SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5387, 3 July 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July 1. The quarterly sittings of the Circuit Court (criminal jurisdiction) commenced at ten o’clock this morning before his Honor the Chief Justice. GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand Jury :—Lipman Levy (foreman), Messrs. Robert Burrett, Nicholas Marchaut, John Maginity, George Vance Shannon, ■William Francis Barraud, Robert Stains, Benjamin Levy, John Mathew Taylor, John William Stevenson, Archibald Paisley Stewart, Austin Nicholas Reid, John Watt, James Alexander McTavish, James Stewart, Thomas McKenzie, Horatio MoOnllogh Lyon, Charles Tringham, William James, James Lockie, Thomas Turnbull, Constantine Edward Zohrab, and Charles White. THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

His Honor : Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—The calendar is somewhat more numerous than it has been at these sittings for some years past, but the whole of the oases are of such a nature as to call for no particular observations on my part. Therefore I will leave them to you. There are two oases, I think, on which it is necessary for me to address you. One is a charge of attempting—it will probably be put before you in one of two aspects, either as an attempt to murder, or administering poison with intent to murder. The evidence which the prosecution will probably lay before you will not necessarily be evidence showing any ill-will on the part of the prisoner, or any reason why the person charged should have attempted to have done an injury to the prosecutor. ■ It makes no difference, gentlemen, so far as you are concerned. If, according to the evidence taken before, yon are satisfied, so far as it is your duty to be satisfied that the prisoner administered the poison, then, gentlemen, although the prosecution should not lay before you any evidence of any intent to commit murder, that would be sufficient for you to find a true bill. It will be immaterial whether you are aware of what may be moving in persons’ minds. There is also in the present calendar a charge —a double charge against a prisoner, under the Fraudulent Debtors' Act. I will read to you the two clauses, and offer to you one or two observations on the subject. The first clause bearing on the subject is as follows : [Clause read]. That, gentlemen, is sufficient, with this exception—unless the jury is satisfied he had no intent to defraud. Therefore, under the present law, it is thrown upon the defendant to show that ho had no fraudulent intent. If this ' case is proved against him—if this omission to truly discover his property, as provided by this clause, is proved against him, at any rate for the purposes of the ’Grand Jury, it is not necessary to in-

quire whether his infant was to defraud or not. It appears, by this section, to throw it upon the defendant to prove that he had no fraudulent intention. Therefore it is sufficient for the Grand Jury to be satisfied that the act was committed, no matter what the intention. The next sub-section under which it is possible a charge may be laid is clause 6, as follows; [Clause read.] Now, gentlemen, with regard to this clause of the Act, I gather from the depositions that the prosecution will lay before you evidence to this effect. You are all probably aware, or most of yeu at all events, that a person who files a declaration of bankruptcy, files a statement of his assets aud liabilities, aud this he swears to be true. His affidavit is filed, saying ** This is a true statement." X gather from the depositions that the prosecution will endeavor to support this charge by showing that the defendant filed a statement of his affairs—of his liabilities and assets—omitting a statement of certain as?qts. • If these facts are proved, it seems to me that is sufficient to warrant you la finding a true bill. This, as I have already said to you, is some exception, namely, unless the Grand Jury is satisfied that there ia no evidence of the acts having been committed, you will then throw out the bill i but if you are satisfied the acts laid in the indictment have been committed, then so far as your duty is concerned you will find a true bill, leaving it to the defendant to prove that he had no fraudulent intent. The same observation applies to that question as to the other. With these few observations, gentlemen, I have nothing further to say with reference to the calendar. But there is another matter on which I tihould like to address you. You are aware, no doubt, from what you see in the newspapers that it is intended shortiytoerectanew building in which this Court is to be carried on. I think it a proper subject to address you upon, because you, as well as all others who have to do with the administration of justice here, are interested in being furnished with suitable buildings. Probably, gentlemen, you have experienced as I have, and the officers of this Court have constantly experienced, the great inconvenience which arises from sitting in the same building as a police barrack. We have experienced that inconvenience which arises from the offensiveness created in other portions of the building, which are constantly filled, not only with the odors of fresh, but also of stale cooking, which is going on in that part of the building. The atmosphere has been quite intolerable on very many occasions. I venture to express a hope publicly that such a state of things will not be permitted in the new building. If it is necessary that there should be a police court in the same building, I hope that at any rate some careful attention will be paid to guard against having this inconvenience perpetuated in the new building, I think, gentlemen—aud probably you will agree with me—that the persons who are mosfinterested in the use of a new building are sometimes—in fact, I may say generally—not so much consulted as they should be in the kind of building required, and in the mode of construction, and in laying of it out, and in seeing generally whether it is adaptable and suitable to the purpose. I believe it is a fact that in the General Government Buiid'ngs, where one would have thought. the heads of the various departments would have seen that the arrangement of the rooms and the general arrangements of the building were suitable for their particular purposes, it is generally understood that the rooms are not bo laid out as the various departments aud Ministers themselves would desire. My only object in making this remark is this—that possibly a few amongst the number of those interested may take an interest in the matter and endeavor to express a voice, if necessary, before it is too late. If the plans are once decided, tenders called for and accepted, aud the building proceeded with, if is then too late to grumble, and if is very little use for you, the newspapers, myself, or anyone else to grumble. The time to take action is before is is too late. That is the only object of these observations to you on the subject. I have now to ask you to retire to your room to consider the bills which will be sent before you. The Grand Jury then retired to their room to consider the indictments.

