SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1319, 21 June 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Hie Honor Sir Jamei Prenderraet, Chief Justice.) The first sittings of the Supreme Court in this district were held in Gisborne, yesterday morning, at 10 o’clock. The Grand Jury were called and sworn. Mr A. Graham was chosen foreman, His Honor the Chief Justice then addressed the Grand Jury He said he supposed he must congratulate them upon the sittings of the Supreme Court being held here, as it was an indication of the growing importance of the place. 1 he Government recognizing this, thought fit to appoint sittings of the court for this district, although he must say that himself and his brother judges had considerable doubt as to the advisability of sittings of the court being held here, on account of the population not being large enough, ana the difficulty in getting juries to deal properly with the cases. He and his brother judges bad experienced such difficulties even in larger places. Besides there was the necessity of taking people away from their business. Jurors sometimes had personal feelings for the parties to tbe trial which caused disagreements, and no verdict was arrived at. This showed an unhealthy state of things, but still it sometimes occurred. This took them from their business for nothing at all, and was a heavy tax upon them. However, the responsibility, if any, rested with the Executive Government, who decided that the sittings should be field. His Honor was under-tood to say that it was by no means cer tain that they would be continued hereafter, but that some other tribo

cal—something like the District Court—having large jurisdiction, might be held instead. His Honor then addressed the jury on the pro eeedings of the day. There were, he said, three cases, each of a peculiar nature, though, apparently, not BO difficult to decide. The first is a case of murder, though I need not go into the evidence. I I remind you that some provocation has been given, though it is not the provocation to shield the prisoner. The next case is a charge of arson. This ease is not one of that kind where the life of another is attempted, and has considerable peculiarity about it. The third case is—assault with intent. If some of the evidence could be believed it is clear enough. That the woman has been examined and found to have been severely treated, shows that some assault must have been committed Other testimony shows that though she is a prostitute she re* fused to permit him to deal with her, and he had ultimately forced bis 1 would remind you that it is not for the Grand Jury to try the cases before it, but to consider whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to prove any guilt. If the Supreme Court be Continued to be held here, I will impress on the Government the necessity for a proper building te be erected. » With these few remarks I will ask you to retire to your room. The Common Jury were now called and sworn in due form, only one being challenged. His Honor asked the members of the bar if they had any application to mpke in the civil cases. 'Mr DeLatour replied that in the ease of Tuts Nihoniho v. Ward, the L defendant had betn called to Auckland to appear at the Supreme Cotfrt. He would therefore ask to have it adjourned. Granted. His Honor here mentioned that he would sit in chambers at 9.45 this morning; the court would therefore be adjourned till 10.30. He would thus be in Chambers three-quarters of an bout.

The Grand Jury now returned, and the foreman announced that they hud found a true bill against James M'llldoe, who stood charged with assault with intent. The prisoner, James MTlldoe, was arrainged before the Court, aud pleaded not guilty. Mr DeLatour appeared on behalf of the prisoner. Mr Nolan, acting as Crown Prosecutor, now rose and addressed the Court, stating that they (the Jury) had heard the indictment read. The ’ prisoner was charged with two ofences, and he felt certain that the one arose out of the act of the other. They had heard the charges, and he hoped the jury would come to a decision without trouble, as he thought they were competent. He would now call Marian Prangley, who gave evi. dence to the same effect as that which has been already published. Cross-examined by Mr DeLatour— My name is Mrs Prang’ey; I have ► been married twice; my second husband’s name was Mickey; my professional name is Mrs Prangley. My second huaba' d is living; I was married to him in Auckland by the registrar; I am not with him now because 1 wanted a change. The certificate of her second marriage was here produced, which witness acknowledged, also a letter which she declared was from the stepson of her second husband, Mickey. Examination continued— Mickey’s sons receive all his letters, and reply to them. No one lived with me in that house; 1 have two gentleman boarders staying with me ; on the night in Suestiou when the two men came, I id not call on the two boarders because I did not think they were in. The Court here adjourned till two o’clock. On resuming at two o’clock, Mrs Prangley's cross - examination was continued:—The other man who came with prisoner that night was named Jeffreys ; I had seen him about a week or a fortnight before ; men have' not been in the habit of calling on me at night ; there was only one bottle of whisky in the house at the time; it was under the sofa; prisoner went for a bottle of whiskey, and he brought one back; I do not know whether he went for any more ; when the bottle was brought, I got the corkscrew ; I don’t know who opened it; I would not take any because I was afraid it was drugged; 1 had one glass of whiskey before I went to bed ; I was afraid of a row in the house, or I would have called one of my boarders named Worgan ; I thought I could get them away quietly; I first knew Mr Worgan about three days before this affair ; I did not speak to him first before I saw him in the street; he was with me on the night of the row; one man came with him, he was his friend; I did not know him ; I cannot say what resistance I used when these two first came; I am in the habit of locking both the doors of my house. I locked the front and intermediate doors on the night in question, but not the back door. When I rushed out of the room after they had been worrying me, I fell on she floor near a portmanteau. Mr Worgan carried me back to my room. I was insensi ble, and did not ask him to remain with me. I know the person strug gling with me when I recovered, by hi* voice and *ize. In the froot room Jeffreys was as bad as the other. On

