SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5078, 3 July 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIRCUIT SITTINGS. The circuit sittings of the Supreme Court commenced yesterday. His Honor Judge Prendergast took his seat on the Bench at 10 o’clock. Mr. Izard appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown, grand jury. ’ The following Grand Jury were sworn in;— T. J. Mountain, E. T. Gillen, E. C. Kreeft, J. Lookie, W. J. Gandy, H. Gaby, C. J. Johnston, T. W. Young, J. M. Taylor, J. A. Allan, H. Blundell, H. Wilcox, T. M’Kenzie, F. A. Krull, J. Drnnsficld, M. Jackson, John Sawers, B. S. Ledger, W. Bishop, L. Levy, I. Plimmer. Mr. Dransfield was elected foreman. CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. His Honor in charging the Grand Jury remarked upon the unusually large number of ca-es on the calendar, but stated that few of them called for observations from him, inasmuch as they were for the most part of such a nature as the Grand Jury could, from their experience, very well deal with. Three of the cases to which he desired to refer were those (of perjury against three persons) arising out of the late enquiry into the wreck of the Ocean Mail, held at the Chatham Islands, off which the ship was wrecked. He informed the jury that although the Chathams were at a considerable distance from New Zealand, they were yet part of this colony, and were included within this judicial district, and crimes, therefore, committed there had to he enquired into here. There was an Act upon the Statute Book of 1869 called the Enquiry into Wrecks Aot, founded on English legislation, its object being 'to enable enquiries to be held into the cause of abandonment of ships, wrecks, and injury to vessels upon the coast of New Zealand. Experience had shown them that such enquiries as these were useful and proper, and that it was absolutely necessary such inquiriesshould be held before persons empowered to administer them. He then referred to tho circumstances connected with the wreck of the Ocean Mail, with which most persons are pretty well acquainted. Three of the witnesses called on the preliminary enquiry swore that the log had been hove during the voyage, and on the other hand several persons swore that the log had not been used. Evidently this question as to whether the log was used would be a material point in an enquiry into the cause of the wreck. Therefore if these witnesses swore falsely regarding a matter material to the case, that constituted perjury. There were certain other matters bearing on the case with which the jury should not trouble themselves. In the first place, he gathered from the depositions that the enquiry seemed to have been held under the Enquiry into Wrecks Act, 1863. That Act was repealed by an • Act of 1809, with similar provisions, but . amending clauses. It appeared also that by the Act an inquiry should be held before either a Resident Magistrate or two • justices of the peace, whereas iu this case it appeared to have been held before a Resident Magistrate and two justices of the peace ; that under the Apt the Custom House officer was required to attend as prosecutor, whereas in this case that officer was a justice of the peace, and sat on the Bench at the inquiry. He did not think it necessary to indicate to the jury whether this fact would make any difference in the legdity of the inquiry ; but supposing any such point to arise, he should reserve it for the Court of Appeal. There was another charge of a somewhat peculiar nature which would come under their observation, and to which he thought it necessary briefly to draw their attention, viz., that in which a person was charged with fraudulent concealment of property from the trustee in his insolvent estate. In regard to this case he would first point out the Act of •1875, which contained very valuable provisions, compelling persons, under pa n of imprisonment, to disclose their property to the trustee. That Act had been repealed, and many of its provisions were embodied in the succeeding Act of 1876, under which the person referred to had filed hia schedule of insolvency. By one of the sub-sections of that ■ Act it was made a criminal offence, aud punish able with imprisonment for two years with hard labor, if the insolvent did not discover the whole of his property to his trustee, and state as to how ho had disposed of it; and the fourth and filth sub-sections provided for tbe concealment of property both before and after bankruptcy. Regarding tho latter part of the case, he might observe tiiat it would be unnecessary for the prosecution to prove the fraudulent intent ; the fact of tho removal would be enough, and it would he for the accused himself to show that ho did not intend to defraud at the time he removed the tilings. If, therefore, it was shown tiiat the goods were removed, as alleged, the jury need not go into the question of intent. He wished to draw attention to another case, in which a prisoner named Henry Powell was charged with criminal libel. It appeared that in that case tiie prisoner wrote an anonymous letter to Dr. Johnston, the Director of the Public Hall Company, alleging that the persons whose duty it was to:see that none but those privileged should get into tho theatre free did not perform their duty in that respect ; and that, therefore, they were guilty of improper conduct. A charge of that kind—that persons in another employment were guilty of misconduct—was certainly libellous and defamatory; and, if made with tho intent to injure, then it became malicious, aud was plainly indictable as a criminal offence. It would not, however, be malicious if made with an honest purpose, and with tho thorough belief that the allegations were true. Even if tho allegations were subsequently found to be without foundation, there would be no case for malicious libel, supposing the statement had been made with an honest Intent In the first instance, and the

