Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7920, 28 September 1904, Page 3

Supreme Court.

PALMEKSTON-TUESDAY.

(Before Mr Justice^Coovcf.)

THEFT FROM A SWELLING.

After we went to press yesterday the case against Chas. Miller for" alleged theft of silver watches was proceeded with, additional evidence being given by I). Aurelius, Robt.. Searle, A. F. Anderson, the latter stating.that Kehad lent prisoner 10s. on the watch, and when the money was returned, the watch was given back to prisoner who pave it to Galbraith, and ActingDetective De Norville. .

Counsel having addressed the Court, his Honor summed up. In doing so he pointed out that when the whole of the goods stolen had disappeared and only one of the stolen watches, after passing through many hands, was found in the possession of the prisoner months after, some judges would not permit the case to proceed, the period being over six months. His Honor said that he would leave the case with the jury, but remarked it would be dangerous to convict a man of an offence when only a portion of the goods had been found in his possession months after the theft. A verdict of not guilty was returned and the prisoner discharged.

ARSON,

John Henry Woolhouse pleaded not guilty to a charge of wilfully setting fire to a honse at Buunythorpeon Sept. 11th inst., the property of Jens Sorenaon.

.Mr H. S. Fitzherberfc prosecuted.

The following jury was empannelled : —J. Morris (foreman), Geo. Hobson, Jas. Lawrence, J. • O'Connor, Geo; Dixon. G. Greer, 0. E. Crozier, G. Dale, J, Heusen, J. J. Hickey, F. G. Baker and F. H. Mowlem.

The facts of the. case, which will be fresh in the minds of the public, were, briefly, that accused returned to bis house at Bunnythorpe on the 10th inst. Next morning there was a disturbaoce between he and his wife, from whom he had absented himself for eight months, and, in consequence, she went to the house of a neighbour, leaving prisoner at home. At" the time she left there was a fairly good fire burning, dinner being on cooking. ; She had been away Borne time before iprisonei; was seen to leave the house.' Shortly after he left the place was seen to be on fire. Accused passed along the road and was observed turning round several times to look at the house. Pro'mps etsj s were taken to quench the outbreak after it wes discovered, but without avail, and the house was destroyed. Prisoner returned when the bouse was burning, and remarked to his wife that she should not have left so much fire on. Before the house was completely on fire neighbours entered it and discovered fire in one of the front rooms.

The. first witness called was the prisoner's wife. His Honor pointed out to prisoner that his wife was not!a competent witness unless she gave evidence with his consent. '

Prisoner said he had no objection to his wile giving evidence.

Mrs Woolhouse accordingly gave evidence, but when she was about.half way through his Honor said he had decided that she was not a competent witness against the prisoner, a wife or husband being only able to give evidence against each other in the case of personal injury to either by either. Counsel pointed out that witness had suffered injury in that her properly had been destroyed.

His Honor recognised, the point, and offered to hear the evidence of Mrs "W oolhouse and submit the point to the Court of Appeal, which would determine the law upon the matter. Counsel, however, decided to accept the. Court's ruling, and the witness stood down.

Evidence in support of-the case for the Crown was given by Julian Eomowski, W. H. M.awhiney, Fred. Lewer, Geo. Burt, Jens Sorensen, and Constable Crozier. :

His Honor summed up against the prisoner, remarking that it was ' a misfortune that the case had to be determined without accused being defended and without cross-examination of the witnesses.

The jury, after an absence of half an hour, returned with a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was remanded till the following morning for .sentence.

(Per Press Association)

NEW PLYMOUTH, Sept 27. At the Supreme Court to-day Thomas Ahem, charged with bestiality, was acquitted, the jury adding a rider that accused had the deepest sympathy of the jurors at having such a serious charge made against him, and m their opinion he left the dock without a stain on his character.