SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5470, 8 October 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, Octobeb 7, (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) grand jury. The following gentlemen were sworn as a Grand Jury Messrs. T, W. Youug (foremao), O. J. Toxward, C. Bennington, D. Robertson, J. R. Blair, J. H. Heaton, G. M. Kehbell, E. Anderson, S. S. Griffiths, J. L. Moffatt, H. Rose, E. W. Lowe. VV. C. Chatfield, H. Green. W. H. Meek, A. Warburton, J. O’Shea, D. Sinclair, J. Coleridge, W. R. Petei-son, CV W. Smith, T. Hoggard, and H. F. Rawson. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. His Honor delivered his charge as follows; —Gentlemen of the Grand Inquisition,—The calendar on this occasion appears at first sight an unusually heavy 000. It comprises eleven cases, including one which has only reached Wellington a few hours ago. Several persons are implicated in some of the cases. I am sorry to see that the calendar comprises the highest crimes known to the law, including one charge of murder, cue charge o! attempting to commit murder, one of manslaughter, and one of rape. This, gentlemen, is a very black list. I hope, however, that on investigation it will turn out that ia several of these cases tho offence is not so grave aa to warrant the designation accorded to it. The Crown has, I believe, in some of these cases further evidence than X have as yet been made aware of ; and I cannot anticipate how the offence may appear before you, but I think upon the whole calendar there is very little doubt that : things will turn out on trial not to be so bad as they look here. I hope not. The charge of murder ia made against a half-caste. The evidence discloses scenes of the most disgusting debauchery; it is a shocking picture of tho state of manners and morals in some of the native districts. Gentlemen, I think in this case the evidence does not warrant you finding a true bill for murder against the prisoners, I believe there is some evidence forthcoming in addition to that now before me. If yon are of-opinion that the men charged have committed the offence, an 1 have really occasioned the death of the woman, bub that tho.killing was without malice, then it will be your duty to ignore the bill for murder, but you will be at liberty to bring in a bill for manslaughter. The proper course for you to adopt in such an event will be for you to inform me'that you ignore the bill for murder, and no doubt you will find that the Crown Prosecutor is provided with another bill for manslaughter. There is another case in which the charge is one of attempt to murder. In that case there are certain facts appearing on the depositions which lead to some sort of doubt, at least as to whether the prisoner is a sane person. A very, considerable doubt as to his sanity seems to arise on tho face of the depositions In that case I have to tel! you that your duty is to bring in a true bill if you think that the man, if sane, should be put: on bis trial fop attempt to. murder. You need not attempt to form an opinion upon the question of sanity, because that will be regularly tried in open Court. You will therefore find a true bill if the evidence would warrant a true bill being found against a sane person. ; But you avo not debarred from expressing your, own ideas as to his sanity—it would be rather convenient than otherwise for you to do so. There is a third charge which appears on tho lintone of manslaughter. In that case I am informed that it is not the intention of the Crown to proffer any evidence. I believe tho Crown has gone so far as to inform witnesses that they need not attend. Tbatgetnridof one case. There is said to have been a'coroner’s inquisition at which a verdict of manslaughter was found against two persons. I have not seen any such inquisiDion. There is a verdict of a very different kind, imputiog wilful negligence to them, but nothing upon which they could ■ be arraigned in thi* Court upon a charge, of You are doubtless aware that a man may bo put oil his trial on tho finding of a coroner’s jury as .well aa of a Grand Jury. Ido not think it ifc necessary to say anything to you on the remaining cases. There is nothing, I think, I need explain, when many of you are experienced in dealing with such business as will come before you. On the whole I hope that it may turn out that tbo crime committed in the district is nothing like so serious as it at first appears on tho calendar. You are now, gentleman,'at liberty to retire to your room. LARCENY FROM A DWELLING., ' Alfred William . Thompson was indicted for stealing from } tho" dwelling-houso of Thomas Walker, three silver watches, three gold chains, one gold locket, and part of a gold seal, of tho value of £l4. Prisoner was undefended, and pleaded not gnilty. :■ Jessie Walker, wife of the prosecutor, corroborated tho evidence given by her in’tho Police Court, and already published. By the Prisoner : I saw you :at Boater’s bouse on Sunday night. I went with you to Molcsworth-streot. I never told you ; that my pocket was torn, and requested- you to carry tho key of the* house. I never saw you in the front* whore the watches were. When you came* to our place on the Tuesday after,Paster Monday there were five ot us in tho sitting-room. AWe were all drinking. I have heard that yon bought a watch and albert chain from a man named Smith. I never said that I would '■ make it hot for you iu Court.” .... v Thomas Walker, husband of tho lost witness, also gave similar evidence to that given at the R.h£.Court. - • -

li'v Till VVi+M«r : I . usaahy put my s -hm*■avay when I come homo from dealing in tho country ’’’ T w;U drunk, and do not seeing you about the house. I have hen"'! th i.t ’you bought ft watch and Albert cham from a man named Smith. Henry Cosm m, sailor on board the -deauinr ■Taranaki, also affirmed the evidence given by him at the R.M.,Court. , By the Prisoner ; You had the watch in your waistcoat pocket. I never saw any other watches about you. Prisoner made the same statement as pre-, viously, viz., that he. had purchased the watch named Smith. -The jury, after retiring for an hour, brought in a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.. . . , •’ INDECENT ASSAULT. ; .Regina v, Henry Aldridge.-—The prisoner .was-indicted. for committing an indecent assault. upon Elizabeth Marlon Saville on the 15th June,?! 878. . .The Hon.: Mr. Buckley defended the prisoner, and Mr. Izard prosecuted. His Honor the Judge said there were two questions for the jury to decide. The first one was, did this action happen at all. The second whs, did it happen with the girl’s consent ; if so, it was no assault. The fact that they stood in the relation of master and servant was against the accused, but the girl was old enough to have been able to resist any attempt at; indecency. His Honor went through the case, and remarked that the plaintiff had given her evidence in a remarkably cool and clever, manner. s'.': ROBBERY. Regina v. Eliza Broughton, Marion Brad .£ord r ; and Mary- McGee.—The prisoners were indicted for stealing, on September 24, £7, the property of Maraia.Te Oha, wife of Himiona Te Qha. . - . Prisoners were undefended, and pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Izard, prosecuted. The circumstances in connection with this case have already been fully reported. Mr. Ebenezer Baker officiated as interpreter. The jury retired at 6 o’clock to consider their verdict, and after an absence of half an hour returned with a verdict of guilty against the three prisoners. His Honor sentenced them each to six months’ imprisonment. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock next day. ; ■