statement .would therefore, in fact, be A privileged one ; the law presuming that, in that case, -it was made without fear of'prosecution by an action for libel. The question of a person making such a statement and not being interested -directly—as a shareholder, for instance—had been frequently debated as to whether the same law would hold equally good, but the balance of authority, he ■ considered, did not render it necessary that a person should have an interest in the matter at issue. He had mentioned that fact, as to the balance of authority on the subject being as ho stated, as it appeared that the prisoner in the case under trial was, so to speak, a 'stranger, in the matter, not being directly interested in the company referred to, and the question might come to be a debateable one as to whether he would not be entitled to say that the communication in question’was a privileged one, and then that would only hold good on the presumption that there was no malice, a presumption which might be rebutted by showing that there was actual malice involved. As to the question of libel, he might observe that in general the publication of -defamatory matter was presumed to be libellous, although it was frequently thrown upon the prosecution to prove the existence of malice. It was ordinarily the case that the Grand Jury would consider that upon the publication of a written defamatory libel there was sufficient to go before the petty jury, although iu other oases that opinion might not be adopted ; as, for instance, in a case where there was nothing to show that the allegations had not been made by one party to another in perfect good faith. Therefore, although in some cases the merepublication of adefamatory libel was enough, iu other eases it would be necessary for the Grand Jury to have evidence of the want of good faith as showing the malicious intent. In regard to the libel in the present case, no particular person was named ; but libel might still apply to some individual, and it would be necessary for the prosecution to show to whom it was intended to apply. After briefly referring to the oases on the list generally, Ins Honor concluded.

The Grand Jury then retired, TRUE BILLS.

True bills were found in the following cases: —.Joseph , Sturgess, larceny ; Edward It. Walter, larceny iu a dwelling-house; Frederick Lynass, larceny ; James Kerr, unlawfully wounding ; George B. Ward, embezzlement ; Frank Broughton, embezzlement; Mathew Keane, larceny in a dwelling ; Clias. Grey, fraudulent bankruptcy ; George Morris, alias Richard Franklin, larceny in a dwelling-house; Alexander Colraan, V7m. Harrison, and Edward Chas. Tregellis, charged with perjury; Alexander Gillies, larceny. - NO BILL AGAINST POWELL. The Grand Jury found no bill against Henry Powell, charged by Charles Hillsden with libel. ASSAULT AND BOBBERY. The case of James Bush and James Webb, committed for trial from the lower Court on a charge of assault and robbery, was struck out owing to the absence of the prosecutor. Prisoners were (later on) discharged. , LARCENY. Frederick Lvness pleaded guilty to a charge of having, on the 26th day of May last, stolen one pair of boots from the house of Enoch Walter. He was ordered to be brought up for sentence next (this) morning. LARCENY IN A DWELLING. Edward R. Walter was charged with stealing from the, dwelling-house of Edward Thomas Bould, a caahbox, containing certain valuables. - Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was ordered to be brought up next (this) morning for sentence. • . FELONY. Joseph Sturgess was indicted for that he did on the 24th day of February, 1877, steal, take, and carry away one gold watch, the goods and chattels of Henry Mace. ; Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Izard, having opened the case, called evidence. The whole of the facts of this case have been previously published, and are, shortly, that Mr. Mace lost the watch on the 24th February. He had taken off his waistcoat on the occasion of a cricket match, hanging it up in a dressing-room. Subsequently be . found that the watch had been stolen. No clue as to the thief' was discovered until the return of the shipwrecked crew of the Ocean M ail, when the 'watch was produced to Mr. Broadbent, jeweller, of Wellington, who, knowing of the loss of Mr. Mace and recognising the watch, communicated with the police. Hence the arrest an.l committal of prisoner. In defence prisoner said he had bought the watch from a man on the wharf a day or two before the sailing of the vessel. He had no receipt, not thinking a receipt at all necessary. His Honor charged the jury, reviewing the evidence, and pointing out the law upon the .subject. ' The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was then remanded for sentence. ; LARCENY, IN A "DWELLING-HOUSE. George Morris pleaded guilty to having stolen certain money, the property of a Chinaman named Wong Yung, and was remanded for sentence. Prisoner, said he had given up the money on the condition that he should not be prosecuted. His Honor said prisoner would have an opportunity ofFbpeakiug ini mitigation jof sentence next morning. UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. James Kerr, indicted for that he did on the Bth June unlawfully wound Mary Kerr, his wife, pleaded not guilty. The prosecutrix proved that she had been married to him thirteen years. She stated that he. was a plumber, and in good employment. On the day set out in the information he came home and treated her very badly. The nature of the injuries were proved by Dr. Diver to have been very severe. The jury without leaving the box convicted prisoner, who was remanded for sentence. EMBEZZLEMENT. Frank Broughton was indicted with having embezzled certain moneys from Pasooe and Co. ,He pleadc l not guilty, and the case was postponed by consent. FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY. Charles Grey was charged with that he, ’being a bankrupt, did neglect to disclose to I the trustee iu bankruptcy certain property bold by him, and secretly removed from his i shop, with intent to defraud his creditors. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. Izard appeared for the prosecution ; for the defence Mr. Gordon Allan, who applied for a remand. There being no objection on the part of the prosecution, the case was set down for heaving on Wednesday. FELONY. Mathew Keane was charged that be did steal XI4, the property of a man named Phillip Rees, on the 15th day of June. 'Phis case was heard a short time since in Resident Magistrate’s Court, from which the prisoner was committed for trial. Rees was lodging iu a boarding-house with prisoner, who occupied the same room with him.. Prisoner was left iu the room alone one day, and the money mentioned, which was kept in a cash- : box in a portmanteau, was carried away, and prisoner was discovered dealing with money after the robbery, although, as alleged, he had none before in his possession. The evidence of prosecutor, a fellow lodger, the landlord, and a man who saw the prisoner change part of the stolen money, a £lO note, was taken, the facts being precisely the same as those elicited at the preliminary hearing. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and shortly afterwards announced a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was then remanded for sentence. DISCHARGED. A nolle prosequi was entered in the case of Charles Tregellus, against whom a true bill had been found for perjury, and he was discharged. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning;

xSir.-AHavipJ taken vouf Ghollah’s Rheumatic Mixture for some considerable time, and having been completely cured by its use of-the. very, severe .rheumatic gout from which X had suffered most severely for the last ten years, I can bear testimony to its extraordinary, curative, powers. lam now free from all pain, and well in my health, and have the free use of my hands and feet, which I had not previous to taking your medicine. 1 think it right to state, for the benefit of others suffering the tortures that I endured for the period above stated, that I attribute my restoration to health and freedom from pain entirely to tiie use of your invaluable medicine. I can strongly recommend it to those suffering from rheumatism or gout. (Signed)' John Griffen, J.P.”Christchurch, 21st April, 1877._ The Proprietor of Ghollah’s Great Indian Cures ; Sir, —X have ranch pleasure in stating that I derived so great a benefit by the use of your Gout Mixtuie that I feel it my duty to add my testimonial to the many already published. I had been suffering from gout in my feet and hands for about sixteen years; but by t-king two bottles of your Gout Mixture, I have lost all pain or trace of the gouty symptoms. My appetite is good and my general health much improved. I can recommend your Indian Medicines strongly to others.— (Signed) George Eummis. [Auvr. J (strangers paying a visit to Wellington, and country settlers arriving in town, are very often at a loss to. know which is the best house or cheapest general drapery establishment to visit for buying drapery and eiotiiing. J. McDowell and Co. offer spec al advantages that can be met with nowhere else in the city. They keep at all times the largest and best assorted stock of every class of goods, imported direct from Hie loading manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland, which, being bought on the most advantageous terras, enables them to offer goods of sterling qualities at prices that cannot be improved on by any house in tiie trade. Every article is marked at a fixed price that cannot he deviated from, for ready money, from which there is no deviation ; so that inexperienced people are as well served as tiie best judges; the terms being net cash, without rebate or abatement of any kind. A full description of stock can be ob tained from our catalogues and advertisement. Note the address—Opposite the Bank of New Zealand, corner of Lambtdn-quay and Willls-strcet, Wellington.—A DVT,