The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1877.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 268, 12 November 1877, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1877.

At the last sittings but one of the Supreme Court in Nelson the Grand Jury made a presentment to the effect that the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court should be so altered as to permit of prisoners being tried more expeditiously than at present for the lesser felonies and misdemeanors. The Chief Justice had in his charge [pointed out the absurdity of limiting the jurdisdiction of a Court by the quantum of punishment it might inflict in particular cases, and the Grand Jury evidently agreed with his Honor's view. As the inconsistency of the present law is, perhaps, not generally known, we will give one or two illustrations. Supposing a man commits a larceny of £5, two Justices may try, convict, and sentence him, but if he steals a lamb worth ten shillings he must first be brought before a Justice, "then, if there is a prima facie case, he is sent for trial by the Supreme Court (for in this case the District Court has no jurisdiction), and then, after a lapse, perhaps, ;of four or five months, his Honor the Judge, the Sheriff/the Registrar, the criers and policemen, thirty Grand and three dozen common jurors are all summoned to take part in trying the question whether the prisoner at the bar stole a lamb worth ten .'shillings. Supposing the larceny to have been of a pair of trowsers worth the same amount, two Justices might have done all the business, or, if it had been of several pairs of; trowsers worth £7 or £8, the case, as one of simple larceny, might have been dealt with by the District Court, which sits every two months in its criminal jurisdiction. Again, although the District Court caunot try a larceny of au animal, or any case of stealing inside a house, it may try any ordinary larceny, of anything except animals, provided the theft was committed outside a dwelling. It was upon inconsistencies of this kind that the Judge commented, and the Grand Jury based their presentment, but neither the one nor the other ha 3 yet produced any effect, as we hear of no Bill being introduced to amend the present law. In Nelson there has just been a practical illustration of the inconvenience occasioned by the existing etate of things. Two persons, one of them a man who has for over twenty years borne an excellent character, have been committed for trial on a charge of killing, with intent to steal, two lambs. Now the maximum punishment for a crime of this description is fourteen years penal servitude, and this ousts the jurisdiction of the District Court, which cannot try any offence for. which a punishment of more than seven years penal servitude may be inflicted, and so as the Supreme Court will not sit for four or five months, these persons will have to wait for that time with the serious charge of f eloDy hanging over their heads. And yet the District Court may try that most difficult of all crimes to prove, perjury, and any ordinary larceny, save of this little lamb or of any other animal.