SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 676, 24 January 1852, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Adjourned Criminal Sittings. Before Mr. Justice Chapman. Friday, January 23, 1852. His Honor observed, the Court had been adjourned to allow of the Grand Jury finding indictments, against two prisoners from Canterbury, but the Attorney-General in his discretion would move for the discharge of the prisoners for want of sufficient evidence to proceed against them. The adjournment of the Court, however, would enable him to deliver the gaol of two cases, which had recently occurred, of which the indictments would be sent them. The Grand Jury then retired. Daniel Johnston was indicted for an assault, wi h intent, &c., on Jobannah Mudford, a child between ten and twelve years of age. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentence! to twelve month’s imprisonment, with bard labour. James Woods, indicted for keeping a disorderly house, was found guilty, and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. Christopher Moore, charged with a felony, and Bartholomew Heydon, charged with forgery, at Lyttelton, were brought up and discharged by the Court, the Attorney-General having stated that he was prevented in either case from sending a bill of indictment to the Grand Jury lor want of sufficient evidence. In the latter case (Heydon’s) a material evidence had not been bound over to appear by the Resident Magistrate at Lyttelton, and had left the colony. In the former (Moore’s) a principal witness (a married woman) had sent a medical certificate of her inability to travel, and her busband, also bound over, had declined to attend. The witness was called upon his recognizances, and the Registrar directed to issue summonses to shew cause why his recognizances should not be estreated. John Cahighan, committed for trial charged with stealing a pair of trousers, the property of W. E. Vincent, was brought up and discharged, the Attorney-General having declined to prefer an indictment on the ground that the deposition shewed no proof of a felony having been committed.