SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 50, 6 January 1872, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

Criminal Sittings, Tuesday, January 2. (Before hie Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand Jury : —Messrs W. W. Taylor, (chosen foreman), C. D. Barraud, G. Allen, W. Bishop, H. Blundell, J. Bridges, F. A. Krull, M. Mosley, P. Laing, L. Levy, D. MTntyre, E. Miller, J. E. Nathan, J. H. Wallace, J. F. E. Wright, T. W. Young, E. Beeves, Yennell, J. A° Allan, S. Carroll, Holmes, and Whittem. His Honor delivered the following CHARGE. Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jurv. —I daresay you are all aware that in order to enable the Judges of the Supreme Court more effectually to perform their duties at the Circuit Courts, some additions to which have been recently made together with a proposal to have two sittings of the Court of Appeal, it has been found necessary to recast the programme of sittings, and the consequence is that the order of sitting in the Supreme Court. Wellington, as well as in the courts in Dunedin and Auckland, will be on the first Monday, not being a holiday, in the months of January, April, July, and October in place of the arrangement previously existing. The Court of Appeal will sit in the months of May and November, and it is in tended to have a sitting of the Circuit Court in Wanganui in April and October. It is right at the commencement of the year to look back on any legislation that may have taken place during the proceeding year of a nature affecting the administration of justice. Several questions of considerable importance were mooted during the recent session of the Assembly, and one or two acts have been passed of a somewhat important character ; still, very grave questions remain unsettled, and I think it is right, on every legitimate occasion, to draw attention to those matters by persons in your position, as well as of the magistrates of the country —the attention, in fact, of those persons best qualified from their education and their means of observation to form that opinion which is the only true safeguard in a community like this. I may mention,with regard to the institution which you now represent, that a good deal of public attention ha 3 been drawn to the matter in this colony, and in England also, as to the utility of the institution itself and the propriety of abolishing or modifying it. The opinions I may express upon the subject are only worthy of consideration in respect of a very long and protracted experience of the courts of justice —an experience extending over thirty years. With regard to my own view., I should particularly regret to see the institution abolished, for I cannot help thinking that although some modifications are necessary in order to save unnecessary and repeated examinations, it would be a pity to do away with so useful, so great a tribunal. It must be admitted that the Grand Jury system of England seemed very cumbersome, but many of its forms are in no way perpetuated in this country, so that the objection to the system itself does not apply with the same force here. With regard to the institution itself, I think it is one of established utility, constituted as it is of a large and educated part of society, to whom it gives special functions, and is, in fact, an educating power for greatpublicpurposes as wellas of the greatest advantage to a community in helping to form correct 'public opinions and habits which are conducive to a sound public opinion. Apart from that it is a tribunal which stands between the people and the authorities of the state, and while on the one hand it protects innocent persons from improper charges where the scandal of judicial investigation would be as bad as conviction itself, from another point of view it is theoretically and practically a check of a most important character inasmuch as it protects the private , charactex*, the property and the persons of the inhabitants of the country against the abuse of authority in allowing guilty pei’sons to escape from punishment. It may be very true that private pi’osecutions are uncommon in other countries and scarcely known here, but it is nevertheless a cause of congi’auilation that there is a tribunal standing, as I have said, between the people and the Crown, to whom any injured person can apply for vindication of the law, I say the existence of such a tribunal is not merely of theoretical but of practical advantage and you are not to judge of its importance by the existence or non existence of private pi’osecutions. Tho very existence of the Grand Jury is in itself not mei-ely theoretically but practically one of the safest possible checks upon the abuse of authority. Such abuses in the mother country are unknown, and she stands out in bright relief to other countries ; and although I have the greatest respect for all those