[CRIMINAL SITTINGS].

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 145, 18 June 1880, Page 2

[CRIMINAL SITTINGS].

(Before His Honor the Chic* Justice.) The Court met at 10 o'clock this morning. The following gentlemen w-ere sworn on the Grand Jury : — Messrs. H. E, Curtis, (foreman), M. Davis, S. H. Pike, A. E. Moore, A. Jones, Fletcher, Everett, Rout, H. Hounsell, G. Talbot, W. Milner, W. Wells, J. Black, Scotland, H. Buckeridge, E. McEae, C. de V. Tesehemaker, W. Wastney, W. H. Turner. H. V. Gully was called, but asked and obtained exemption as being Town Clerk. J. It. Dodson did not answer to his name, and did not come into Court until the Judge had commenced his charge, at the close of which he stated that he had made a mistake in the hour for which he desired to offer his apologies. He was excused. His Honok, in charging the Grand Jury, said that there were three cases on the calendar, one of which was a charge of forgery. Eroni the depositions it appeared that the accqsed had asked certain questions whether the writing was like that of the signature forged, but that was not material at all, it being sufficient to show that there was an intention tb represent it. There were also two cases of assault, to which there was no need for him to refer. Another indictment would be preferred, namely, a charge of perjury alleged to have been com--1 mitted by Mr William Acton BJakeway Adams, a barrister and solicitor of the {Supreme Court, and member of the House of representatives. Tfye position of the acpused was not, of course, material, except that it made it incumbent upon them to scan the charge more carefully, as there was this difference between an ordinary person and a lawyer, that the latter was expected to be more careful what he was saying. Careless-! ness might be more easily attributed to an! ordinary person than to a member of the' profession; who was in the habit qf examin-i ing witnesses in a Court of Law. The charge arose out of an enquiry in the District Court regarding the conversion of sheep by one Boyes, which sheep were covered by) a bill of sale by Thomas to Adams. From the depositions it appeared that Thomas had. sold to Boyeg, and upon thas coming to Adams' knowledge he called upon Boyes to account for them. This Thomas justified on the ground that Adams had recouped himself by thesale of certain landed property covered by mortgage. Out of this arose the alleged per] ury. It was stated when Adams sued Boyes that he had recouped (himself, and that Thomas had the right to sell on account of the transaction between Donald and Adams. In the District Court Adams seemed to have denied that there was any agreement existing k f or the sale of the landed property. On being questioned by the Judge he explained that Be meant there was no writing to satisfy the Statute of .Frauds, and that he had not given Donald possession. The charge was one of " wilful and corrupt " perjury. They must, therefore, be first satisfied that the oath-was administered, and that the Court had jurisdiction. Another matter was whether the oath referred to a question material to the investigation. He (the Judge) was -not in a position to form an accurate opinion, but he thought they might take it for granted that it was material. Those were the technical points in the indictment. Then, was the oath false, was it wilful, was it corrupt? They would have to be satisfied that there was a ptima facie case, bnt if they were not satis- ' fled that the oath, even if false, was wilful and corrupt their duty was not to find a Bill. It too often happened in the Cqurta that witnesses were 'asked questions that 'were not on pure frdt/'abd it -was 'necessary that on this point the jury should have correct ideas* Sometimes an opinion, was asked, the, J

