SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5157, 2 October 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, October 1. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) grand jury. The following gentlemen were sworn in as the Grand Jury : —Messrs. T. Buchanan (foreman, J. Dransfield, W. Hutchison, C. P. Powles, F. Macarthy, B. Smith, J. A. Allan, S. Carroll, H. Gaby, E. W. Mill-, J. F. E. Wright, C. J. Johnston, J. S. M. Thompson, P. Moeller, J. O’Shea, A. Baker, W. H. Meek, J. Henderson, F. A. Krull, T. K. Macdonald, R. S. Ledger, J. Billings, T. McKenzie. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury, confined his remarks to the cases to be brought before them. FORGERY. William Cook was charged with having committed forgery on the 27th of March last of a promissory note purported to be endorsed by Charles Mclntyre, of Wellington. He was also charged with having a second forged promissory note in his possession. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Allan defended. Lionel Harris, commission agent, deposed that he knew the prisoner, with whom he had business dealings. On or about the 27th March last tho prisoner asked witness to advance money ou a bill. Witness drew up a bill for prisoner, who signed it, and took it away to get Mr. Mclntyre’s endorsement. He returned with the bill endorsed. It was clearly understood that Mr. Mclntyre, baker, of Tory-street, was the endorser of the bill. The bill was not paid when it fell due, and witness wrote to the endorser. Cross-examined by Mr. Allan : Could not say what rate of interest was charged on the bill. The interest generally depended upon the risk. Charles Mclntyre was called, and deposed that he had not endorsed the promissory note produced, nor had he given authority to anyone to do so. He had never endorsed any promissory note for prisoner. Witness did not know of any other Charles Mclntyre in Wellington. His Honor, in summing up, said the case was one of extreme simplicity. If the jury believed the evidence of Mr. Mclntyre they would be justified in convicting the prisoner. The jury retired, and after au absence of ten minutes returned into Court with a verdict of guilty of uttering. His Honor, in passing sentence, said the offence of forgery was becoming a frequent one. There was scarcely a sitting of the Circuit Court in which there was not a charge of this nature brought before it. It was necessary that a severe sentence shouldbe passed, to check the commission of offences which would tend to destroy confidence in money transactions. The prisoner was then sentenced to four years’ penal servitude. rape. Frederick Glllan pleaded guilty to the above offence. He was remanded till the following morning for sentence. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. The Grand Jury found no bill in tho case against Thomas Tolley for receiving stolen goods, 0 and the accused was consequently discharged. ARSON. A true bill was returned against Daniel Haggerty for the above offence.

EMBEZZLEMENT. _ A true bill was also found in the charge against Harold Bay for embezzlement. His Honor then thanked the Grand Jury, and discharged them from their attendance. MURDER. Mary Ann Trueman and Mary Leonard Mudgway (mother and daughter) were charged with the murder of a male infant on the 27th August last. The prisoners were defended by Mr. Travers. The prisoners, on the application of counsel, were indicted separately, and the charge against the daughter was taken first. Elizabeth Ann Trueman (sister-in-law of the prisoner) was examined by Mr. Izard, but nothing further was elicited than what has been already published. This witness was examined by Mr. Travers at considerable length as to discrepancies between the depositions taken at the Resident Magistrate’s Court and her present evidence. The following witnesses were called for the prosecution :—Dr. Diver, Detective Farrell, Mr. Evens, and a brother and a sister of the accused. Mr. Travers opened the case for the defence, and said he proposed to call as a witness the mother of the prisoner, to disprove the evidence given by the chief witness for the prosecution. His Honor said he was inclined be of opinion that such evidence was not admissible. Mr. Travers argued the point at considerable length, aud quoted recent authorities ou the subject. His Honor said he was bound to see that the proceedings were regular, so that a mis-trial might not take place. He himself was of opinion that it would be advisable to allow a prisoner to tender evidence. Of course the jury could judge of the weight to be attached to such evidence. Mr. Izard opposed the evidence of the mother being taken, as an alleged accessory she would have a direct interest in the acquittal of the prisoner. His Honor said the point was of great importance, aud desired to refer to the authorities on the subject. Ultimately it was decided to admit the evidence. After considerable evidence had been taken for the defence, counsel addressed the jury. A verdict of concealment of birth was returned.