SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 105, 3 May 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

[Be ore His Honour Mr Justice Gillies.] This Day. The criminal sittings or. the Supreme Court commenced this morning. A Grand Jury was sworn iv consisting of the following gent'emen:— C. Withe--, W. Wells, J. W. Barnicoat, T. Caw.tbron, H. Gou'stone, A. Greet)fleld, H. E Curtis, JR. Levien, "W. Oldharn, J Oldhani, if. H. Pickering, W. Rout, J. Symons, W. S. Mortimer, J. Watkin*, C. Hartmann, H. Buckeridge, A. S. Collins, and J. Sharp (foreman.) His Honour, in charging the Grand Jury, said: The calendar comprises cix cases, fortunately, with one or two exceptions, of a not very set iouß or aggravated character. One of these is a'> indecent assault by an .old man on his prand daughter, a little girl between seven and eight years old. In cases of this kind a gool defence is that there has been consent on the part of the party assau ted. but you must be careful not to confound consent with mere non-resistance .or submission, and you must net readtiy assume <o- sent bf cause there has been submission, pa f ticularly where there are the relations between the two that exist in this case. There is also a case of pc jury, and to this I must HpeeMly call your attention. The iHct«, as. they appear on the depositions are thit the accused was the rie endant in a civil cast in which he was sued for dam -ges for setting fire to a bush, th« property of Mr Beat son. He then swore, "I neverraa^e a fl-e thtre, nor was I there, on the Monday, Tuesdny, Wednesday, or Thursday, .but I waß there on the Friday." The fire occurred on the Thursday, and ti support the charge agiinsttiim, evidence was broight forward to show admission on his part that he had lit a fire tin re on Tuesday t> boil his billy, and on Wednesday was ?een comiug from the direction of the bush. ' Now, to constitute the crime of perjury it must be shown not only that tli e accused has sworn to what was untrue, but that there was knowledge of this on his part. If then, when he swore that he never lit a fire you think that he meant that at no t : me whatever had ho ever lighrel a fire in Beatson's bush, then you must consider that there is prima facie cvi .'ence of his guilt. If, on the other hand, you t»ke it that he meant to assert merely that be had never lighted a fira in that particular pariion of the bush, then you cannot consider him guilty. And again when h^ eworj that he was " not there at all." If by tint you take it that In meant he waß never in any portion of the bush — as it appears that he was there— you may assume his guilt, hut if you consider that he "meant he was not in that partLuhr pare where the fire occurred, you must not regrl him as guilty. There is only one other case that it is necessary for roe to refer to, namely, a charge of manslaughter against » pc son in charge of certain excavating work, in the course of which there was a fall of farth which killed two men. To constitute mms'aughter, there must bo some positive act done by tbe accused, or the omisßion of seme specific duty on his part such as to cause death. ]n this case there was no such positive act tending to cause deaib, nor can I detect in the depositions any omission of a specific duty. It ia sugge-tcd by the evidence that the ground was being worked in a dangerouß manner, but unlesß the accused knew and believe 1 thut there was danger, nnd it be proved that he refused to take proppr precautions, he cmnot bj deemed guilty. Ihere is no law to compel employers to take precautions unless he himself beieves them to be recessiry. He must act upon his own knowledge, and not upon that of others And a^ain, the men, who probably had had larger experience in such works than the accused, must have known it if danger exishd, and if they choFe to work In such a m<mr.er, the accused c nnot be held responsible for the consequences. So, unless some decided and reckess neglect of a specific! duty he Bbown, however much you may blame the accused, or sympathise with the victims, you are bound to ignore the bill. TIIUE BILLS. The Grand Juiy found Trua Bills against Thomas Newberry, '£. Smith, Frederick F) nmore, and John Jones. NO BILL. The G-and Jury found No Bill against Wcrgan Jones. SHEEP STE AXING. John Dayherty wa* placed in the dock, charged with stealing Bheep from Mr John Kerr. Mr Acton A^ams appeared for the pro.;ecution and Mr Fell for the prsoner. All the cvi ''erne of iutt rest in this case has already been reported. The principal witness, , Jonathan Hadfi' lrf, was not forthcoming. , Thejjces) was ofcill proceeding when we went to press '