SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 20, 11 December 1883, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

His Honor Judge Prendergast.) The sittings of the above Court commenced yesterday morning before Chief Justice Prendergast. Early in the morning large numbers of people began to congregate in the precincts of the Court, and as ten o’clock drew on, Custom House Street presented an appearance such as never before witnessed Ou the opening of the doors the Court speedily filled, Natives predominating. About 10 o'clock the Court was ■ormally opened in the R.M. Court and adjourned to McFarlane’s Hall The gathering at the solicitors’ table was numerous, and we noticed Messrs. H. J. Finn, Brassey, Nolan, Whitcombe, Rees, Tyler, Ward. Turton, and Kenny. At 10.30 his Honor tue Judge took his seat on the Bench, and the Grand Jury were called in the following order:— J. W. Johnson (Foreman), W. Adair, C. D. Bennett, C. P. Browne, C. A. Brown, W. Common (not present), W. F. Crawford, A, W. Croft, C. Hepburn, W. Graham, J. W. Johnson, A. Kempthorne, W. Maude, J. W. Matthews, J. R. Morgan, F. J. Oxley, A. Parnell, C. D. Pitt, W. Ratcliffe, C. Seymour, W. Smith, C. Smith, W. H. Tucker, J. H. Walker, J. Warren, C. Westrup. The jury were then duly sworn. • CHARGE TO GRAND JURY, k His Honor then addressed the Grand ■fury, stating there were six cases for consideration. It was necessary tha the should give them some guidance. Their duty was to ascertain whether there was sufficient to justify putthe case before a common jury. It was necessary to enquire into what Vwbe the defence unless it should appear froiw the evidence that the party was not guilty. When this was the case they would not find a true bill. There were some questions as to defence into which the Grand Jury need not go, such as libel. In such a case the Grand Jury had only to say whether the matter was defamatory to the person i who was said to be libelled. This case of alleged libel was contained in a paper called Facts. The bill to be laid before them charged this article as defamatory of Mr Rees, a solicitor. His Honor had read the article and it appeared to him that it did impute to Mr Rees—supposing he was in particular transactions mentioned—conduct of a criminal kind. If they were of the Awne opinion they ought to find a true bill. ■They would have to determine whether Mr was an agent in this matter and whether the article imputed such conduct to him. The article appeared to impute to Mr Rees that he induced certain Natives to commit perjury, and that he was a party to fraud. If they thought this they would find a true bill. Th*»y would have to consider whether the article was published by the defendant. His Honor then read certain portions of the articles, and called the jury’s attention to the part wh«re Mr. Hees was called by name as the Company’s agent. he imputation was fraud and perjury. Any lalik’ uaKe wl ?ich imputed conduct of a discredit ft ble kind, or was calculated to lower peraoiib Me estimation of others, was a libel. Hiat particular case there wa« imputation, and therefore it was their duty tonud a true bill. With regard to the case of attempted nipe, there were matters in the case which need not trouble them. If they were satisfied that the man made the attempt against the woman's will they should find a true bill. In the ch.arge of maliciously killing a lamb, they had to consider whether the act was intentional or not, and decide accordingly. As to the charge of riot, if three or more persons assembled together, agd conducted themselves in a turbulent and unlawful manner calculated to create terror in others present, then the law said that was riot. They would have to consider whether the conduct of the persons charged—five in number—was calculated to create terror in those who were present, and if so t hey would find a bill. If they were acting in a disorderly and turbulent manner calculated to create terror in others that was w.ithin the meaning of the term. The jury then retired. The common jury were then called and sworn.

The foreman of the Grand Jury now attended before his Honor and complained that they were unable to get the witnesses before them. The witnesses had been called, but without avail? His Honor the attention of the prosecuting to this ; and if the witnesses were not in attendance the prosecution must bear the responsibility if the Lbill was thrown out. Mr H. E Kenny asked the Court whether it would take the jury cases first and was lanswered in the affirmative. / In answer to a question his Honor stated I that he would sit in Chambers on Thursday ' morning. Constable Farmer was now called forward and sworn as to serving Mr W. Common as a grand juror, which having been done his Honor fined Mr Common £5 for nonattendance. RIOT. True Bills were found against the five Natives charged with riot named as folio ws Horemea Turanta, Te Naera Whakekura, Erueti Wharekura, Peta Mutu, Petuera Hekapa, all of Waiapu. • Mr. Carroll was sworn in as interpreter, and the charge interpreted to prisoners. Mr. Whitcombe, who appeared fur the Natives, pleaded guilty, and stated that the witness for this case belonged to the W- same hapu as the prisoners, and had told them to come and take the instruments.

