which in turn decided accused should be retried. The charge against accused was of receiving a sheep dog knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained. After hearing the evidence the jury returned a verdict of guilty with a strong recommendation of mercy. His Honour said prisoner would be sentenced the following morning. Mr Cooper intimated his intention of applying for probation. Yesterday morning Mr Cooper, ou behalf of the prisoner, applied either for probation or that a fine be inflicted. Counsel pointed out the good character hitherto borne by the prisoner and referred also to the great suspense and trial the prisoner had undergone in his three trials. He added that it had resulted in prisoner having to file his schedule, but the creditors had unanimously agreed not to oppose his discharge. His Honor, addressing prisoner, said he had had a narrow escape from imprisonment. The law of probation was applicable to such a case as this, although the fact of prisoner keeping the dog, though he knew it was not his, tor several months, made him hesitate as to extending it. Prisoner was admitted to probation for three years and ordered to pay £ls towards the cost of prosecution. alleged carnal knowledge. Wilfred Marr pleaded not guilty to a charge of carnally knowing a girl under the age of sixteen years. Mr Collins pointed out that the principal witness against the accused was now his wife, and he asked that she should be informed it was not obligatory upon her to give evidence against her husband.

The witness was sworn. She stated she was a married woman, and produced the marriage certificate between herself and accused. She then declined to give any further evidence against her husband, and was asked to stand down. The Crown Prosecutor said he had no further evidence to offer, and after stating the facts to the jury, his Honour said their duty was to acquit the prisoner. He added that he had no doubt that the next heard of the case would be in the Divorce Court. Accused was then discharged. AI.USGED ARSON. A youth named Reginald Reidy alias Willie Peters (who was not represented by counsel) pleaded not guilty to a charge of setting fire to the house of Thomas Thomson, at Taugiwai, on April iSth.

Atter evidence for the prosecution had been heard, his Honour asked the accused if he wished to address the jury, to which he replied, “What about my defence ?” He was asked what he meant, and he stated that while in Wellington prison awaiting trial he had asked one of the visiting justices to arrange for counsel to represent him, and to communicate with his people at Christchurch.

His Honour said it was a most peculiar position, and he asked Mr Toughnan to arrange for counsel to address the jury on accused’s behalf, and also to review the evidence and, if necessary, to reexamine the witnesses.

The case was adjourned till 2 p.m. on Wednesday to allow of this being arranged.