SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 321, 2 December 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRISH^AL SITTINGS. YEsikm)AT. [Bfiforo his Honor Mc^ Justice Gilmes.J ■ Lahcbnt v h ; Reginao.Askew.\^ Counsel on both siW having "^rtftessed ' the jury, ° CBis JJopps, in summing up, ssid that for some time since the case was opened he htd f grave doubts whether he was" justified in sending it to the jury.' The evidence! of a larceny fovinit been committed at all was, ho wag compelled to say, of the slenderest kind, inchmeal points bad. been raieei, boe it was desirable to get the Verdict of a jury at to the facts, leaving the legal question, if nee ssary to bf»:argtted io another pface. ' He : iflnst tied the jme that the prosecutor -.wai boaai to proverma case to their Mtisfeeiion. &a had noftgnrtovpitc^adwil before them s#ksa "of vagus poseibitfti&i and. toaak: JheSffrom .thesA to draw tiieir owni conclusion*. -*3e tajnst ptoT« facts, not mere'y sdggeet pos«f-, ibiliiies. It w«a-«howtt tha6 rgoma of the farticles were too haavjrand.cuaibrGus.for the prisoner to more, by herself, ; and >on the other side it waa contended^ th*t; obe might have obtained assistance ih removiog, but they had no right to pre-. : anme that she remored. ihsni "with such ass stance ; it rau«t bo actt»aiif proved that she. did. so. He would aay a few words as ta the nature of the offence of larceny. It consi?ted in tikingr aw«y the goods of another with thfe felonious intention of depriving him, the riiihtfal ownfr, of his domioion over them. Ttteremust be an ectual taking, a~ remoTaljhowevef slight, for if there was no removal there was no trespass, aid without a' trespass jtnere could not be larceny. As applied tjo this particalar case, there arose the difficulty whether the removal from one room to, another constituted iarceoy. . His own strong inclination was to think that it - dl «n not * But suppose thtt taking t<j bg auffleient, then arbse the que&tion, who took? There wa3 not one t&tte of evidence to 'ehow that the/prisouer actually look the goo is. It was argued that she must hava been aware of tha-moviog, bat that wouli not render her guilty. It muat be proved beyond all reaspnable doubt th»t s'.e participated in the ifact. 1 he sole evidence against her was that she had the key of the room in which the things were locked, up, and the jury might possibly fini tbat the possession ot the key afforded proof than she was the person who had moved th?m but that was the only evidence that he could see. Then again there must be proof of a felonious intention. They" were asked to infer this from the fact that the do>r was locked, that the prisoner had the key, arid that she asserted that the room contained her own p ivate property. But her,e again the evidence was of the slenderest pbs Me dea-: onption.. She maJe no difficulty about giving np the key, and though *ome meution'hat been made of a thr<aV by Mr Hounsell ? to kick the door open, there was nothing to show that she] did not eu-render tha key immediately upon being asked for it. And yet this wjsj the sole evidence adduced of the existence in her mind of a feloniom intenthn There w4s nothing. to c show that she bad a *p ciallesire for any of the articles the room contaiaH— articles that might be obtained in any s)fop ( in the town ; nothing to show, that she was a needy jroman ',*wh6..migb't v be tempted by want to/s^eal;- oothtog whatever, to show tu&t,, she waa guilty ofthja very petty acs of larcsoy, »ia Hoaor having

! lr£ e 2 IgS^^Q^ law raised ref a ™ ta :*WM>nwn<ir as a married woman oeingjpiio ed to be acting 5 unfeV her huawA .^ C i Ort / Weh6 <®i to J-7 that What ths SS* '*■ Wlth wa^ th ' s'np?« question I whether etc bad remold i^ g 0..<t S with I view to r. taming possession of thim< If th<?v J ooious falpnt lh«y tfenyjounil to find her guUfy but if they w<re not quite clear upon this point it was their duty to a quit her. u\e jury than retired, and after an absence JVof°Guih * retirCl WUh a Verdict of Court 8 ter^ !nated ;pe cptoinil si tiag« of the