inferior tribunals which have the conduct of affairs in this colony, it must not be forgotten that" they are sometimes called upon to. exercise their duties when they have really little opportunity of studying the facts and the law bearing upon them, and have often, from error of judgment, committed a sei'ies of mistakes which were not likely to occur in the mother country. For these reasons I would merely express my own view on the matter, and I am very glad that the Legislature has not come to the determination to do without the Grand Jury. I think it possible that the system will have to be modified in England, and, when tho time comes, will also have to be modified here. The practice should be this: that in all cases involving public scandal as a matter of course they should go to the Grand Jury, but in all other matters it should be left to the presiding judge to say whether they should go before the Grand Jury or not. Thus they might be relieved ®f nine tenths of their labors. Now, to come to other juries. The tribunal has been on its own trial at the bar of the public opinion of the colony, and I am glad to find

that whatever opinions may have been expressed, I have not heard any really weighty Opinion brought to boar with regard to an alteration of the jury system. Unanimity of juries seems at first sight a ridiculous and absurd thing, but as regards criminal cases it is very sound and wholesome, for unless the twelve men chosen find that a person is guilty the law of England says that he shall not be punished ; and I am glad to find that no real weight of opinion ha 3 been brought to bear on the question as regards criminal cases. But the matter of unanimity of juries ha 3 been made the subject not merely of discussion but of legislation. I will not detain you, gentlemen, by going at length into a question which must be familiar to most of you, but just let-me point out to you the use of unanimity with regard to juries. In a very large proportion of cases there is no doubt on the points of the case one way or the other. Things are brought to be tried because the truth is not well ascertained till tho assistance of a court of justice enables men to get at the facts of the ease. You know how difficult it is to overcome the ideas of prejudiced men; how persistently they oppose their opinions to those of other men. You know how difficult it is to get fi*om an unsworn witness a statement of facts, but when you come before a jury with him that difficulty is removed, and the true state of the case is ascertained. But there are other cases in which unanimity is not to be desired; I allude to those cases where the question is not to determine between right and wrong, but to decide the rights of persons- where one may say, " you owe me £50,” and the other says, “ I only owe you £5,” and in such cases it is not desirable that an obstructive individual or two should make it almost impossible to come to a decision. It was such obstruction as this that the legislation of last session was intended to meet, and one cannot doubt that a 3 far as it went, the action of the Legislature did little harm to tho institution. Originally it was proposed that a majority of one third of the whole should give the verdict; afterwards it was fixed at three-fourths, and ultimately it was decided that it should be five-sixths ; so that the provision is, that if one or two selfwilled, self-relying men —men who will not allow their minds, as they ought to allow them, to be influenced by the opinions of others, and you find sometimes an obstructive man or two who will set at defiance the great object of a jury—refuse to accord in opinion with the rest of the jury, the Court is enabled to take advantage of the verdict of the fivesixths, who are convinced of the soundness of their conclusions. Tins provision will, no doubt, be found to be extremely useful, and a very proper proviso has been put into the act, namely, that a verdict short of unanimity shall not be taken till the jury shall have con-sidex-ed their verdict for soma time, and I think also there is a proviso that the jury shall have an extension of time if they desire it. I have held strong opinions on this matter, and I am glad to find that the views of the Legislature are by no means at variance with my own. There has been legislation on the matter of dealing with the property of convicts, the act being framed from an English act, and I may remark that it h proper that the colony should in this respect take advantage of the legislation of the mother eounti’y. There has been also another attempt to add to the security of non-professional Justices of the Peace, by granting protection against vexatious actions. That is a matter about which thei-e has been great discussion, and I must say that all gentlemen who take upon themselves to act in that capacity must also take means to provide