the following Wednesday I called in Medical aid. Mr boarders did not know I required assistance. No female came to mOj because they did not know I required assistance. I have never had the flashing light in my eyes before The space between my door and the street door is about six feet. There are two tables in the room—one against the wall, the other in the centre of the room. I leave the window open Of a right; it was open that night. When Mcllldoe went for the whisky, I asked Jeffreys to leave. He said he would. Before Mr Worgan came in, I threatened them with a pistol. Mr Worgan took my statement when I was sick. Dr Leggatt: My name is A. J. Leggatt. 1 know Mrs Prangley. 1 remember when 1 was called to see her. It was on the 31st inst. I found her in bed with two black eyes, and her back was considerably swollen. There were bruises on both thighs, on the calves of her legs, also on the shins. The bruises on her thighs must have been inflicted by something large. 'The other bruises looked like kicks. Her back seemed more of a sprain than a blow. To His Honor: The bruises must have been caused about two days or so before.

G-. B. Worgan was now called, and gave his evidence, which has been pre viously published; and on this evi dence Mr DeLautour cross examined the witness as follows: The other native must have come in by the back door. I don’t think anyone else came in that way. The native went into the front room. (How I be. came acquainted with Mrs Prangley was because I had been informed by a friend that she required informa’ on about Opitiki. Seeing me in the street one day, she came to me aud asked me if my name was Worgan. I did not go there that day, but the day following. I took some friends with me, and stopped there two hours. Mrs Prangley had a bottle of whisky, and I had a glass. Austin was there. I went there one evening ; it was late ; I went in at the back door, which was open. I did not knock. The sofa in the house has its head towards the chimney. I lay down on this after I had assisted Mrs Prangley after she was assaulted. On her asking me not to leave her, I went and lay down, after locking the doors. After a short timd I heard footsteps on the verandah. I went into Mrs Prangley’s room, and saw a man’s hand protrud ing through the window. I shut down the window. When I came out I saw a man standing in the parlor against the wall. I cannot say now he got in, unless through the back door, which was open I then went out to get help. lam a native agent. I used to be an interpreter My license was suspended. 1 have been in goal for forgery, which I never committed. On coming back after going out for help, I entered the house and struck a light. (What follows is unfit for publication.) I should say the prisoner was drnnk, though he knew what he was about. He offered to fight me- She did not ask me to help her before the two men came, but she did afterwards. L. Humphries was now called, and gave evidence. Cross examined by Mr DeLautour: When Worgan first came to call me, a man named Jeffreys was with him. I went back with Worgan. 1 don’t think Jeffreys came with us. I saw Worgan twice. 1 had to put out Dickson’s and Page's lights before I went with him. This took consider able time.

Three witnesses, Sergeant Bullen, I'uta Nihoniho, and K. S. Jeffreys, were now called, and gave evidence, of which publicity has been given. This was the case for the prosecution.

In reply to His Honor, Mr De Lautour said hs would not call any witnesses.

