SUPREME COURT. Auckland, Sept. 1st., 1848.

New Zealander, Volume 4, Issue 236, 2 September 1848, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Auckland, Sept. Ist., 1848.

Before his Honor the Uuel Justice. The Crinm al business of this C iurt wm opened at 10 o'clock yeNterday morning by His Honor Chief Justice Maiciin. The Giand Jury were s.vorn in, of which R. A. Fitz Gerald, Esq., was chosen foreman. Tru*i Bills were found against the following persona : Jonathan Pellet and James Cornwall, privates in H. M. 58ih Regt., for feloniously and violently stealing from 'Darnel Sinclair a purse containing silver coin, &c. ; "Margaret Reardon for wilfal and corrupt perjury: George Chaplin for an a saulfc on Catherine Clnplui, his wife; and Charles Williams for stealing vnrio >s articles of wearing apparel, &c, from Edward Griffiths at Manakau. James Cornwall and Jonathan Pellet were arraigned on a charge of highway robbery to which they pleaded — Not Guilty. In empanneling the Jury, one of their number, named Gi-orge Heading, a pensioner Jrom Pnparoa, ohjec'fd to Bfvvc upon the ground th-tt enrolled ptnsioiun were ex :lud>d by an especial Act of Parliament ; a copy of which he handed to the Chief Ju»tice. His Honour, upon perusal of the Act, ruled that it was applicable to England only. The case was then entered into by the Attorney General. From the evidence it appeared that, on the 9th of July, the pnsonurs encountered a labourer named bincbir, near Epsom; that they demanded his money, nnd immediately (mocked him down, robbing linn of several sit penny nnd three penny pieces. The offence was so clcaily established that the Jury gave a verdict of Guilty without quitting the box. Mcirguret Reardon, vr&% then placed at the bar crnrged with the c ime of wilful and corrupt perjuiy —to which offence the prisoner pleaded NiH Guilty. Mr. Merriman conducted the case for the prosecution, eliciting in evidence, the following facs— James Elliott, sworn,— ls clerk to the Resident Magistrate. Remembers the 4th of March. Remembers a charge having been pieferrei against Thomas Duder for the murJer of Robert Snow. That charge was heard at the Magis rates.' Court before Thos Beckham, A. Kennedy, R. H. Wyny^rd, Joseph Laye, Percival Barry, Esqis,, J's P. "Witness took tue depoaition on that oc anon. It is in the same state as when I wrote it down. There ia no alteiation. The mark is that of the deponent. The signatures are those of the magistrates. I saw them signed. j Tin- Oepo ition (already so perfectly familiar to our ' readVrs) Wrfs here produced in evidence. Tiie deposition contains the substance of what she (defendant) stated. It win read to her before hhe tigued it. S.ie was sworn on the Gospels in the usual manner. She was not hurried, njr did she give her evidence with any degree of confusion. By his Honor. — Had no diubt as to the substance of the depouition being correct. Percival Berrey, Esquire, beinj iworn, states— lam a Justice of the Peace, I remember being on the Bench on the 4th of March, upon which occasion rhornaa Duder w«s brought up charged with the wilful murder of Lieutenant Snow. Defendant was a. witness on that occasion. She was sworn before-giving her evidence, in the usual manner. She was particulirly cautioned to speak the truth, and not to s«y anything that would criminate herself. The oath was adm-nisiered before the justices. Tho signature to the deposition is mine. The depoiition product'd is the substance of what was spokea. It was read over to the defendant more than once with great cure. The mark affixed is that of the defendant. The charge against Duder was wilful murder ; the evidence adduced wa»Ji most material to tubsttntiate that clmge. Her evidence was given with the utmost deliberation. She was in no way flurried. The bench allowed her a chair, and full time to answer all questions, | JGeorge M'Elwaine, Governor of the Geol, was present at the last Ciinunal Sittings of the Court, when Joseph Burns was put on his trial for murder. Defendant gave evidence on that occasion. Referred oft that occasion to ioimer evidence criminating Duder. Stated her former evidence to be false. In reply to a question then put by the Chief Justice, she stated sbcknew her former evidence to ha a lie— meaning the evidence given by her at the Police Office. George Watson, a little boy eleven yeari of age, was there to speak ihe truth, and knew the consequences of a lie. Some time since he lived with Duder at the flag-staff, Remembers the night ot Licutcnunt

