The Reporter.

Southern Cross, Volume 1, Issue 12, 17 June 1893, Page 9

The Reporter.

SUPREME COURT. The June sittings were opened at Invercargill on Wednesday, ITis Honour Mr Justice Ward presiding. There were only four criminal cases on the calendar, and the Grand Jury returned a true bill in each instance. Charles Williams, aged sixty-two, pleaded guilty to having killed a sheep at Chatton with intent to steal the carcase. He alleged that he hud been impelled to the act by hunger. Ho was sentenced to twelve months hard labour.—A young man named James Lumsden, who was brought back from Hobart, admitted having stolen property valued at £lO, and £IG 10s in money (the property of J. Ovenden), from the Princess hotel. He was sent to prison for six months. William Smith pleaded not guilty to having broken into a house in Gore and stolen two letters and a post card. After hearing the evidence the jury found the prisoner guilty, and His Honour awarded him twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour.—John 11 enry Hatton, for whom Mr Mccalister appered, denied a charge of having obtained goods to the value of £27s 12s from M. Fordo by false pretences. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the unsatisfactory way in which Fordo kept his books —Accused was sentenced to four months’ hard labour. The Court was occupied on Thursday with the case of Mary Brown v. James Brown, which came before His Honour in the form of an appeal. It will be remembered that some months ago Mrs Brown brought James Brown before the Police Court for alleged wife desertion. He repudiated the marriage, and the case was dismissed. She subsequently had him up again, this time calling further evidence, and on this second occasion the Magistrate adjudged Brown to be the husband of respondent; ordered him to be imprisoned for three months for wife desertion, and to contribute 5s per week towards her support. From this decision Brown, for whom Mr Brodrick appeared, now appealed. Mi Macalister appeared for Mrs Brown. — After hearing the evidence, His Honour said the case was one which was not by any means free from doubt, and he thought it a pitythat so heavy a penalty as three months’imprisonment had been fixed upon the man, as there might be some mistake. But he was asked not so much to give a decision himself as to over-ride what had already been decided. Mr Rawson had already decided the ease, and if he were to over-ride what had already been done he would require clearer light on the subject than the present inquiry had given him. They had there the woman swearing that she was the man’s wife, and the man swearing she was not. One disinterested witness came forward, said he knew both parties at Home, and that there Brown had personally admitted the marriage. Such evidence as given by this disinterested witness had been held as sufficient proof of marriage without further proof. The document handed in was a peculiar one, and was not what is ordinarily called a copy from a marriage register. Mr Brodrick suggested that the order should be varied so far as it related to imprisonment, but His Honour, after taking time to consider the matter, stated yesterday that he had no power-to do so, although he regretted under the circumstances that imprisonment had beenfordered. The appeal was dismissed, with costs. The question of whether the defendant, who had been out on bail, should be sent to prison was raised, but it was pointed out in terms of his bail-bond he was required to appear before the R.M. within ten days from the hearing of the appeal, and he was allowed to go. His Honour suggested that the Magistrate should be asked to withdraw that part of the order relating to imprisonment.