SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 110, 1 May 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Gillies.] The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court commenced this morning. Tbe Grand Jury having been sworn in, and elected Mr Thomas Mackay foreman, his Honor charged them as follows: — Mr. Fouis-trAsf and Gentlemen op the Grand Jury— Your duty on this occasion will be very light, there heing ohly three cises. Thiß arises partly from the District Court, which relieves this one of many minor eases. Indeed, two of those with which you will have to deal might have gone to that Court had the committing Magistrates thought fit* In the case of ahoo: ing with intent, the facts are so plain, both with regard to the shooting and the injury inflicted, that you can have no doubt about it. With reference to the charge of perjury I would remind you of the essentials of this crime. It does not consist, as too many suppose, of merely swearing . falsely, even if ihe p rson know that he is swearing to an untruth. He must be swearing falsely to a matter material to the cause and with corrupt intention. It is not sufficient that by inadvertence or as a matter of opinion he swears to that which is false. I would a9k you to apply these principles to the case, an*l to look into it carefully, as from the- depositions there appears ito be some reasonable donbt. The third c.Be is one which may -engage your attention to some extent. It is a charge of obtaining. money by false pretences. This crime, though apparently very simple, is not so when tbe principles of tbe law are applied to individual cases, aod there is a difference between such as create civil and- criminal liability There must he a false misrepresentation of an existing fact. It is not'sufflcient that tliere is a misrepresentation of something -which may occur, or of a collateral fact,, but it must be of an existing fact, and the misrepresentation must be the cause of obtaining the, money; in fact, that it could hot haye been, obtained unless that special and specific misrepresent*-:, tion had beeu made. .Assuming, then, that you find that there hs b been a false representation, there is another, essential. The misrepresentation must have been made with intent to def rau I. This.dqes not mean merely to deceive, but to obtain money without rendering an equivalent therefor. A person who makes a f»lse representation and so obtains money, if he renders an equivalent, is not guilty in the eye of ihe law of obtaining money by false pretences. You muat then, be satisfied — that there was a misrepresent ition; that the money was obtained by tliat misrepresentation; and that the misrepresentation was made with the intention to defraud, that is, to obtain the money without renderings equivalent. Ifariyoneof these elementß bs wanting it will be your duty tb flud no bill. Theae are the only cases, arid you may now retire tb your room. The Grand Jury having retired, shortly . returned with a true bill against John Vandersloot, for ■ SUOOTINGWITH INTENT TO DO BODILT HARM. Mr Henry Adams appeared lor the prosecution, and Mr .Pitt for the defence. Mr Adam _', having opened the caso, called Charles Williams, who stated: I am a blacksmith, redding at Mr Riwe's house, at Hampden. On the" 2 1st February, prisoner and hisniate came there in the eveniug and hai come drinks. I chut up the bouse about 9 o'clock. Prisoner, wanted another, drink before he left, and. I toid him he could not have it a_ the bar was closed. He got into a temper, and said he would not cut some timber he had promised to do for Mr Rowe. I t-jld him if I were Mr Eowe, ahd he served rae so, I would kick bim. He then left the house and commenced abusing me., . I went i out to hit him, and he turned round with a gun in his hand, i followed him, and when withia about eight or ten paces, he turned round and levelled the gun at me, and it went

~ \ \ "" .'.v "--_ off, atid Bomeof the\shot:|[it> me in the head. If I h r sd not^ot-,ont'dCt^(e>way;ilshould have received the*-*whbt*if dhargej Hia^raate then wentuf) tbh.im and mad.e;him a prisoner, and took him ir.to the hoise. : J ZyZ • Cross examined : lj had three or four glasses of a'e; during the daV. Vancfefßloot had gone about lS.iyafds frism^lii|^ibufie when the gun v went off? We hai never h*d any quarrel before, in fact I had only seen him once or twice. He afterwards said that he was very sorry for it, that he could not help it, as the gun went off accidentally. Laurence Qkerberg-said that he and Van-dersloi-tp tiad'^been :6ut shooting, and in the evening- called at Row e's/ -where they had some drinks, and about 10 o'lock they were leavinp:, when he heard high words b-tween the prwoner and Williams; and shortly after saw a flash and heard a report, and he went up and found Williams lying on the ground and blood flowing from his head. - Cross-examined: He heard Vandersloot say afterwards he "was very sorry that tlie accident had .occurred'!. , Mr Pitt did not call arty witnesses for the defence, and counsel having addressed the jury, his.Honor; summed 'u^^Waftjßra'shott''" retirement the jury- returned a* verdict, of Not Guilty. TRDE'-QUiIS. The Grand Jury found true-bills in the cases of the Queen against Millar, ahd against Hunter.- '*-- ' * . . ■ . The Court then adjourne-i for an hour. PEBJUBY. ' '• '"*'" "'" Peter Hunter was charged with perjury; in a case heard before F., Guinness,, Esq.. H.M,.. at Takaka, in which the prisoner "was sued for ten shillings by John Jones for the reten-v tion of a bridle, tfie ialleged perjury consisting' in the prisoner's swearing that the bridle produced in Court was not the Jone . that was . on a colt' tbai his son was riding on a certain day. ••'-,-. ,- ■' ..,-. •;•'',' ■ -. ; Mr H. Adams appeared for the prosecution and Mr Fell for the defence. ' • Th.c evidence fqrjthe, prosecution was of a' most uninteresting character, and at its close his Honor said he should f<__!l bound to direct ■ . the jpry that there was no evidence whatever , of perjury'having been committed. Mr. Fell wished to say oh ! behalf of hia - client, against whom a most * "erious charge had been made, that he wat prepared most distinctly to prove the ownership 'of the'bridle-* seen on the colt in question. ' He was. sur-- , prUed that the Courjt at Takaka Bhould have sent over such a caie for trial. His Hqnorjn charging, the jury, said there: waß no evidence whatever against the pri;-,, toner, and considered that accusations of' feb* grave a crime should not be rashly made. . - The jury then returned a verdict of Wot . Guilty a :.i-- •;- s' , , ■ :.".*:1 The Court adjourned at 3*30 until to-mor-row, when, the ca.e of the Queen against Millar. will be called for trlal. : .'__•