Snow's murder, and recollects the man of war officers coming to ask Dudcr if he knew that Mr. bnow whs in m tiered. Duder slept on a sofa; he, vritness in the Kitchen* Duder went to bed at nightfall, and d d not £Ct up till the man of war officers came. Had ho cot up I would have heard him, By his Honor— lf Duder had got up l»e must have come through the room where 1 was — ho could m.t have got out any other way — Mrs. Duder keeps the key of the parlor door, and that w»s locked — I do not think Duder could have gone out without my hearing, as I did not ileep any that night. Duder was in hed when thr man-o-war officer came. Thomas Duder, Is fignul man— l know the defendant Margaret ltcnrdon— l remember the occurrence of the murder of Mr. Snow-Marg«ret Reardon lived at that time at O'Neill's Point, North Shore— about a nule and a half from the iUgstafF, witu Joseph Bums— l remember the night of the murder quite well— l was not in Burns' house th n t night nor for months before— l was no nigher to his house than the flagstaff. I did not see Burns that night — I went to bed about eight o'clock, and got up when the man-o-war officer came, between one and two— l wat uwake until 1 heard 12 o'clock itiike, when I dropped off asleep— l did not leave my house nor was I out of bed, until called by the man-o-war officers. I held no conversation with any but the inmates of my own house during that time. This closed the case for the prosecution. The defendant called the following witnesses in her defence— . . . ; Mr- W. Lee— Who could only speak to the wjuru> she had received from Bunus, and the terror she was in from his violenco. Mr. T F. M'Gauran— who could only afford like testimony, but bpoke to n<> !act material to the case. William Calthorp, a prisoner — who stated, that before Burns was tried, he said if Reardon did not go back in her evidence, he would bring her in for it, nnd say that she was a party to the murder. The counsel foi the prosecution here interfered, and said ho Itad no desire unnecessauly to interrupt, hut the testimony was inadmistible, and tended more to the duinage than to the defence of the priioner. The learned Counsel, in terse and forcible terms commented upon ti»f evidence, leaving the case to the Jury, who, he concluded, could pronounce but one verdict, that of guilty. When asked if bhe had aught to offer in her defence, the wretched woman handed in the following written stitement, which was read by Mr. Outhwaite, the Registrar of the Court— I humbly bei; to bhow your Honor and the gentlemen of the Jury, that Joseph Burns, by threats of bringing false charges against me lo take away my life, by implicating me in the muider of Lieutenant Snow, and also to muHer me ; the reality of such threats I hud too much reason to dread, being already the unfortu* ntte vicum of his ferocity, as he always boasted he would soon shake the fetten oil" him, and should never be transported ; acting under fear of these threats, and feeling that natural attachment to the father of my unfortunate children, I merely related the case as he told or ordeied me, not thinking myself otherwise sale fiom the desperate attempts of snch a man. Your honor and the gentlemen of the Jury are aware of my share of sulleiinjjs, being left a deformed object with two helpless children, dearer to me than life. Gentlemen of the Jury, in such case, |no person, I believe, driven to take an oath for the prese vation of their life, it held guilty. Truiting, gtntlemen, you will see clearly the charge of wilful, ai piefcried against me, nevarcan be applied to a iy person compelled under fear, the execution of sucli threats is cl arly proved in hit trying to destroy my life, being also in sucn a feeble nervous stite of body and mind, with my head half off, I scarcely knew what I said oi did at the time. I would humbly state to the C< urt, it in the practice in the British dominions lor the crown to supply the prisoner with counsel, wlieic unuble [to provide themselves. But trusting to your Honour's kind feelings, I hope 1 sh .11 not suffur in this, as, in the good old English practice, the Judges supplied voluntarily such deficiency. I would also •tate, with due subniiisinn, it in aho, gentlemen of the Jury, the humane intention of the Bntibh law, m all case* where there is a doubt existing, to give the pusoner the benefit of that doubt. Admitting this, gentlemen, you will acquit me of having wiltuJly erred in this cue. Now, trusting to that mercy, in which, (jcntlemen, we all hope to share, I commit my case into your hands. In summing up the Chief Justice said — That if the evidence given by the delendant before the magistrates was false, and known to be false at the time by the witness, then douhtleb* perjury was committed. For the testimony the defendant then gave was mutcrial to the inquiry then beforu the Justices. They were inquiring rejecting the murder of Mr. Snow, and this evidence went to fix the guilt of that murder upon Duder. To complete the offence of perjury, it is necessary that the false swearing be wilful— by which is meant, that it be deliberately given. The word is introduced into the law in order to save from the penalties of perjury persons who, in giving testimony, may err by surprise, inadvertence, or want of sufficient recollection. The evidence of tha Sneriff and of the Clerk to the Bench shevri that this evidence of the defendant was given very deliberately. Tue main question then for you is, Was the testimony talie? Now there is a cautious rule of our law icopectinjr tho evidence required to support a convictiuti ior perjury. Oidinarily one witness will suffice to t-Htablibli any fact. But it is not so in a case like this. For to produce only one witness is simply to set one oath against another. Kou must have at the least one wilncsi to contradict the statement alleged to have been falsely made ; and there mußt be some further distinct and independent evidence which may come either from another witueai or from the defendant. In this Case the evidence is more than sufficient, supposing that you are latisfied ol its credibility. For thure i», first, in opposition to tbe statements made by the defendant before the magistrates, thej evidence given by the hoy Watson, and the evideuee of Duder, both very distinctly negativing the btalementa made by the defendant before the justices. Besides this there is the contradictory fatatement made by the defendant m thii court in the course of a most solemn inquiry ; and that statement was not merely a contradiction by the defendant herself to the evidence given by her before the magis' rates, hui was aim an admission that the evidence Mien given was false, and wai known to be falie by the defendant when she ga\e it His Honor ofFered to iead lii-> notes if the Jury de nired ; they deemed it, however, unnecestary, and after an absence of five or six minutci, returned with a verdict of — Guilty. The Court will hit Uiii morning at 10 o'clock, when the prisoners found guilty yesterday will icceive sentence — which, with the remuinder oi the trials, will be Jeportcd in our next.