DISTRICT COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1726, 11 April 1873, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward). Thursday, Apkil 10, William Stran?, a juryman who did not answer to his name, was fined 40a, unless cause shown. George Howell and Horomanu Pafu, ch-ir-.'ed with forcible entry into the ferry hou-e at WiT-r---ton, surrendered upon bail. Mr Macdonald appeared lor the accused, and said that the cn.se had been adjourned from last sitting of the Court because he having been retained for the defence, with the permission of the Crown, could not as Crown Prosecutor sign tlie indictment against his clients. The indictment had accordingly been sent to the Attorney-General, who, i however, declined to sign it ; and there being no indictment, Mr Macdonald applied that the pri soners be discharged. His Honor said that he had some doubts as to the power of the Court to order the discharge, as the case had never actually been before the Court in any way, no : indictment having ever boen signed. After some further argument, His Honor decided to order the discharge of the prisoners for want of prosecution. The accused were accordingly discharged. James O'Brien, charged with unlawfully wounding Malcolm Martin, at Oteramika, on 17th March last, pleaded guilty, but alleged as an extenuation that Martin had been attempting to take liberties with his wife. Mr Wade, for tho prisoner, explained that prisoner pleaded guilty under advice, but that the plea was inteaded to apply to the first count ofthe indictment only, unlawfully wounding, and not to the second, which alleged intent to do grievous bodily harm. The Crown Prosecutor said he would withdraw the second count, as the prisoner pleaded guilty to the ti-*st. His Honor asked whether there were any witnesses to character, or to prove the alleged provocation, but none were produced. His Honor said that it appeared from the depositions that the prisoner had been in a state of excitement from drink when the offence was committed. Fortunately no great injury seemed to have been done to the person wounded, but an assault with a lethal weapon, such as a tomahawk, was a very different matter from a common assault, and must be punished accordingly. Under all the circumstances, he thought justice would be vindicated by the imposition of a sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labor. Sentence accordingly. Alexander M'Lennon, charged with assaulting James Stott, pleaded not guilty. Mr Wade appeared for the prisoner. The evidence in this case was mainly a repetition of that which has already been placed before our readers in the report of the enquiry before the Resident Magistrate, which led to M'Lennan being committed for trial. The facts, as alleged by Stott, were that on Sunday, 23rd March, M'Lennan came to Stott's house, and demanded a pound which he said Stott owed him. Stott ordered him out of the house, when M'Lennan struck him on the head with a whip, felling him to the ground, and afterwards kicked him. M'Lennan then went away. One of Stott's children then fetched two neighbors, who dressed the wounds on Stott's head and put him to bed. Mr Wade, in cross-examination, endeavored to show that the whole affair was the result of a drunken row, but did not elicit anything very conclusive. Counsel having addressed the jury, and His Honor having summed up, the jury letired, and after an interval brought in a verdict of guilty of assault. One or two witnesses to character having been examined, the prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labor. IB* BANCO. Howard and others, appellants ; Barry and others, respondents. — This was an appeal from a decision of Mr Warden Woo I's, given on a case heard before him at Orepuki on the 27th March last. Mr Macdonald appeared for the appellants, who were complainants in the court below ; aud Mr Wade appeared for the respondents. On the case being called it appeared thit a minute of the decision, under the hand of the Warden, had been filed, in conformity with section 80 of the Goldfields Act, 1866. A copy of the evidence given at the hearing, also sigued by the Warden, was tendered by the counsel for the appellants as evidence of the proceedings in the court below. His Honor said that the copy in question could not be received as evidence unless by consent of both parties, without being proved in the ordiuary way as a correct statement of the evidence given in the Court below. Mr Wade, for the respondents, objected to receive the copy on the ground that if the Warden were present to prove its correctness, he would be subject to cross-examination, which might elicit that evidence had been given at the hearing of which he had taken no notes, or rejected altogether, believing it to be not material, whereas this Court might be of a diff rent opinion. It was then proposed to prove the correctness of the Warden's notes by putting* each witness into the box to prove what evidence he had given in the Court below. Tlie appellant, Thomas Howard, being sworn, recapitulated the evidence given by him at the original hearing to the best of his recollection, but on cross examination admitted that he could not recollect what replies he made on being cross-examined on that occasion. It then appearing that there were no means of arriving at the evidence given in the Court below, Mr Macdonald applied fbr an adjournment to the next sitting to enable him to subpoena the Warden. The further hearing was accordingly adjourned to the next sitting of the Court. In the course of the argument His Honor and both counsel adverted to the very great difficulty experienced in carrying appeals from the Wardens' Courts in consequence of the imperfections of the provisions of the Groldfields Act, 1866, relating to this matter, no means being provided - whereby the evidence heard in the Warden's Court should be submitted to the consideration of the superior Court.