Mr DeLatour now addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner as follows : —To your Honor and Gentlemen of the Jury—This case, though it may seem to have little or no trouble, has given trouble. The more evidence that is taken the more complicated does it become. First, there is the woman. I say no doubt she has suffered, and suffered much, still there are all kinds of possibilities which lay her open to assault. There is the prisoner’s accomplice who has just been examined. His evidence coincides more truly with the greater portion of the evidence adduced, than does any of the others. We have a house in Lowe-street, so well-known that people come there to solicit her to allow them to stay there, persons who were net respectable, and she admitted them. This was not correct, and this reflects on her, and her character has everything to do with it. Resist how she might you cannot look aside, and say the depravity of the woman has anything to do with it. I say it has. Worgan’s evidence is full of glaring discrepancies. According to him there were two Natives, whereas by the other statements we find only one. He says a hand was inserted through her bed-room window, and that he struck the hand. This also is a fabulous tale got up for the occasion, and so is all his evidence, and I say to you that it cannot be relied upon. Mrs Prangley feigns sublime unsciousness between the hours this act was said to be committed ; though, gentlemen, she remembers when it suits her. Unless sufficient evidence can be obtained about the bruises on her body, you cannot believe what she says. Dr Leggntt states that he examined her on Thursday morning, and she stated that it was on Wednesday, and also that they might have been done only 36 or 48 hours before. Then I say, apart from that, where has she, in her statament, shown that he struck her. She puts it off by saying she was semi-conscious, but knew him by his weight, size, and voice. The first charge brought is “feb nious assault with intent ” You cannot convict thia mau on this charge as if she was a virtuous and good woman, and which she apparently is not More pointed evidence is required. The major offence, that of c< mmon assault, will also have to be proved, and that ii more

doubtful than the other. You must accept the evidences of each ; you eannot>ccopt one and reject the other. You must either believe or disbelieve all the evidence, All I ask you is to deal justly with the prisoner, and if you do so I venture to say you will find him not guilty. His Honor asked would the indictment have to be altered, as her name was not Prangley really. Mr Nolan asked that it might be altered, and her proper name put in. Mr DeLautour objected to thisj and the name was left to stand as it was.

His Honor made the following remarks to the jnry : There are some difficulties in this case. You mdst come to a conclusion whether the injuries were caused at any other time than the night in question. Next, whether they were caused by the prisoner, and, third, were they caused with intent to ravish her, The evidence of Leggatt and Humphreys must be gone into by you. With regard to Worgan he is a bad character, and has proved himself so, and was associating himself with this woman. With regard to Jeffreys, you must bear in mind he is a friend of the prisoner’s, though I am of opinion that it is reliable. You must also consider the woman’s testimony, whether it is made up or not. You must see if her condition tallies with her evidence. Ail these matters you must take into your consideration, and decide upon them.

His Honor next proceeded to review the evidence, first of Mrs Prangley, calling attention to the many discrepancies, ana likewise to many admissions on her part ; and amongst other things her statement that no Maori was present during the whole of the time, whereas it was clearly proven that Tuta Nihoniho was there. Then, as to the assault, there was no evidence to show that an assault had been committed. Worgan’s evidence only went so far as to show that on assumption Mrs Prangley was a consenting party to the assault, if any really had been committed. It had been clearly shown that she bore marks, but whether those marks and bruises were the results of violence used by the prisoner, or of her falling about while under the influence of iquor, was for the jury to decide. Hie Honor then read over all the evidence bearing upon the point, aud then reviewed Worgan’s evidence, showing that some parts of it were corroborated by reliable witnesses—the latter portion by Sergeant Bullen. He next passed to the night watchman’s evidence, and drew attention to that part relating to his hearing screams, asking the jury to carefully consider whether the evidence on this point warranted them in assuming that an assault was being committed; or, on the other hand, whether the screams were not the probable results of a woman excited with drink. Jeffreys had given evidence, which had been amply corroborated, that the Maoris were present. If they thought Jeffries’ evidence reliable, then no assault had been committed ; but if they believed Worgan’s, an assault had undoubtedly been committed. It was a qtestion for the jury to decide. He had read the evidence over to them according to his usual custom, so as bring all the facts clearly before them. As to the second count in the indictment, there was no evidence whatever for them to consider. The matter now rested with them, and he hoped they would come to a just verdict.

The foreman of the jury, Mr Barry, quickly signified that the jury were agreed. Mr Greenwood, Clerk of the Court, put the question in the usual manner, as to their being agreed, and being answered in the affirmative, asked as to their finding, when the forman said M Not Guilty.” Upon hearing which, considerable applause was manifested in the court. His Honor remarked that the demonstration was a proof of the inadvisability of holding a Supreme Court here. Mr Nolan remarked that it was excusable as we had never had such an honor before.