The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1868.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume III, Issue 55, 6 March 1868, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1868.

SUPREME COURT, Friday, March 6. (Before his Honor Mr Justice llichmond.) The Criminal Sittings, adjourned irom Monday last, were resumed this morninjr, at 1 1 o'clock, at whieh hour his Honor look hid seat, ou the Bench, attended hy the Sherriff. Charles Henry Witherby, who Lad l-een brought up on Monday last, charged with for-: ing and uttering a cheque fcr £19 45., purporting to be signed by Mr. 11. Wrigg, C. E., and who had pleaded guilty to haviug written the ciu que, though not wiih fraudulent intent, Avhieh was recorded as a plea of 'Not Guilty, ' (ihe Juiige holding that, unless there was an intent lo defraud, it was not forgery), was again, placed at the bar, aud asked leave io alter his plea. The Court having granted permission, he pleaded * Guilty,*" i.ud threw himsell' on the mercy of the Court. When .-isked hy the Judge whether he had anything to urge why tlie sentence ol tlie Court should uot be passed upou him, the prisoner said that he was unwell at tlie time, and fearing lest the iandlord of the inn where he was staying shouli turn him out, copied the last cheq-ie he hud received from Mr. Wrig-j, iu order to obtaiu longer credit, hoping t> get work in the meantime and so to liquidate his a count, but without ihe slightest idea of luslu^ money. His Honor reminded the prisoner that, the mere f-'ct of obtaining money or goods from any person by means of false representations was in itself a punishableoffeiice, :ind said that judging from the manner in which the prisoner had conducted himself in Court, lie was induced to believe that it was the first time he had committed such a crime. But he was boun Ito look at the gravity of the crime itself. 'l'he penalties awarded for forgery in this colony were much lighter than elsewhere, -and not at. all equal to what, should be awarded to crimes of this description executed in a more crafty and artistic manner, and wiih a view to systematic fraud on a large scale. Of such cases ihey had ns yet, had no experience in Kew Zealand, and tlie present one was precisely of the usual character. With every wish to be lenient, his Honor could see no reason why a lighter punishment than ordinary should be inflicted on The prisoner, but he reminded him that his term might be shortened by good conduct. The prison t was then senten -ed to two years' imprisonment, with hard labor, iu Nelson Gaol. Mr Kingdon then applied for the discharge of James M*Cullough, charged with I <reeny at Collingwood, but whose trial could not be proceeded with in consequence ofthe non-appearance of witnesses, kc, and the application was granted, fhe prisoner to bind himself over in his own recognizance of £50, and two sureties; iu £25 each, to answer to the charge at the next. Assizes. ; His Honor, ou "discliar<pug7.n?e /jury, said that he did 'not" like to ruffle "tlieir "' > _minds , wlif i n ! kbou'f.'to r -sit.aß'Crimiual-jud*e!j, i I»ul,Ii«. felt himself com peTled 'to, li'miiu-k that/oiieUif thfeir number — he would lo|ye

him to his own conscience, — had twice presented himself in the jury-box in a state of undress, which was, he considered, indicative of a. want of respect, not only to the Court, but also to the juryman alluded to himself. Civil Sixtings. A Jury was empanelled to find the value of mesne profiits in an action for ejectment in the following case : — J. Tinline v. D. Moore. — Mr. Kingdon appeared for the plaintiff; tlie action was undefended. This was an aciiou of ejectment to recover possession of au acre of land with dwelling-house, &c, situated ou section 477, on the town plan, and purchased by the plaintiff in January, 1867. The defendant had remained in possession until January, 1868, and the question for the Jury, judgment having gone by default, was, what was a fair aud reasonable sum to be paid by the defendant, for the use aud occupation of the premises for oue year. Mr. William Rout, land ageut, being called, deposed that the property iu question would let for £150 per annum. llis Honor said lhat. the Jury might probably have their owu views of the value of the property, and after a lew minutes' consultation, they returned & verdict for £100. The Jury were then discharged, and the Court rose at noon.