SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5389, 5 July 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Thursday, July 4. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and a Common Jury.) - The Court re-opened at 10 o’clock.' ; SENTENCES. Henry Schmidt, who on the previous day pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny, was brought np for sentence, .. . if* The prisoner was sentenced to nine calendar months’ imprisonment, at hard labor. ■'“Patrick Conrey, convicted of cutting and wounded Philip, Ritchie, was sentenced to twelve calendar months’ imprisonment, at hard labor. f , , - ATI EMIT TO HUBDEK. ‘ William O’Connor, an ex police sergeant, ! waa indicted for having administered to William Light, on the 28th of April last, two grains of 'Strychnine, with intent to kill and murder the said William Light.The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Izard prosecuted on .the part of the Crown. . •• Mr, Gordon Allan appeared for the defence. - The: fails of this case are briefly as follows; Tho prosecutor, whoisapublican named William ’Light, keeps a, hotel in Wellington which is more familiarly-known as ” Barrett’s Hotel.” On the night of Sunday, the 23th of April last, ‘between ten and eleven o’clock, there -(ailed, immediately behind the bar, two men—one the . prisoner and the other named Pye. The prosecutor went into the bar parlor at that hour, and’intimated that it was time to close up the house. Pye put. on his hat and left the hpuse,"and the prisoner remained alone in the . bar, .-parlor.' for some little time. Mr. Light went-into-the-bar,' and presently the prisoner said ho'had better pay his account, as he was going away next morning. Prisoner gave ‘ Mr. Light some money, and prosecutor deducted the amount owing, and handed prisoner the change; When that was over prosecutor; said to prisoner, “ I think we had better have a drink together to-night.” This wis agreed upon.- The prosecutor asked the prisoner what he, would take. , The prisoner replied that he would take a glass of Irish whisky,-aud-prosecutor said he would have a glass of Scotch whisky.. Prosecutor returned into the bar for'the purpose of getting the liquor. : The prosecutor took down two tumblers from the shelf. There was no light in • the bar, but t .ere /was a light In the bar parlor, and,® small window communicated Detw|fsn the bar and bar •parlor,. When the pmjieeutdr. 'tobk down the tumblers from the shelf be held them up to the light, and he was quite, positive the: tumblers were perfectly cleap, and contained ‘.no’ sediment,, He also tookf down two decanters! of, whisky—one Irish and the other Scotch—and poured some Scotch whisky into one tumbler, and some Irish whisky into the other, and at that time there ,was .no sediment or impurity in the tumblers. took the two glasses of whisky into the bar parlor, hnd also some water./,; As they were about to have their whisky-and-water the reading-rpom bell rang, and proneoutor left the bar parlor for the purpose of'attending to it,' When he returned to the bar parlor, and was about to take his whbky-aud-water,-prosecutor looked at the glass, .and perceived that down the side there was, some bright shining stud like crystals, and in the glass itself some sediment. Prisoner was then'sitting in his chair. Prosecutor took up a little morsel of the shining staff, put it into jhU mouth, and cried out, “ What a beastly taste is this,” ' Prisoner said, “Oh, it’s nothing, here's your good health,” and tossed. off„tbe-liquor.in his own-glass.--The prosecutor was very much astonished, and would not drink. He took tho glass away into the back parlor, and put It there. Prisoner.in the meantime opened the: door, and went upstairs .to bed.’' On a more careful examination, pro-’ sec-tor. felt convinced that . something was wrong, and ho put the gloss of-whisky and Water carefully •by in the ■ bar. 1 In a few minutes’ time; the prisoner came hack to the bar;'looking stfmewfiat ghastly, and said he vwWwd:»'littlo'brandy'. _ “He 'goVhls'braiidy

and lemonade,'and want upstairs to bed. T.ie prosecutor then thought he would like to exa mine aud see if there was anything wrong in . the room. He went down ou his hands and knees, and examined the hearth-rug. Ho there saw several little shining crystals, aud attempted; to hike one of them up on the blade of his knife, but did riot succeed. ■ Next morning Mr, Light gave information to the police, aud handed over to Sergeant Price the glass with the crystals in it. The glass aud its contents were forwarded for examination to Dr. Hector, who pronounced it to contain two grains of strychnine, half a grain being sufficient to kill an adult. Iu addition to this, the hearth-rag, near which prisoner had been sitting on the night in question, was examined, aud Dr. Hector found crystals upon it, which he pronounced also to be strychnine. The Crown was not in a position to show the jury where the strychnine had been obtained. The prisoner had only arrived in Wellington a short time previously, and the Crown was unable to trace where the strychnine had been obtained. These were the facts upon which the prisoner stood charged with on attempt to murder Mr. Light. The Crown led evidence in support of these facts. .

For the defence no witnesses were called. Mr. Izard then addressed the jury with regard to the evidence that had been adduced in°support of the indictment. He reviewed the evidence with great care and minuteness, remarking that the issue which the jury had to determine was whether they were satisfied that the poison was placed in the glass by the prisoner, and whether it had been so placed there with intent to take away Mr. Light’s life. The learned counsel for the defence had subjected the prosecutor to a very rigid crossexamination, but had ■ failed to shako bis direct testimony in a single particular. It was beyond the power of man to say what was passing iu the prisoner's mind, or what motive he iad tor attempting to murder the prosecutor. Mr. Light’s tale was a clear and perfectly straightforward one. It had not in the smallest degree been shaken iu cross-examination ; and could the jury believe that Mr. Light could be so wicked as to invent the tale he had told, and place a fellow creature iu the terrible position in which the prisoner stood? Therefore the questions upon which the jury had to arrive at a conclusion were these : First,: did they believe Mr. Light’s story as true ? next, did the prisoner place the poishn in the tumbler ? and third, did he place it there with the intention of taking away the proseoutors’e life ? - Mr. Allan made a very able address to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, contendfng that the Crown had utterly failed to support even a presumption that the prisoner had the poison in his", possession. Besides, there was not a tittle of evidence "to show that the poison fonnd in the glass of whisky had been placed there by the prisoner ; and the Crown had also tailed to show that there was any motive whatever for the prisoner to perpetrate such a diabolical act as to take away the prosecutor’s life. Under all the circumstances of this most extraordinary case on record, the jury could not, consistently with their oaths, arrive at the conclusion" that the prisoner had been ■guilty of the terrible charge laid against him by the Crown. To enable them to arrive at such a decision, it was necessai-y that they should not have the slightest doubt of the prisoner’s guilt, but he -submitted that the evidence was of such an inconclusive nature as to preclude them from arriving at a verdict of guilty.., His Honor then summed up the evidence given by the Crown, and concluded as follows :—The question for you to determine is—Can you come to the conclusion, without entertaining a reasonable doubt, that the prisoner was the person who putthat powder into the glass ? If you find—giving weight to all the considerations which occur to you—that there is such a supposition, that it may have got there in some other way, although Mr. Light’s testimony may be reliable ; if yon think there is a reasonable supposition that the may have got into the glass by some other means, but uot by the hand of the prisoner, then it is your duty to acquit him. Tf, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion that there is no’ reasonable supposition that the strychnine got into the glass except by the hand of the prisoner, then it is your duty to convict him. The jury retired at ten minutes to five o’clock, and after an absence of about an hour, returned into Court with a verdict of guilty. His Honor directed the prisoner to be brought up for sentence at ten o’clock this (Friday) morning.