SUPREME COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 592, 16 November 1866, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

» CRIMINAL SITTING-?, (Before His Honor Judge Chapmas.) THURSDAY 16th NOVEMBER. His Honor the Judge took his seat at ten o'clock. Upon the names of thft jurymen being called over several werQ Pound absent, and proceedings were delayed. After waiting for some minutes. His Honor expressed regret that the gentlemen summoned for the Grand Jury did not appear to realize their responsibilities, and it was his duty to fine those who were absent. Several names which had not been answered to were again called, and each gentleman was fined £5. A jury, after some delay, was formed — the absent ones slowly dropping in, and pleading in extenuation that the change in the place for holding the Supreme Court had not received sufficient publicity, and they had gone to the old building which had caused the delay. A jury having at length been obtained, his Honor the Judge made the usual charge. He said — " Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, upon this occasion I have very little to say, further than to congratulate you upon the very small amount of crime in this province. It is exactly six months since I last presided in this court, and during the whole of that time only one case has arisen that will require your consideration. It is a case of stealing from the person, and I think the evidence to be adduced to be very clear, and that you will have but little difficulty in arriving at a conclusion." Having glanced at the nature of the case and the evidence to be adduced, His Honor continued : — " Since the last sitting of the Supreme Court criminal jurisdiction, a change in the law has been made, and by an Act of the General Assembly it is now provided that the Foreman of the Grand Jury, or any juryman presiding for the time, may administer the oath to witnesses. The I witnesses called therefore will not be sworn as heretofore in open Court. In conclusion I wish to impress upon your minds the necessity of being punctual in your attendance upon these occasions. Such delays as have been experienced to-day might prove of considerable importance ; it might prevent the closing of the Court before the next vessel sailed for Otago, and necessitate my remaining here a fortnight doing nothing, and create great public inconvenience." The jury then retired. After about twenty minutes consideration, the Grand Jury reported a true bill against James Austin. Stealing from the Peeson. queen t. austin. James Austin was placed in the dock, being charged with having on the 17th October feloniously stolen from the person of John Church certain monies and properties, viz : — £45 in bank notes', and £50 in cheques, on the 17th October, at Orepuki. He pleaded not guilty. Mr Macdonald prosecuted for the Crown. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case as against the prisoner, and called the following witnesses : John Church examined : I am a baker residing at Orepuki, I remember Wednesday, the 17th October, on that day I wa3 at M' Gee's accomodation-house, I went there by myself but the prisoner followed me in half an hour ; we were playing cards and had something to drink, I had with me a bag containing notes and cheques to the amount of £95, I fell asleep with my head resting on the table, the prisoner appeared to do the same. Sometime after Mr M'Gee aroused me, inquiring if I had lost anything when I found the bag had been taken from my pocket, M'Gee told me he believed that the prisoner had taken it, in a short time the prisoner came in, an\d the prisoner was charged with having taken the money, and after sometime he went with Mr Williams, a witness, to show where he had planted it. I identify the bag and the cheques now in court as mine. Cross-examined by the prisoner : I did not give you the money to take care of for me, I do not recollect your asking me for the loan of £7. Thomas M'Gee. — I am an accommoda-tion-house proprirtor at the Orepuki ; I remember Wednesday, the 17th October ; on that day .the prosecutor and the prisoner were at my house ; between 8 and 10 o'clock in the morning they both laid their heads upon the table and appeared to go to sleep, I went out to the bootmakers, and when I came back, I lay down on the counter to rest ; in a little time I was roused by hearing the prisoner speaking to the prosecutor, and then quietly leave the house. I then arose and awoke the prosecutor, and inquired if. he haftl lost anything, after searching his pockets he said he had lost a bag containing notes and cheques to the value of £95. I told him the prisoner had taken them, and when he (Austen) returned we charged him with it ; the prosecutor and prisoner came to high words, and blows were struck; two neighors, Craser and Williams at this time came down. Cross examined by the prisoner. — The prosecutor was drunk and asleep ; I v do not recolleot your having asked Church for the loan of £7, but you did ask me to advance it to purchase a share in a claim. Henry Craser, miner. — I remember the 17th October. On that day I saw the prosecutor and prisoner fighting at M' Gee's j I and my mate Williams parted

thorn j and finding out the cause of the dispute, we urged upon tho prisoner to »iYe up the money ; ho denied that he "hiicl taken it, but after sometime he said it' wo would go with him he would show where it was ; wo went into the scrub and the prisoner took from behind the scrub the bag, notes, and cheques. The bag now produced in Court is the same. The police were sent for. ' Sergeant Morton. — I recollect the morning of Wednesday, the 17th. October ; from information received I went to M'Gee's accommodation-house ; I saw there the previous witnesses. The bag now in Court was handed to me as that which had been stolen from Church. The prisoner was not there ; a search w.as instituted, and in a short time he waa taken and handed over to me ; about an hour after the arrest he said to me, I did take the money. This closed the case for the Crown. The prisoner upon being asked if he had any defence to set up, he said " The money was entrusted to me to take care of by the prosecutor, and being myself a little in liquor I planted it for safety. I am not guilty of stealing it. The jury without retiring, found a verdict of guilty. His Honor in sentencing the prisoner, commented upon the absurdity of his persisting that he was not guilty, when the evidence and his own admissions proved the contrary. As it appeared to be the first offence, he should pass a light sentence, viz. : — 12 months imprisonment, with hard labor.