SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 20, 10 June 1871, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

Criminal Sittings. Monday, June sth. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnson.) GRAND JURORS. The following Grand Jurors were sworn in:—Messrs W. Gibson, C. Tringham, C. J. Toxward, J. Yule, W. W. Taylor, E. Toomath, D. MTntyre, J. Paul, J. Mason, E. H. Hunt, E. W. Mills, W. Holmes, D. Anderson, N. Merchant, S. Carroll, G. Allen, J. E. Nathan, C. Johnston, R. Port, W. Whittem, W. B. Rhodes (foreman). CHARGE. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston, in addressing the. Grand Jurors, said it was gratifying to be able to inform them that their labors were likely to be very light, as there were only five persons to be dealt with ; and in regard to one of these, the prosecutor, after having made the charge, afterwards appeared before the Magistrate and asserted upon|oath that he had made a mistake in preferring the charge, as he had since found the property which he had lost; so that really only four cases would come before them. Although one or two of the cases would call for more serious attention, the calendar must, comparatively speaking, be considered a light one. Still, he had had occasion several times to point out in that Court that people should be careful in not jumping hastily to conclusions by estimating the prevalence of crime either by the smaller or large number of persons accused of a heavier or lighter character of offences. Before coming to conclusions on such matters, examinations should be carried out that would embrace a greater period of time and larger area of space. This was the more necessary in order to arrive at something like a correct estimate of the amount of crime in this colony. He had no wish to unnecessarily detain the Grand Jury from their duties by any elaborate series of observations on that subject, as the time was perhaps approaching when more attention would be bestowed on the subject. He had, however, gone very carefully into the statistics of crime both in the mother country and in this colony ; and he was sorry that the conclusion which had been forced upon him was one which did not reflect favorably upon the colony : for, a priori, considering that to immigrants who arrived here abundance of employment was open, together with higher rates of payment for their labor, one would naturally be led to expect we would be more free from crime; and the more so as he believed the population of this country was in the aggregate far superior in point of intelligence to that of the mother country. Yet, possessing all these advantages, and greater guarantees against’crime, he was afraid the actual proportion'in the colony was considerably greater than what was statistically recorded in Great Britain. In these remarks he was referring to such indictable offences as are tried in the colony before the Supreme Court or District Court, and in England before the Circuit ! Court or Court of Quarter Sessions; and in j taking the annual proportions of convictions j to the entire population, he found that in England, speaking in round numbers, it was about one in a thousand, a proportion considerably less than that of New Zealand. In the statistics for the United Kingdom for 1867, he found the proportion to be 30 to 19,450 persons, or less than two to each three thousand of the population; whereas in New Zealand in the same year the convictions amounted to 224, a proportion considerably more than one in a thousand. In 1869, with an estimated population of 238,000, the convictions were 277. They would thus see that while our administration of justice was as perfect here as at home, our proportion of indictable offences was more than one in a thousand while in England it only reached to two persons in every three thousand. This certainly was an unsatisfactory state of things, but he merely threw it out as a fact that might induce many people to give some consideration to the matter. It was a question above all others which ought to excite the deepest interest in the public mind, as it was one of the most important and difficult with which the legislative administration of the colony would have to deal with in the future ; and the public could not too soon be made aware of the exact facts of the case, so that that they might rid themselves at once of any feeling of false security which might arise from the fact that the calendar before them was a light one.* It was not therefore to be looked upon as any guide in estimating the crime which existed amongst the community in this important part of the colony. His Honor then proceeded to comment upon the cases. With regard to one crime of a most abominable nature down on the calendar, he had no reason to believe it was so common in the colony as is in some portions of the mother country: for in some of the agricultural districts there it was painfully frequent. With a crime so revolting to human nature it was not necessary to go into details; but he understood that a bill would be presented, setting forth the full commission of the foul offence. If they thought there was a prima facie case, it would be their duty to find a true bill; but it would remain for the petty jury to say whether or not the offence was of the henious character set forth. A wholesome maxim of the law he should remind them of was, that in proportion as a matter was opposed to use and want, and contrary to nature, the greatest circumspection should be used, and the evidence of all witnesses tested with the most extreme .severity, and also exercise the utmost caution in deciding to what extent they would act upon this testimony. In this kind of case in which the intervention of the Court was specially desirable, when not contrary to the interests of justice, and unless there was fair ground for supposing that the commission of the offence was an actual fact, the jury should take a little more trouble, and go more care-

fully into the matter, although a prima facie case had been made out. If they, however, thought there was any truth in the testimony of the witnesses, he would advise them to find a true bill, and leave the question of time to be disposed of after. The case of arson seemed to be one of those meaningless pieces of malice against public property occasionally seen. It had taken place at Wanganui at the stockade. Some difficulty, he understood, had presented itself, on a point of law, as the building was set down in the indictment as a dwelling house ; but in order, to avoid any chance of its turning the ends of justice, the learned counsel for the prosecution had properly described the dwelling on a separate charge (which would be preferred as a certain building, to wit, a public building. In point of law this was a sufficient description to enable them to bring in a bill. The evidence went to show that this building was found on fire at a part where some portions of it had been pulled down ; and as regarded the person who did it, the prisoner himself came and made a voluntary statement, on which he was apprehended; but, in the course of the examination you will not exclude those answers corroborative of the statement which point to himself asthe person whosetthe building on fire. The next case was one of stealing from the person, in which a man gets drunk in a publichouse at Marton, and loses his money and purse. The only thing left was to identify the prisoner with the person who stole the purse. The only other case to which their attention had to be directed was one of an indecent character, and also one to which some of the remarks made with regard to the horrible case he had previously spoken of, might also be considered very applicable, and they might perhaps think it their duty to examine the prosecutrix a little more closely. After briefly stating the leading features of the case, his Honor remarked that it would be for the jury to decide upon the whole case whether or not it should have gone to trial, there being no corroborative testimony with regard to the act itself. He had no doubt, however, that the jury would find their way through the calendar without any difficulty. The first case called was the charge of LARCENY.

A true bill having been found against Charles Brown for stealing a purse and £4 from one Felix Hannon, at Rangitikei, in April last, The Crown Prosecutor stated the case, and called

Felix Hannon, who deposed: I am a laborer, and live at Rangitikei. I was in company with the prisoner on the 28th April last in the township of Marton. We were in two public houses. Pohlgreen’s was the last place we were in, and I then had a purse in my pocket with four single pound notes on leaving the house. I saw it safe a few minutes before leaving. I went out because prisoner invited me. There was another man named Bailey with us. After going a few chains prisoner asked me to go and sit down on one of the sections. Bailey stood outside of the fence ; we had gone oVBr it. The prisoner then said “ Give up that purse.” I said I would not, because it was my own' property. Prisoner then knocked me down by a blow of his fist on the body. I fell senseless, as I was the worse of liquor at the time.' When I came to my senses I found my money and purse were gone. Cross-examined by Mr Allan : I have known the prisoner to be working at Mrs M'Beth’s. I had been drinking with the prisoner that morning, and we were very good friends. It was about eleven in the morning when we left the public house. We were in Mr Howe’s public house before that. It was on leaving Pohlgreen’s that I was knocked down. (His Honor then read from the depositions of prosecutor before the Magistrate by which it appeared, that he said he had been robbed in coming from Howe’s instead of from Pohlgreen’s. This discrepancy prosecutor could not explain, but adhered to the statement made befor> the Court). It was about half-way between Howe’s and Pohlgreen’s _ that I was robbed. I counted my money in the morning when the landlord gave it to me. On the night of the 27th I gave Mr Ho'tfe £5 17s 6d, which he gave back to me in the morning. I had £1 in two half sovereigns after I was robbed. They were loose in one of my pockets. I paid for the liquor with the silver I had. After leaving the public house, prisoner kocked me down and I was insensible for about half an hour. I then went to the public house to lay the information. I never offered to lend him any money. Michael Selwyn, a painter at Marton, deposed that he saw prisoner there on 28th April, between one and two o’clock. He was lying on the road side, and there was another man named Bailey. They went over to the fence and stooped down, and when they rose I heard prisoner say “ come on Bailey I’ve got the purse.” This was about four chains from Pohlgreen’s, and on the road side of the fence. I was about thirty yards from them when this took place, and the prisoner and Bailey were about two yards from each other. I heard him distinctly. They then went down in the direction of Pohlgreen’s. The prosecutor soon after rose up from the place where I had seen the two men stooping, and he went to Howe’s public house. While prisoner was stooping down I could not see what they were stooping over. Cross-examined by Mr Allan —All this took place on the public road, and prisoner spoke loud enough for anybody close at hand t® bear. Prisoner did not see me until after he had spoken.