They only acted under the impression that a wrong was being done to them. ■ Mr. Nolan, for the prosecution, would not Eress for any severe penalty, and as they ad already been punished he would only ask that the prisoners be bound over in substantial bond. His Honor said he had read over the evidence and thought the ends of justice would be served by binding the prisoners over in the sum of £5O each, to come up for judgment when called upon. The prisoners having been bound over, promised never to come before the Court again, and were discharged. BEASTIALITY, McEwen, with several aliases, was placed in the dock, and charged with the above offence. Mr. Nolan for the prosecution, and Mr. H. E. Kenny for the defence. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. All females were ordered out of Court. Mr. Nolan, in addressing the jury, said they had heard the horrible offence read which the prisoner stood charged with. He would now call Anaru te Kahako, who gave evidence as to the act, the details of which are totally unfit for publication. Mr. H. E. Kenny cross questioned this witness at considerable length. Margaret Dalton and Henare Kaiwai also gave evidence which proved immaterial to to the case.

Sergeant McGuire gave evidence as to the arrest of prisoner, and his statement. Mr. Kenny asked that the prisoner’s statement, made before the Magistrate, might be read at this stage. Mr. Nolan not objecting, his Honor ordered the same to be read, a!; the same time informing the jury that it was not placed before them as evidence, but merely as a statement. This having closed the case for the prosecution, Mr. Kenny addressed the jury in a most eloquent appeal, setting forth the enormity of the offence and the ne essity for abundant proof before adjudging a human being guilty of such a heinous crime. He went step by step through the evidence, and showed that the charge rested entirely upon the unsupported evidence of one single witness. Ag-inst this there was the statement of the prisoner, who had plainly stated that he had to ford the Waiapu river, and went into the whare to wring his clothes, which were wet through. The learned gentleman then drew attention to the improbability of the prisoner, under those circums'anc-s, committing the crime of which he stood changed. He also begg-d the jury to remember the awful pow>*r they would plac* in the hands of Natives by finding the prisoner guilty of this crime upon the unsupported testimony of one Native, and dre»» attention to the position which isolated Europeans would be placed in. as they would b« entirely at the mercy of any Native. Mr. Kenny next called attention to the fact that the prisoner never made any attempt to escape, and he could not possibly imagine why the prosecution had thought fit to attach a number of aliases to the prisoner’s name, as he had never made one single attempt to deny or change his name. In conclusion he appealed to the jury to dismiss this persecuted and unhappy man, without a stain upon his character. His Honor could not see any room for doubt in the case, but that was matter for the jury to consider. T e pros cutioa relied mainly upon the confirmatory evidence of Sergeant McGuire. Margaret Dalton had denied a portion of the statement made by prisoner. In some instances it was necessary to receive the testimony of Maori witnesses with great caution, but in this cas« he saw no reason to doubt the evidence given. They could have the p iaouer’s statement to consider, but it was not to be taken as evidence. The jury then retired. After an absence of nearly three hours the jury returned into court with a verdict of “ Guilty of attempt.” The prisoner will be brought up at 10 o’clock this morning for sentence. The Grand Jury handed in the following letter to His Honor Sir James Prendergast “ The Grand Jury respectfully draw your Honor’s attention to the urgent need of a Supreme Court building and offices being erected in Gisborne without delay, the present temporary premises not being adequate for the proper conduct of the business of the Court. The Grand Jury further beg your Honor will represent this urgent need to the Government.—For the Grand Jury, J. Woodbine Johnson, foreman.” His Honor said that as it appeared that the Court would sit there periodically it was necessary that some provision be made for a building. He would take care that their communication should be forwarded to the Colonial Secretary, and no doubt it would receive the proper attention. On the application of Mr Kenny, the case of alleged libel, Rees v. Kerr, was adjourned, by His Honor, until the next sitting of the court.