DISTRICT COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 406, 8 March 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COUR T.

TmjasDAY, Makch 6" (Before His Honor Judge Kenny.) Tun above Court opened in Carlyle on Thursday morning last. There were only two criminal cases down for hearing— - Crown v John' Lytlle, fraudulent bankruptcy, and the Crown v Thomas Irwin, for wilfnPyand maliciously'wounding one Thomas-Wright,-on-the night of the 11th January, with a shiugle-iiammer. There were an unusual number of - professional gentlemen present, including the-following —Mr A. Standisli,.Crown Prosecutor, New Plymouth : Messrs Filzherhert.'Hinde, and Hutchison, Wanganui ; and Alr ; H. E.,P, Adams, Carlyle. The Court was crowded with spectator-.-• Before the criminal cases, came on, His Honor heard the following applications for •bankrupt’s discharges : Mr Adams, on behalf of Mr Roy, applied for the discharge of Tliomas Fitzsimmons, of Normanby, and James Strachan .Greig, of Hawera. Orders granted. Mr Adams also applied for the discharge - of Samuel Dixon, of Kakaraniea. Order granted. MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING. , Crown v Thomas Irwin, for wilfull}' and maliciously wounding Thomas Wright. Mr Standish prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Hutchison appeared for the prisoner. Prisoner pleaded ” Not Guilty.” - The following jury were' empanrielled ; —G.. A^j.JrlAfcliaDt^foceinnii);- 4 ' Thomas Whalen, AV. Robertson, Fred. Woller, Thomas Bayly, ;Moore Hunter,: Alfred Palmer, Thomas Carman,' Herbert Nichol- ■ son, Richard Hicks, Tlumias Delamore,-and John Hurley. .i • Mr Standish, in opening the, case, dwelt, on the nature of the assault, and said that, any one of the wounds received by.Wright .. might have proved fatal. The crime wasa serious one, and ought riot to go . unpun- •: ished. No matter how much provocation prisoner received, it did riot justify him in committing the assault', '.. . , ; The evidence in this case' was'‘most unsatisfactory, the witnesses who Were present at the time of Mie.assualt not being clear in. their .ideas,. and . consequently statements did not agree. It appears that Wright went to the house of Irwin, on the night of tlie llth. January.for a cainpoveii. which he bad lent prisouer r spine time previous. Wright was 'not . welcomed, according to the evidence, but he persisted in remaining after having been once ; put out. However, peace was made, Wright therf brought a bottle of gin into the house Which he had" concealed outside, and, together .with a, supply of beer, the company got confused. Remarks were made by Wright as to the conduct of prisoner’s wife, who went into the bedroom (which was only divided by a than named Sam Black. The language 1 of Wright was not at-all calculated to keep the peace, and. on In’s leaving immediately after the statement, he was followed by prisoner, who then committed the alleged assualt; but it could not be proved that the instrument used was a shinglehammer. According to Wright’s evidence,. he received several wounds from prisoner before he closed on him and threw him to the ground. A son of the prisoner’s seems to have been at hand, arid the ' father called on him to “ hit the b—-—,’ r which the son did, and inflicted two wounds on Wright’s head witli some sharp instrument. The two were at last separated by Sani Black and prisoner’s wife, and Wright went home. Next morning he found himself in a very weak condition, and went to Dr Croft’s, where he had ’his wounds attended to. The injuries received we reno doubt of a serious nature.

A -great deal of amusement was caused on the examination of Mrs Stewart, who \yas at Irwin’s house on the night of the assault. .When questioned as to .whether, her ideas were confused, she said she could take a. glass of beer . with anyone, , and Counsel remarked he had no doubt she could. . After the examination of all the witnesses, his Honor summed up. and in a lengthy speech, condemmed the action of . the prisoner. He could not understand why a. man earning good wages lived in such a hovel as prisoner did—only _ one room, and that very small, for a family of four or five. The prisoner ought to be thankful he was not arrainged on a more serious charge. The jury retired, and after a short deliberation, returned with a verdict of " “Guilty,” but recommended the prisoner ■ to mercy, on account of the great provocation he had received. Prisoner was sentenced to six monthsimprisonment with hard labor, , OBTAINING GOODS DNDEE FALSE PEETENCES, Crown v John Hyttle.. Mr Filzherbert . prosecuded on behalf of the Grown, and Messrs Hutchison and Hinde appeared for prisoner. In this case, Counsel for the • defence contended that prisoner had not ; cornniitted fraud, inasmuch as he had oh- ; tamed the.goods for the purpose of keepinga booth at the Agricultural Show, which had been done, therefore they were not obtained under false pretences. As the. evidence did not agree with the indictment, Mr Hutchison said the case could not go to the jury. His Honor said the argument of Mr'Hutehison was so overpowering that *:' he must instruct the jury to bring in a verdict of “Not Guilty,” which was Accordingly done, and the prisoner discharged, ’■ His Honor ordered ; the costs to be paid . put ’of the ;estate,4 and.if there-were not sufficient funds, <:‘Government- would pay ' them; ■ The Court then adjourned.