question not being on a matter of fact but on the results of facts, a combination, that was, of law and fact. If that was the kind of question asked, one which involved an opinion on a legal question, a person should not be put on his trial for giving an incorrect answer. With regard to the alleged agreement for the sale of land, Judge Broad asked whether it was within the Statute of Frauds, namely, was there evidence of the agreement, for parties might enter into a verbal agreement, but it could not be enforced unless in writing. The question for them to decide was whether Mr Adams was making a false oath when he said there was no agreement — if he was intending to say as a matter of fact that there was no agreement at all. If he was intending to say there was no agreement in writing that was on a matter of fact ; if he intended to say that the parties never came to a concluded arrangement, that was on a matter of fact. If, on the contrary, he meant to say that from his point of view there was no concluded arrangement, that of course was a different matter, unless they thought that he really told a wilful falsehood. They must be satisfied that the oath was wilful aud corrupt on a matter of fact. So many of the Jury were so conversant with their duties that they would require no further directions from him. He would merely remind them that a Bill must be found by at least twelve, and further that no person had a right to appear on behalf of the prosecution. . Forging and Uttering. The. Grand Jury having found a true bill, Arthur Lennox Sweete was charged with forging the signature of Moutray and Crosbie to a cheque for £5 183, and uttering the same. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, but was not defended by counsel, nor did he crossexamine the witnesses on any material point. .At the close of the case for the prosecution, on being asked whether he had anything to say in his defence, he merely replied that he left the matter to the jury, who, after a brief summing up by the Judge, found a verdict of guilty without retiring. The Superintendent of Police then put in a copy of the conviction of the prisoner in Wellington in 1879 for obtaining money by issuing a false cheque, which the prisoner, on being asked by the Judge whether it was correct, did not deny. His Honor said that probably there was some reason for the Judge in Wellington passing so light a sentence as six months for so serious an offence as passing a false cheque, however that did not matter now, but what did matter was that twelve months later, after having spent bix months of the interval in gaol, he again appeared under a similar charge. He was not sure that he ought not to pass a very long term upon him, however, he was disposed, as he generally was, to pass a light sentence and to give him another chance. The aentenoo would be that he be imprisoned with hard labor for two years, Maliciously Wounding. Antonio Wett was charged with stabbing his wife. Mr Fell appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Bunny, with him Mr George Richardson, for the defence. The following were sworn on the jury : -Messrs. J. R. Hooper (foreman), R. Boddington, junior, J. O'Connor, J. lied worth, W. T. King, J. P. Thompson, C. Ford, H. Hyde, J. Astle, J. Savage, J. Rutherford, and H. Liviok. T. H. Harley was challenged by Mr Bunny. The evidence given in this ease was very much the same as that recently published, except that the wife said she was perfectly sure that the prisoner never intended to stab her, and that if the wound was inflicted by him it was purely accidental. Mr Bunny stated that he did not propose to call any witnesses except to speak to the prisoner's character, whereupon Mr Fell, at the close of the evidence for the prosecution, addressed the jury, Messrs Wymond and Haddow were called to give evidence as to the character of the prisoner, whom they described as a sober, industrious and inoffensive man. Mr Bunny then addressed the jury, arguing that there was no evidence whatever to show that it was the prisoner who inflicted the wound, and urging upon them that even if they believed that he was guilty, they should take into consideration the circumstances of the case, and the general character borne by the man. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired for a few minutes and returned with a verdict of guilty of common assault, and the prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labor. The Court then adjourned, and on resuming at two o'clock, Ferdinand Dencker, George Thompson, and John Hutchison, prisoners undergoin g sentence' in the Nelson Gaol, were charged with assaulting William Carter, a fellow prisoner, on the 4th May last. Mr Fell appeared for the prosecution, and Mr George Richardson for Dencker and Hutchison. On the indictment being read, Dencker asked for half an hour's adjournment, in order that he might consult his solicitor, which he had had no time to do during the day, as he had been hard at work. Thompson also asked* for an adjournment, on the ground that he had not had an opportunity of consulting the jury list. The adjournment was granted. On the Court resuming the following jurymen were sworn i— W. King, J. Savage, G. Witney, R. Boddington junior, A. Sigglekow, J. Sharland junior, J. Powell, J. Webby, C. Dodson, W. Rowlings, J. O'Connor, and W. Lockyer, "(foreman). Alexander Hunter was challenged by Thompson, and W. Meedes, G. Fleming, and J. P. Thompson by Hutchinson. The case was proceeding when we went to press, and is likely to last a long time, but the evidence so far has been similar to that given at the preliminary examination, which has already been published. (