themselves with the best materials at command for becoming acquainted with the duties they were sure to be called upon to pel-form. There were a great many matters to which attention would have to be paid by those who desired properly to qualify themselves for the duties, and gentlemen should not complain of the forms to bo observed if they sought to be placed in such honorable positions. About the general conditions of the statistics of crime, I have no further observations to make, except to point out that I cannot congratulate you upon the absence of the old story as to tampering with cheques, and to remark upon the ease, the temptations, and the great facilities that are afforded to people to deaL with false cheques. Almost every session it is the same story over agaiu. [Flis Honor went through the cases on the calendar, interpreting the law in its application co the facts of the various* cases, and explaining to the Grand Jury the' alternative findings if they were not satisfied with the indictments as framed by the Crown.] NO BILL. The Grand Jury threw out the bill against Amos Sutton, and the prisoner was discharged. LARCENY. Alfred Henry Holmes, for stealing apparel from the dwelling-house of William White, pleaded “ Guilty.” Prisoner said, in extenuation, that he had been under the influence of drink, and was not aware of the crime he was committing. Jacob Frankel, who had purchased the goods from prisoner the night they were stolen, said that Holmes was perfectly sober when he sold the things. Michael Monaghan (Sergeant of Police) de.posed that he had reason to believe that the prisoner had been previously convicted of thieving, and was identical with a man named Miller convicted of larceny at Marlborough. Prisoner, who had been then three months in gaol, was sentenced to a further imprisonment of nine menths. FELONIOUS ASSAULT. John Mulhern to this charge pleaded " Not Guilty.” The jury having been empanelled, The Crown Prosecutor, Mr Izard, briefly stated the facts of the case, and called Joseph M'Leavy, who deposed that on the sth September last he had given 'evidence

against the wife of the prisoner for an assault upon a man named Monaghan. When I passed the Surprise Hotel, Karori road, I saw the prisoner’s horse tied up outside, and in three quarters of an hour he overtook me. It was about 4 o’clock when he came up to me, between Shotter’s and Igo’s, known as the “ printers’ clearing” ; and ho said, addressing me, “ You wretch, you swore against Mrs Mulhern to- ' day,” and immediately struck me across the lower part of the face with the lash of his whip. I did not fall; and on his making a second blow at me I caught hold of the lash of the whip, which remained in my hands when he jerked the whip to him. Prisoner then asked me to give him the lash up, and I did so, thinking he would not trouble me further. Prisoner’s wife then came up, and said something to the prisoner to the effect: —“ John have you paid him out ?” Prisoner then struck me on the head with the hammer of the whip, which is metallic. I was knocked down senseless by that blow. I was struck on the lop of the head. I had on a limp felt hat and the blow cut through the hat. On coming to my senses I essayed to get up but could not stand, and after shouting for assistance for a Song time, Mr and Mrs Shotter came to me, and I was removed to my own house in a cart. The following day Dr Kemp visited me, and on the following Monday I went to the Colonial Hospital, where I remained about eight days. I bled very much from the wound. Cross-examined by Mr Travers, who appeared for the prisoner : I am a member of tho Education Board for the Makara district. I know there had been di-putes between the prisoner and the Board in regard to his wages. I was in Kell’s house on the sth August last, the only time I had been there for some eight months past. I do not recollect any conversation taking place between me and Kells respecting prisoner. I did not say that if the prisoner went against the Board for his wages that “ I would swear a hole in an iron pot to defeat him.” I did not say I would spend my last shilling to put him in the brick house on the top of the hill with a red shirt on him ; nor did I say I would be revenged on the prisoner if I had to wait twenty years for it. I did not go out riding the morning afeer the assault; but I was lifted on a horse’s back in order to go to Wellington for a doctor. I had to turn back after having gone half a mile. I spoke to Fraser on the road. James Bruuger was with me at the time to conduct me. I might have spoke to Fraser about the prisoner, but I am not positive. I had taken some drink on the day that the assault occurred. I saw William Monaghan on the next day, when attempting to ride into Wellington, aucl he told me to go back to bed. I do not remember Monaghan saying to me, " Go back to bed, my father has gone imotown to lay an information, against Mulhern for attempted murder.” He did say that his father would send me out a doctor. Nothing passed as to who was to pay the doctor. I do not recollect him saying “ Oh, never mind, father will manage that.” He was riding fast when I met him. He did not say his father had sent him to meet me. That morning I had asked young Monaghan to tell his father to send me out a trap, as I did not think I could ride to town. I received a blow on the head from a bottle some years previous. I had three glasses of brandy the day the assault was committed. Prisoner and I had had no scuffle at the time of the assault. It was not easy to get out of the way of the prisoner, as there is a steep gully at one side and a steep bank on the other side of the road where the assault took place, beside I did not think prisoner had such desperate intentions towards me. I could not see prisoner’s wife at the time of the assault, nor do I think she could see us. Prisoner did not ride on after the first blow. I said nothing about “Jimmy O’Brien” at the time. I have heard that Jimmy O’Brien was a noted informer at the time of the Irish rebellion. Personally there has never been any disagreement between me and the prisoner regarding school moneys, though there has been between him and the board, and individuals as members of the board, of which I am a member.', I was not laid up from the blow on the head with the bottle, having been to work a day or so after. I was for one year collector for the road board before the districts of Makara and Karori were amalgamated. Though the prisoner never made any charge against me personally, I have heard that he represented to the board that I was a defaulter to the amount of £7 10s, but the board never informed mo of it formally. I heard ef it merely casually. I never heard that I am violent when in liquor. I am seldom under the influence of drink. I never drew a knife on Kells or Longhurst, or any other man, nor was I ever told that I did so. I did not take hold of the prisoner’s horse when he came up to me, nor did I address either him or his wife. Have lived in the Makara district thirteen or fourteen years. By the Crown Prosecutor : I was sober, and after taking the last glass of brandy I had walked seven miles. When Monaghan had been at my house on the next morning, I had given a message, and our conversation subsequently, and with reference to which prisoner’s counsel has examined me, was relating to that message. Dr Kemp deposed to having examined a freshly made wound in the head of prosecutor. The wound was circular, about the size of a sliiUing, into the bone, the scalp being somewhat torn. The effusion of blood had been little. I perceived no depression in the skull at that time. The patient had suffered considerable loss of power on the right side. From my recollection of tho wound I should say it might have been inflicted by a hammerheaded whip, used with considerable violence, though the wound was not serious in itself, nor would I expect from it any serious bodily harm. By the Court: When I saw the partial paralysis of the patient I did not then attribute it to the wound itself, but to the exposure the man had underwent, as he had

been lying in the wet for some time after receiving the blow.

Alexander Johnston (Provincial Surgeon) deposed to M'Leavy’s state when brought to the hospital. The wound was irritable and inflamed, the scalp inflamed, and partial paralysis had set in. I considered tho blot* a serious one, though I attributed the dangerous symptoms shown by the patieut to the exposure more than to the actual wound. After tho patient had been discharged on the 22nd, well enough in health to all appearance, he returned to us on the lOfch of the next month laboring under erysipalis. By Mr Travers: The scalp had not healed, though the wound was healthy when the patient was dischai’ged. He was admitted into hospital on the 12th, and the bone of the skull wa3 bare. John Shotter deposed : I am a farmer at Makara, and saw M'Leavy walk past my house on the sth November, going in tho direction of his own house. About half-past four I heard him singing out, on his hands and knees, in the road. Had seen Mulhern and his wife pass my place after M'Leavy passed. Before I went up to M'Leavy I returned to my house, and got my wife to come with me with some water. We washed M'Leavy’s head. He was reeling about on the ground, and could nob get up. He was then conveyed to his house in a neighbor’s cart. By Mr Travers : It was about half-an-hour after I saw M'Leavy pass 'that I heard him call out. A man could easily get off the road at that place in order to avoid a horseman, the incline on either side being slight. I spoke to M'Leavy the follow* , ing day at Fraser’s house. I heard Monaghan tell M'Leavy to go home and go to bed, and that his father would send out a doctor, and lay an informstion against Mulhern. I have known M'Leavy a long time. I can’t speak as t o his habits, but I have seen him under the influence of liquor at times. William Monaghan deposed that on the sth Setember he accompanied M'Leavy part of the way home, and he was in a condition to do his work. The next morning I found M'Leavy in a very bad state. He sent me for a trap ; and on my telling my father he told me to tell him he would send him a doctor. When I met M'Leavy he could not ride as usual. It took three men to lift hira off the horse. By Mr Travers : I know there have been disputes between Mulhern and the members of the Education Board, but I am ignorant of the facts. This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr Travers proceeded to show that the prosecutor had long been actuated against the prisoner by malicious and vindicative feelings, and that this may have had something to do with the assault in question; but as Mr Travers had no evidence to adduce in support, his Honor thought the case should go the jury on the evidence already taken, and instructed them to deal with the case as one of “ unlawful wounding.” The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty of “ unlawful wounding.” H is Honor, in asking the prisoner if he had anything to say told him the Court was prepared to hear him say anything which would show that he had no intention to do M'Leavy serious bodily harm, or that the wound v as partly the result of accident ; but he must not attempt to exonerate himself by making any attack on M'Leavy’s character, of which no evidence had been given. Prisoner, in responding to the invitation of his Honor, was going on to make out that the assault was committed entirely in self-defence, and only after extreme provocation had been given by M'Leavy. His Honor declined to hear the statement that M'Leavy had committed perjury. Mr Goodwin said he had known the prisoner at Hawke’s Bay, and that he bore an irreproachable private character. Several neighbors of the prosecutor and prisoner were examined as to their private character without eliciting anything material. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment. FORGERY. Michael Laffan pleaded "Guilty” to two separate charges of forging and uttering. Michael Monaghan, Sergeant of Police, said that, in addition to the two cheques, for the issue of which the prisoner was arraigned, he had since received several more, which the prisoner had also issued. R. 0. Hammeiton said that the prisoner had formerly borne a good character at Hawke’s Bay, but had lost his character about three years ago, having had to undergo legal punishment about that time. Prisoner said that he had been working at Palmerston for some time, and had met with reverses, and could only attribute the commission of the crime to the fact that he was not in a perfectly sane mind at the time. Hi 3 Honor sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned for three years, a concurrent sentence on both charges. MISDEMEANOR. Charles M'Carthy pleaded "Not guilty” to this charge, in which was embodied a charge of indecent assault. Mr J. G. Allan appeared for the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor set forth the facts of tho case, on which three distinct counts had been raised, and called Jane Elizabeth Stott, the prosecutrix, who deposed : I am the wife of Abraham Stott, of the Armed Constabulary. He is now at Poverty Bay, and was on the 7th December when the assault took place. I live along with my mother. Prisoner came to the house when my mother was out, about half-past two, and asked if mother was in, I said yes, and asked him if he really wanted to see her, and he said “ Yes.” He then asked me " May I stay here, as the police are after me about a horse.” I said no, and told him to be off. After he left, I sent my sister to a neighbor’s house for some clothes. He came back after the lapse of a few minutes, and asked me if I had any bread and cheese in the house. I

was washing clothes at the time, and I told him that I had not, and to go elsewhere for it. He then seized hold of me by the shoulder and tried to throw me down, saying “ You b ——y bitch, won’t you give me anything ?” I asked him what lie meant P He said he had been waiting for this opportunity a long time, and now that the place was quiet and no one about it would be a good opportunity for effecting bis object. I then threatened to call for Mr Pilmer. Prisoner said if you call that b- y b — r I will murder you, and he put one of his hands on my throat and the other on my mouth. He did not succeed in raising my clothes; but he afterwards got me down and pub one of his hands up my clothes and touched ray person. My little sister then came and alarmed Mr Pilmer. I was then on the ground, and the prisoner on the top of me. My dress was very much torn and disarranged. Directly the prisoner heard Mr Pilmer’s footsteps he released me and went and sat upon a chair. Before my sister called Mr Pilmer, prisoner said he did not care if my s : ster was present,. He did not hit me or try to hit me, but I was very sore the next day from his violence. By Mr Allan : I have known prisoner a long time and his family also. I know a person named Dore, and I believe the prisoner and he lived together. I never went to visit the prisoner. I don’t know a person named Nutts. I did not go to prisoner’s house between January and December, 1871. There had been talk of M'Carthy marrying my sister, but my mother and father were not agreeable. I did not approve of the match myself. When he asked me for the bread and cheese, he dicj it in a friendly way. I said the other day, when I wa? examined before the Magistrate, that the-prisoner asked was my mother in the house. The depositions were read over to me at the time. I did not notice that that particular statement was in the deposition, and I did not ask the clerk of the Court to put it in. I was not as exact in details before the Magistrate, because I did not like to give expression to the words. When prisoner first came in we had some talk about my sister. He began to talk about her and said she might do worse than marry a chap like him, and it might be better to have him than some flash fellow. I did not lark with him nor throw soapsuds at him. Prisoner was struggling with me about balf-an hour. He had on a pair of dirty old trousers covered with mud. Margaret Gibson (a child of ten years of age) sister of the prosecutrix, deposed that about a month ago prisoner called at her house and asked whether her mother was in. Her sister was washing at the time. He stayed about ten minutes. After he left witness went for some clothes about a quarter of a mile away. Had to wait for the clothes for a short time. When within a few yards of the house, heard screams of “ murder!” On going iu at the back saw Charly M'Carthy struggling with my sister on the floor, and she told witness to call Mr Pilmer. On going back the second time with Mr Pilmer, sister was standing at the door and prisoner sitting on a chair. By Mr Allan: I made a mistake before when I said I was outside the house all the time that M'Carthy was there. I was afraid to say so before. By his Honor : Was the prisoner hammering your sister’s head against the door when you came in, as you have stated in your evidence before the Magistrate. Witness : No, he was not; I made a mistake when I said so. Anthony Gordon Pilmer examined : I am an architect, and live about seventy yards from the house of Mrs Stott. On the day referred to I heatd cries of “ murder! ” and the noise of scuffling upon a wooden floor. I did not go towards the voice immediately, as the noise ceased for a time ; but it was soon resumed, and I heard my name mentioned. I went up to the house of Mrs Stott, and the prosecutrix ran to me for protection, saying that the prisoner was trying to murder her. She was very much excited, and her dress greatly disordered. The skirt of her dress was torn and her chemise was pulled up out. of the front of her dress. Her lip was bleeding, and she was out of breath ; and she seemed to be hardly aware of what she was doing. The prisoner seemed very much exhausted, being pale and sweating, and his clothes much disarranged. I had seen the prisoner previously that day. By Mr Allan : I think the trousers prisoner had on were old. I am friendly enough with the prisoner, and have taken no more active part in the prosecution than I was compelled to. I heard the cries for about a quarter of an hour. Mr Allan addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and with as much justice to prosecutrix as could be expected from a prisoner’s counsel, made a most ingenious and able defence for his client. His chief points wpre made upon the discrepancy between the depositions given by the prosecutrix and her sister, as taken in the Supreme Court and in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and with a view to show that M‘Carthy had not gone to the house of prosecutrix originally with any criminal intent, but that the offence had in some measure arisen out of the remarks which had been exchanged between the prisoner and the prosecutrix, in regard to her sister, to whom, it appeared, prisoner had once made proposals for marriage. After a short absence, 'the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty on the first count,” equivalent to a verdict of common assault. Sergeant Monaghan, at the request of his Honor, spoke as to tk *. prisoner’s character, who, he said, was of a riotous disposition, as he had appeared before the Resident Magistrate on various occasions charged with violent conduct. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to eighteen months’ imprisonment. The Court then adjourned.

