SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5310, 2 April 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, April 1. (Before Mr. Justice Richmond.) The autumn criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were commenced in the Supreme Court yesterday before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond. The following gentlemen were empanelled as a grand jury :—Messrs. J. t Dransfield (foreman), O. White, &.. P. Stuart, C. E. Capper, J. Plimmer, A. C. Shaw, F. McCarthy, R. Eurrett, J. Watt, W. H. Meek, T. J. Mountain, J. E. Nathan, B. Smith, J, W. Stevenson, T. McKenzie, N. Marchant, J. E. Blair, J. W. Cleland, R. J. Duncan, F. C. Kreeft, W. Hutchison. Excuses for absence were allowed to Messrs. J. A. McTavish and J. S. M. Thompson, on the medical certificates of Drs. Kemp and Diver. Messrs, H. M. Dyou and D. T. Smart were also excused, ou the ground that their partners were on the jury. THE JUDGE’S CHARGE. His Honor delivered the following charge : —Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—l have again to congratulate you upon the absence from the calendar of any crimes of violence of a grave description. The calendar this time comprises twelve cases, there being more than one charge against some of the accused, and iu some of the cases more than oue person implicated. I think there are thirteen names, I am not sure, but there are twelve cases ; of these three are charges of larceny, or what amounts to larceny ; two against the same person ax-e for false pretences ; there is a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy, and there are from the Coast four charges of horse-stealing, a kind of offeuce one gets from the country districts. There is oue charge of arson, and there is only one charge of an offence against the person, but I am sorry to say that that one is of a grave nature, being an assault on a young female. This is a class of offence that is frequent in the colony, and although our law against it is of exceptional severity it does not appear to prevent these crimes, which continue too frequent. The charges of arson and attempted rape are of course serious ones, but lookTig at the whole calendar, I may congratulate the district, considering its present large population, upon the absence of crimes of violence. Gentlemen, I do not know that there is anything that I need address to you" in order to facilitate the performance of your duties, as I do not anticipate that any of the cases will raise a difficulty in your jury-room. In one or two of the cases the depositions show that the cases for the Crown need strengthening, and very probably may be strengthened,but Idonotknowiflneed say anything about it, as X am always averse to notice any details in cases going before the Grand Jury. In one case the evidence against the prisoners appears to be of that kind which arises from recent possession of stolen property. It is not shown how prisoners came into possession of horses they are alleged to have stolen ; but there is reason to believe that the horses were stolen by somebody, and the prisoners were found in possession. I do not think it necessary to give you any special direction about that case. I only observe that some of the cases for the Crown appear to me to need strengthening, and the depositions suggest that they may be strengthened. My exp.rience is that cases rarely come into Court much stronger than when before the committing magistrate, and sometimes they are weaker. I believe also that there is a defect in cur machinery, ■ I do not blame theCrown Prosecutors, because I believe they are not paid for anything but presenting the cases in Court, but it often happens that the depositions are iu such au unintelligible state that they would suggest to any competent criminal lawyer the necessity for some additional witness or witnesses, but I very rarely find that the Crown has provided these additional witnesses, because there is no person in charge from the beginning, and the consequence is that guilty persons too often escape from justice, and that no doubt is frequently occasioned by want of competent professional supervision over the whole of the prosecution. At present there is a division of responsibility between the police who institute the prosecution, the committing magistrate who, to a certain extent supervises it in remanding the prisoner until he considers the evidence sufficient to send the case for trial, and lastly, the Crown Solicitor, whose duties are divided amongst these functionaries, with an uncertain measure of responsibility to each. Where a very grave case is concerned exceptional care may be taken, but I have known other cases in very great danger of failing altogether, notwithstanding the existence of sufficient proofs, through the deficient machinery for public prosecutions. Gentlemen, as I have said, I have no words to offer you with regard to the performance of your duties. If, Mr. Foreman, you require my aid you can have it at any moment. There are some Maoris to come before you, and of course they will be sworn through an interpreter. Gentlemen, you are at liberty to retire to your room. True bills were found iu the following cases: —Richard Ross (horse-stealing), Francis Doneghue and Robert James Barr (fraudulent bankruptcy), Richard Buekridge and William Neill (horse-stealing, two indictments), Frederick Oattling (rape), E. H. Mouravieff, obtaining goods by false pretences, (two indictments). The other cases the Grand Jury have not yet considered. Six jurymen were excused from serving, on various grounds. HORSE-STEALING. Richard Ross was indicted for having on the 22nd November, 1876, stolen a mare, the property of Robert Mackie, a butcher, residing at Palmerston; [and there was a second count charging accused with having feloniously received the rnare. Mr. Barton defended accused, Who pleaded not guilty. . The case has already been reported m the papers. - A true bill was found against Ross at the last criminal sittings of the Supremo Court, but the hearing of it was postponed until the present sittings. The case for the prosecution was that the mare in question had been put, to graze on some land at Palmerston, and was afterwards missed. It was subsequently found in possession of prisoner, who was frequently seen using it. A largo number of witnesses were examined, including several Maoris, Mr. Baker, clerk to the Resident Magistrate’s Court, acting as interpreter. Mr. Barton said he would content himself by calling witnesses,without making an address to the jury. John Maokersey, sheep-farmer in the Hawke’s Bay province, deposed that prisoner was in his employment from the 13th October, 1876, until the 9th January, 1877, during

which time he was continually on the. station, distant about two days’ journey from Palmer, ston. During that time -he did’ not have a horse or mare in his possession. ' _ : James Allardyce, storekeeper at Danevirk, said that a Maori named Haira had offered him the mare in question for £2. Some time after this he said he had sold it to Ross (pri- ■ soner), but offered to take it back and sell it to witness, as Ross bad not paid him for the mare. Mr. Barton submitted to the jurythat Haira should be held to account for possession of the horse. ' t His Honor in summing up suggested the idea that there might have been a misunderstanding between Haira and prisoner, the former possibly thinking that Ross claimed the owner-’ ship of the horse, whilst he simply meant to purchase it. The jury after a short deliberation returned into Court with a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged. The Court then rose.