SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL BUSINESS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 266, 27 October 1862, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL BUSINESS.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gresson.) Saturday, October 25. Mr Justice Gresson sat a» two o'clock for the purpose of passing sentence upon some prisoners, and of hearing any applications. PERJURY AT TUAPEKA. James Harris (45) found guilty of perjury at Tuapeka, was first placed in the dock. He declared that, he was innocent of the crime. The Judge said that the prisoner was found guilty, upon the clearest evidence, not only of imprecating the vengeance of God upon his soul, if he were speaking falsely when he really was so speaking, but of out raging the laws of his couutry. Butthe object of the law was only to deter from ciime by the punishment of offenders, not to take vengeance upon them ; and yielding to that merciful spirit of the law, he should sentence the prisoner to two jvars' imprisonment with hard labor, computed from the 16th May. The Prisoner: Well, your Honor, I consider you're very severe. That's fill I've jrot to say. | FOJt'iKRY. F Henry Cooinbe (36) had p'eaded guilty to a charge of foruing a cheque for LSO upon .Messrs. Comber and Douglas, of the Maniatoto Plain. The prisoner said he had, in extenuation of his crime, to urge that he had been for s x cr seven years in Can terbury and Ota»o. and had always hitherto borne an unimpeachable character. He was wellknown to many gentlemen in the Canterbury settlement. He hud served in the East Indies, and had received two medals and three clasps for the Sutley and Ferozesluh campaigns. He led a company at Chiilianwaliah and Goozerat ; and his commissions were in the hands of Detective Tuckwell. He had two children dependent upon him for support, and he had been in confinement since the sth August. He hope I that His Honor would take these j things into consideration. The Judge_s<iicl that it was lamentable indeed to see tht prisoner in his present position, if his statement were true ns to his past services to his country. He had admitted that he was guilty of the serious and degrading crime of forgery; one for which, not very long: ago, his life would have been forfeit, which in a commercial country struck at the very root of society, and if committed with impunity would prevent commercial intercourse from being carried on. He (the judge) had attended to the prisoner's appeal, and because of it he would deal more leniently with the prisoner than was his habit with forgers. The sentence was that the prisoner be imprisoned for. eighteen months, from the sth August, aud that he be kept at hard labor. THE TUAPEKA RAPE CASE. Patrick Kinnary (33), when placed in the dock, said that until this case he never stood before a judge or jury. Ihe Judge snid that the prisoner had been found guilty of a most aggravated assault, upon a man who had given him neither provocation nor offence. Had that man died of the wounds so brutally inflicted, there could be little or no doubt that the prisoner would have ended his life upon a scaffold, for he mijrht ju3tly have been found eruiity of murder. In addition to this assault, and following consequent upon it, he brutally assaulted Mary Ann Smith, an unoffending woman, and aidpd another i)erson, as cowardly as himself, to commit upon that woman a vile and outrageous offence. The Crown had dealt mercifully with the prisoner, in not offering evidence on a charge that he was himself a principal in another rape, of which there could bs no dount whatever that he was guilty ; and this offence would not be at all considered in passing sentence. That sentence was, that for the assault upon Patiick Thomas Monk, the prisoner suffer spven years' penal servitude within the colony, to be computed from the -Oth of October; and that for aiding in the commission of the rape, he suffer a further term of six years' penal servitude, commencing from the expiration of the first period. Ihe Prisoner: lam sure either you or me won't be alive at the end of that time.

The Judge saidtmst by good conduct the prisoner would have the opportunity, if he so pleased, of shortening the term of servitude ; and if his conduct was such as to come within the exemplary class, the terra would no doubt be materially shortened. The Prisoner: My character * was always good, every place that I was in. John Maloney, (3G) was next placed in the dock. He said that afentleinen had beeu in attendance who could give him a good character for the last six or seven years. , The Judge said that evidence as to character was useful only when there was room for donbt as to an offence having been committed. There was none here. The prisoner had been convicted, first, of aiding and abetting in the brutal and cruel assault upon Monk; in the second place, of being tne principal in a" rape upon Mary Ann Smith, ; and in - the third place, of aiding Brogan in the commission of a similar crime. He might have been indicted for a further rape j but the Crown had forborne to prosecute for that offence. The sentence of the Court was—For the first offence, 12 months' hard labor, computed from the 25th August; for the second, six year*' penal -servitude in the colony;' and , for the third, a further period of bix years' penal servitude.

Michael Brogan (24), when challenged; said that he never before was in trouble oft is sort, and he was as' innocent of the offence of rape as any gentlemapn then in. the court, ..... . . -

Tiie Jtulj^ti .saiu that 12 of his countrymen, \yiio had no de-sire to say sliat the prisoner was guilty unless forced to that conviction by the evideuce, had returned such a verdict; and he (the Judge) felt no doubt whatever of the prisoner's guilt. Every rape was a brutal crime; but the crime of the prisoner was peculiarly bruta), from the series of outrages to which the.woiuan had been previously subj-cted. But he was willing to pass oaly such a sentence as would be likely to de?er others" from such a crime, and so protect society from such ruffianism. The prisoner might have been incarcerated for life; but the sentence of the Court was that be suffer penal servitude within the colony for a period of six years, computed from the 24th August.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr Haggett said ho had to make an application wi»h respect to the privileges of the Court. Air Michael Prendergast, a hamster, was that morning apprehended by process issued from the Resident Magistrate's Court; and the applicition was that his Honor would order that Mr Prendenjast be released from custody, as when arresttd he was actually attending to his business as a practitioner iv the Court. -In his affidavit (which was read), Mr Prendergast described his arrest as having occurred, " on. my leaving the Judge's Chamber for a few minutes, and before completing the business on whiob I had gone to the said Court f and he added that the arrest was by virtue of two warrants issued from the Resident Magistrates's Court, upon judgments obtained against him iv that Court by one Loggie, and one Hood. He was atf the time within the precincts, md in attendance on the Court, which was about to sit, being engaged in a case pehdiug. The Judge thought that Mr Preudergast was entitled to his release.

Mr Hagrgett presumed that, in accordance with practice, this would mean freedom from arrest duriug the whole time the Curt sat. The Judge said it was not necessary to decide the poiDt upon the present application ; but his opiniou was that the cases did not go further than the granting of protection while actually engaged in a case, or while going and returning, being engaged iv a case pending.

Air Haggetfc said he put it that Mr Prendergast wa3 so entitled, not as an attorney, but as a barrister.

The Judge thought there was a case in which it was held that a barrister merely in Court, looking for practice, was not privileged from arrest. But for the present, it was enough that he thought Mr. Prendergast wns entitUd to release upon this affidavit, that at rhe time of arrest he was actually eng.iged about the. Court in a case pending. There being no other application, the Court adjourned.