' Wednesday, January 3. HOUSE STEALING. Hoana Warena, indicted with riding away, with intent to steal, a gelding, the property of John M'Gratli,publican, at Porirua, iu March, 1870, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Robert Bush acted as interpreter in the case. The Crown Prosecutor having stated the case for the Crown, called John M'Grath, who deposed : On the 3rd March, 1870, on returning from Wellington, I missed a bay gelding, which I had left at my place on the day previous. The prisoner was at my place atf the.time. The horse lmd been staked a few days before, and he was lame in one leg. I searched for the horse on tlie Friday following without success. On the next day I heard something which caused me to report the matter to Constable Ryan, ana on Saturday, the 15th, wo went after the horse, and found it on the Paikukarika Hill, fifteen miles from my place, and very much lamer than the animal was before I missed him. I believe the prisoner lives near Wainui, but he is much of a wanderer. Did not see the prisoner till next October, he having taken himself out of the way to Pic ton, as the police were making enquiries for him. By the prisoner: The horse was close to my house when I left for Wellington. Philip Stevens deposed : I am a laborer living at Porirua. I know the prisoner, and saw him standing on the verandah of the Porirua Hotel on the 3rd of March, talking with another Maori. I was merely passing by. Sometime after I saw the prisoner following me, driving a horse, and at about two miles from M'Grath’s he passed me, still driving the horse. He was in company with two other men, who helped him to catch the horse, which I noticed was lame in the hind leg at the time. Having caught the horse, the prisoner rode it away at a good hand gallop in the direction of Paikakarika. I afterwards described the prisoner to Constable Ryan, as I had often seen the prisoner before, though I did not then know his name. By the prisoner: After catching the horse you were before me. This closed the case for the prosecution. Michael Monaghan, Sergeant of the Police, said he apprehended the prisoner in Wellington, and explained to him that he had been arrested for horse stealing. Mr Baker afterwards interpreted to the prisoner why he had been arrested. The first explanation given by the prisoner was before the Resident Magistrate, when he said that he had merely taken the horse to help him on hib way to his residence; and that on riding it within five miles of his house, he turned it loose in order that the animal might find its way back to its proper owner. Prisoner, on being asked what he had to say for himself, said he had no witnesses to call, but wished to say that being at M'Grath’s house on the 3rd of March, he had some spirits, and after being at the house about four hours he left. About a mile and-a-half from M'Grath’s he saw the horse with a halter on it,'and he caught it and rode it gently about twelve miles, and then turned it adrift. He disclaimed that he ever entertained any other intention than that of riding the horse to help him on his way. His Honor having explained the legal bearings of the case, the jury retired, and after a short absence returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” Before the prisoner was discharged, his Honor explained to him that although he had not been found guilty of theft, he had still done a wrong and most cruel thing, and that M'Gratli was justly entitled to claim ula from him. M'Grath, in answer to his Honor, said he had sustained a loss of £lO by injury done to the horse. SHEEP STEALING. George Bent, indicted on the charge of killing and stealing certain sheep, the property of Maurice Hirschberg, on the 12th September last, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The Crown Prosecutor stated the case for the Crown, and explained that in order to meet the wording of the statute, it had been found necessary to indict the prisoner on several counts. He then called Henry Letore Burns, who deposed : I am a police constable at Greytown. Prisoner had been, before the 18th of Sept, in the employ of Manihera as a shepherd, and on that date was living on Mr Hirschberg’s run near the run of Manihera. On the date mentioned, I saw two Maori b;ys (Eriatara Kingi and Riki Manihera) ride up to Mr Walker’s and throw down a bundle of skins bearing Mr Hirschberg’s brand (a wine glass shape). I know of no other such brand in the district. I told Mr Hirschberg of the circumstances, and took the skins back to his station. (Skin produced). Eriatara Kingi deposed (Mr Bush interpreting) : I live at Papawai, within a mile or two of Greytown. I know the prisoner. Riki and I took some skins to Walker’s at Greytown. We got five skins from the prisoner at Pabatu, the prisoner having come to our place at Papawai and told ua to go to his house, get the skins and sell them. He said that several Europeans wanted to purchase the skins,, and amongst them mentioned Walker. Prisoner promised us portion of the money. We saw the prisoner on the way, a little off the road with a skinned sheep beside him. The skin was there too, and he was cutting off the hind quarters. The sheep was a full-grown coarse woolled sheep, but I do not know the Bex. The prisoner had several dogs with him, and a number of the sheep were feeding about. He gave us that skin, which made the sixth skin, and we took them all to Walker’s. The five first skins were not coarse wool. X noticed that the brand on the coarse wool skin was something like a wine glass. Constable Burns stated, in answer to his Honor, that the skin was quite green when he