Sylvester Coleman, merchant at Marton, deposed: I recollect going to Howe’s public house at Marton. I saw prisoner there between 8 / and 9 o’clock in the evening. I was putting up my horse at the house. I asked him if he had committed the robbery, and he said “ No” at first. I then called prosecutor in, and asked him if he was

sure he was robbed, and he said “ Yes, it was the prisoner and another man who had robbed him.” I then asked for Bailey. Prisoner then said, if the prosecutor would go up with me to Macbeth’s in the morning be would pay him £2. Prosecutor declined. Prisoner said he had taken the money, and given the purse to Bailey ; that they had divided the money. Cross-examined by Allen: Prisoner was detained in the house, and I went into the room and asked prisoner whether he had committed the robbery. The prosecutor then said to prisoner “ You know you’ve robbed me,” and it was then prisoner said he would give prosecutor £2 rather than have any bother about it. Prosecutor said he had lost £4 or £5. Mr Izard and Mr Allan having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, and The jury, without retiring, found a verdic of “ Not Guilty ” ARSON. Charles Wetherill pleaded guilty to setting fire to the Rutland Stockade near Wanganui, property belonging to Her Majesty the Queen. Prisoner’s only statement in mitigation of sentence was that he committed the offence in consequence of being footsore and in necessitous circumstances. His Honor remarked upon the growing prevalence of this description of crime, and its dangerous character in a country where the houses were principally built of wood. It seemed that the prisoner did not apprehend the atrocious nature of the offence he had committed; in fact, he (His Honor) had noticed that crimes of this nature were treated with a kind of levity, and it was the duty of the Court to put them down with the strong arm of the law. However, as it seemed that the prisoner’s intention was to obtain comfortable lodgings in our comfortable prison, and that he did not seem to have had the object of destroying life or property of any great value, he would be sentenced to the most lenient term the Court could possibly award. He would have to undergo two years imprisonment with hard labor. ASSAULT WITH INTENT. William Robinson, aged 16, was charged on two counts with an assault with intent on the person of Annie Augusta Henskey, a servant in the employ of Captain Lowe, at Wanganui, on the 21st May. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the prosecution went to show that the prosecutrix was a servant at Captain Lowe’s, at Wanganui ; that on Sunday, the 21st May, after Captain and Mrs Lowe had gone to church the prisoner called at the house, and said he wanted to see either of them. Finding that they were away from home he forced his way into the passage of the house, threw her down in the passage, and that he afterwards followed her into the bedroom, and endeavored to commit the offence with which he was charged, but did not succeed. The evidence of the prosecutrix was given with a great deal of hesitation, and amongst other things went to show that she had voluntarily gone to the gaol in Wellington with the brother of the prisoner, desiring to see him, previous to the trial of the case. The bulk of the evidence being objectionable, and of no public interest, we give the bare outline. Counsel on both sides having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, and the jury found a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” BESTIALITY. John Henningham pleaded “ Not Guilty” to this charge. The evidence in this case was entirely^unfit for publication. After an absence of about three hours and a half, the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” Prisoner stated his age to be thirty-one years. Bis Honor, after stating that it was competent for him to sentence the prisoner to penal servitude for life, then sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. ARSON. Charles Wetherill was then placed in the box on a second charge of arson, and no evidence being offered, the prisoner was discharged. This concluded the criminal business of the session, and the Court adjourned.