John Smith, a youth aged about 19 or 20, was placed at the bar, charged with having burglariously entered the dwelling-house of Miss Greenwood, on Wellington-terrace. There were two counts in the indictment, amounting substantially to one and the same offence. ' On the date named in the indictment the prisoner was (as alleged) found in the house occupied by the Misses Mary, Ellen, and Annie Greenwood, and the circumstances of his detection, and of Miss Greenwood's cool and courageous behavior on the occasion, are already well known to the public, having been detailed at length in the preliminary examination at the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Mr. Izard prosecuted on the part of the Crown, and Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the defence. After the evidence for the prosecution was given, Mr. Allan, for the defence, called a witness named Martin, who deposed that prisoner slept at his (witness’s) father’s bearding-house on the night in question, and could hot have gone out of the house without his hearing him. Another witness named Smith deposed that on the Sunday night in question the prisoner slept in the same room as he did at Martin’s boarding-house. The prisoner never left the room that night. ', Mr. Allan made a very forcible address to the jury on behalf of the prisoner. The jury, after about half an hour’s retirement, returned into Court with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. FALSE PRETENCES. Owen Cameron was placed at the bar charged with obtaining goods and money by means of a valueless cheque for the payment of £lO. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Izard prosecuted on the part of the Crown. The prisoner was undefended. After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. • Sentence was deferred. Prisoner was indicted on a further charge of obtaining money and goods by means of a valueless cheque. After bearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence deferred till next morning. The Court then adjourned until next day at 10 a.m. Tuesday, July 2. The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. SENTENCE. Owen Cameron, found guilty on the previous day on two charges of obtaining goods and money by means of false pretences, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with hard labor on each charge, both sentences to ran concurrently. SHEEP STEALING. Louis Hennegwin, a Frenchman, was indicted for stealing and killing a ewe, the property of Mr. HilL The prisoner pleaded not guilty, Mr. Izard prosecuted on the part of the Crown. The prisoner was undefended. Mr. Alfred Mantell acted as interpreter. From the statement made to the jury by Mr. Izard, it appeared that the prosecutor had missed a certain owe. He went to the prisoner's house, and found there the skin of a ewe which he identified as his by certain marks upon it. A constable was then brought on the scene, and the prisoner admitted that he had killed the ewe, and, moreover, took the constable to a place where a portion of the carcase was buried. The defence raised by the prisoner was, that tho ewe had broken into his garden and destroyed his cabbages and cauliflowers, and in chasing the sheep out it broke its leg in the fence, and he then killed it. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. NO DILL. Tho Grand Jury returned no bill in the case against Adolphus Frederick Hardy, for assault and grievous bodily harm. The Foreman : I am directed to say that the Grand Jury are very much surprised that this case ever came down from Poverty Bay. There is no evidence showing that he committed the assault : and three or more others were in it who were more concerned than this man. I don’t know whether I should mention this here; but the jury are unanimous that the case ought never to have been sent down. His Honor: I don’t say that you are not right in saying that this case should not have been seut hero. I don’t know why these cases came from Poverty Bay at all. Poverty Bay is about 400 miles from Wellington, and I don’t see why they should not have been sent to Napier. - The Foreman: What we look to is the great amount of public expense involved. His Honor: There may have been some reason for not committing to the nearest place of trial. , . Mr. Izard: I understand tho explanation given is, that the defendant was committed just at the conclusion of the Napier sittings,

and the magistrate probably thought that it would bo unfair to hold the defendant over for six months. His Honor: That clo>a not supplement the evidence. Mr. Izard: Of courso not. INDECENT ASSAULT. Walter James White was charged with having committed an indecent assault on a little girl under twelve years of age, named Alice Bertha Greening, whoso father is a hotelkeeper at Masterton. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Izard prosecuted cn the part of the Crown, and Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the defence. After hearing tin evidence, the jury found the prisoner guilty of indecent assault. Sentence deferred. ,