j took it, having been only a few hours off the sheeps’ back. Riki Manihera, son of Manihera, on being eximined, gave substantially the same evi- ; dence as the other Maori lad. Prisoner told 1 them not to go to Hirschberg’s to sell the I 6kins; but to go to Walker’s as he gave a ■ better price. That was the only time they i sold skins to Walker. It was on native land I that witness saw the dead sheep, land or ! which his father had sheep in his charge, j When witness left with the last skin, prisoner I was taking the whole carcase away, j Maurice Hirschberg deposed : I have sheep running on native leasehold land. . Manihera’s land is leased by me with the exception of a small unfenced portion on which Manihera has sheep running. I bought all Manihera’s sheep except twenty-nine, which he wanted for his own consumption. The sheep are of all sexes, and both coarse wool and merino. The fleece produced is such as I had running in September last. I have not sold for years past any such sheep in the Wairarapa. I never authorised prisoner to deal with my sheep. I had 4600, lambs included, when I last counted them. I have missed a number. This closed the case for the prosecution. The prisoner, who was undefended, declined to say any tiling. j His Honor summed up, the jury retired, and after an absence of about twenty minutes returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” As this was not specific enough according to the terms of the indictment, not specifying whether prisoner had killed the sheep with intent to steal, the jury again retired to reconsider their verdict. On re-entering the Court the second • time, the jury brought in a verdict of “ Not guilty of killing the sheep.” j The Crown Prosecutor then proceeded with ' a fresh charge against the same prisoner, viz, ! that he did on the 28th of November kill a sheep, variously described as a ewe, sheep, or ' ram, belonging to Maurice Hirschberg, Mani- ; hera, or some person unknown. J Hiketa Terati culled, deposed :lam a son jof Manihera. The prisoner some time before ( had been a shepherd for my brother, but latterly my father used to give him food. On j fhe 28fch November there- were sheep on the , run belonging to my father and Hirschberg, J but to no one else. My father's sheep were j marked in the ear, but not branded. Hirsch- , berg’s sheep were marked with a black mark , like a wine glass. Prisoner never had any ' sheep of his own there. Ido not know that the prisoner was employed by any one else after j lie ceased to be employed by my father ; but he continued to live in the same place, which . was my father’s, on account of having had | charge of the sheep. About five o’clock on the morning of the 28th of November, I saw the prisoner out the tln’oat of a merino sheep, about a chain distant from his house. He afterwards skinned the sheep. "I think the sheep was marked with Hirschberg’s mark, as all his sheep are marked in the same way, and l on the same part of the body. He had merino sheep which he bought from my father. I .saw five dogs biting sheep close by while ! prisoner was stabbing.the sheep. Prisoner cut up the sheep, took part of the carcase into [ the house, and left the skin on the ground. I am certain that none besides father and Hirschberg owned any sheep running there at the time. | Matene Waraki, who had been in company with the previous witness on the day mentioned, corroborated his evidence. He knew j the prisoner to work for Europeans after he . left Manihera’s employ; but none of them owned sheep. j Constable Burns, again examined, said that about 12 o’clock on the 291 h November he arrested the prisoner at his house for sheep | stealing. On looking into prisoner’s house, saw two hind quarters of a sheep recently killed hanging up. Bits of stale mutton were hanging up in the other part of the house. Manihera te Takaiwaio deposed: The prisoner was a shepherd for me in May last, but not since, though he has been living on my land. He used to work for European settlers in the neighborhood, but I do not know what sorb of living he made by his work. When he was working for me I gave him permission to kill sheep for himself and other Europeans working for me. He was the butcher ; but he had no leave to kill sheep after he left my employ, nor had he any sheep of his own. Hirschberg owned merino sheep there which he bought from me. This closed the case for the Crown, and his Honor summed up, and the jury retired ; but after a short absence they returned a verdict of “ Guilty of killing and stealing sheep, the property of a certain person unknown.” The prisoner was sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude. There were three other indictments against the prisoner, but, as the Crown Prosecutor declined to give any evidence, the jury were instructed to summarily acquit the prisoner. This closed the criminal business of the session, arid the Court adjourned till Monday I next, at ten o’clock in the forenoon.