DISTRICT COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 200, 10 March 1877, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor. Judge Eyre-Kcnny.) Wednesday, 7th March. CIVIL SITTINGS. Application for Execution ’Warrant. Taplin and Muir v. Charles Fish. Mr Adams appeared for the plaintiff, and applied for an execution warrant. Mr Taplin deposed to receiving a promissory note for £57 19s 7cl. including costs, for which he had obtained judgment in, Court, and was not yet satisfied.

Ilis Honor said, it would lie necessary for Mr Adams to sitru an aftidavi:, Unsatisfied Judgment—Taplin v. Alfred Adams. A judgment summons for A2(! 11s hud been obtained by plaintiff against defendant. which bad not been satisfied, a balance of t.'i 17s being still due. The defendant was stated to be at Wellington at present. His Honor gave o.n order for commitment. against, defendant for one month, unless the amount due was paid. GIHMLNAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Judge Eyue-Kenxy. and a jury.) IN’ DECENT ASSAULT. The following are the names of the jury cmpannellcd : .Messrs W. A’Conrt. T. Ghivcrs. (’. (.’amcron, J. Fainvcalhev. C. T. Harlwell, T. Haywood, J. Houston, J, Stephenson. J. Morgan, W. Odgers. M. Lodgers. and. 11. Shaw (foreman). T. Quinlivan surrendered in Ids bail to answer the charge brought against him that, on the 20ih of November. Is7(>. ho did unlawfully and indecently assault, wound, and ill treat a married woman named M. S. Kelso. Mr A. Siandish. of New Plymouth (Crown Pro-ecu (or) appeared for the Crown, anti Mr G. ! I mehisson. of Wanganui, for the prisoner. On the charge being read over, Mr llutchisson objected that the indictment was faulty, Hie evidence previously taken having been omitted. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Sfandish) said the form of indictment was a very oid one and well established, and contended that it was not necessary to put the evidence in the indictment. His Honor the Judge ruled in favour of the Crown Prosecutor. The prisoner pleaded “ Not. guilty.” Witnesses in the case were, ordered to retire, and six of the jurymen whose services were no longer required, were relieved from further attendance.

Mr blandish stated the case for the prosecution. and pointed out to the jury the limit of imprisonment for such ewes. }[e said (lie prosecutrix was a native of Norway, who resided witli her husband at Hawera. and occupied part of a house witli ano'her family. Prisoner called at. the house on the nth of November, and again a week .after, on a Sunday evening. whilst Mrs Hart, the occupant of (he other part of (lie house was away at ehurc’n. The prisoner had been observed hovering near the house. 11c afterwards entered (lie house, and after making several improper remarks, proceeded to commit the indecent assault'. He would remind the jury that the woman was a foreigner, and timid about making a noise. He also pointed out that tempting offers had been made, with a view to getting the case withdrawn. S. Kelso (the piosoeutrix) being sworn, entered fully into particulars from the time she first saw the prisoner to the present. Mr !fuHiissoncross-examined the prosecutrix at great length. A number of witnesses (including the husband) were examined and cross-examined, sifter which Mr iiutchisson addressed (lie jury, and said from Hie evidence taken it would be closirly seen there was no ease against the prisoner for indecent assault. The charge should have been one of ordinary assault, lie did not think it necessary to oa'l any witnesses. 'The story of the woman had been very contradictory, and in no way supported (lie charge preferred against Mr Quinlivnn. His Honor the Judge in reviewing the case, said there was no point of law involved, and explained that the nature of the assault was such that it could not nroperly be classed as an indecent assault, lie then recapitulated (lie essential part of the. evidence, and reminded the jury of flic manner in which (ho prosecutrix had given her ovi fence, and of the fact, tlr.il. on a previous occasion she hud accepted a sum of money where she had a person summoned for assaulting her.

'The jury retired, and, after half-an-lioer's deliberation, returned, when the foreman announced a verdict of No! ■guilty.” The pri-oner was then di-charged, and the jury relieved from further at tendance.