Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

Satukdav, June 8

[Before His Honor Judge Johnston.] Tine wauiath aksox cash. The case for the prosecution was not concluded until G. 45 p.m. Ho witnesses wore called for the defence. The addresses of counsel and the judicial summing up occupied two hours and a quarter. The jiuw were 50 minutes in arriving at their decision when they returned a verdict of “ not guilty ” against all the prisoners but intimating that (here were very grave suspicions against Clarke and Hayes. His Honor concurred with the verdict and added that it would bo as well that the suspicions which had been referred to should be made public. The prisoners were then discharged. THIS DAY. His Honor took his scat on the Bench at 10 a.m. ALLKGHI) I! A PH. Frank Fowler was charged with committing a rape on the person of Mary Kant, at Epworth, near Tcmuka, on the 18th day of May last. Mr Austin appeared on behalf of the accused.

Mr AVhitc appeared to prosecute for the crown, and at ouce intimated that he intended to cuter a nolle prosequi as he did not consider the case sufficiently strong to ensure a conviction.

The jury having been swornand ompannellcd 'pro form", were directed by His Honor t o find a verdict of “ not guilty.” The verdict having been returned accordingly the accused was discharged. CIVIL CASES. [Before a Common Jury.] Coll v. Quin. Damages £IOOO. Mr Perry and Air Harper appeared on behalf of the plain t iff*; Mr Hamershy appeared for the defendant. This was an action for trespass and the facts of the case were briefly as follows:—On Feb 25 last, the defendant Quin, and certain men iu his employment visited the property of (he plaintiff's at Makikihi, behaving in a somewhat violent manner, and interfering with certain harvesting operations that were going forward. Three days later, on February 28, they came again, broke down the gate of the paddock (as the plaintiff alleged) and forcibly removed a certain thrashing machine which they detained. The defendant questioned the plaintif’s right to the land, and on this ground excused his trespass.

[Left sitting.]

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SCANT18800614.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2259, 14 June 1880, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
357

SUPREME COURT. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2259, 14 June 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2259, 14 June 1880, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert