AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) Auckland, March 21.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 196, 26 March 1887, Page 4 (Supplement)

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) Auckland, March 21.

The usual quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court for gaol delivery wer° opened at 10 o'clock this morning.

THE GRAND JURY. The folio wing gentlemen were empannelled as the Grand Jury :— William Buchanan, John Frederick Churton, Chat lea Edward Cooke, Samuel Harding, Arthur Heather, Alfred Edward isaaca, Cottenham Kingsford, William Lirabert, William Swinton Laurie, Daniel Henderson Lusk, jAuaes Macfarlane, David Nolan, Henry Olive, Samuel Vaile, William Ware, Charles Williamson, William Scott Wilsou, and Thomas Charles Williamson. Archibald Clark and Henry W illiam Heath were aieo called, but did not appear. Mr Buchanan was chosen foreman.

THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. Hia Honor delivered the following charge to the Grand Jury : -Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, — I regret to hnve to commence my charge by having to express my concern that through a mistake of the Registrar you should have been brought here earlier than usual, more especially on the present occasion, when, I am happy to cay, there is less occasion for a lengthened sitting on our part than has lately been the case. lam very happy to be able to congratulate you on the brief number of cases that will have to be brought before yon at the present sitting. I am told that there are seventeen charges in all, but four or five of these charges are against the came individual, and there are no charges of a very heinous description. Some of them are serious enough, but they are serious enough also. As 1 have just said, there are 17 charge?, and three of them are cases of assault and robbery. Of the latter, there are but one or two cases of a serioue nature. In one of these, however, v>z , the case of Regina v. King, Hardy, and Coleman, the evidence as to the assault is one of the %iiohtesb description. Ifc appears that the prosecutoi (Hughes) comee ashore from the Kotomah ma with 25 sovereigns in his possession, be^ires some gold dust in a pouch. He get^ drunk very early in the morning, and ia subsequently found insensible in a vacant lot, where he lies until King and Coleman Come up and relieve him of hi 3 money. These two men upon being arresttd acknowledge their share in the crime, but the third prisoner does not. The evidence against him is simply that he was there at the time the robbery was probably committed. But, from the evidence, you will have very little difficulty in deciding whether he was one of the party that committed the robbery. The next case is that of Regina v. Ellis, Small, and Smith— a more serious case than the last. It appears that the prosecutor in this case was wandering about town all day, getting drink wherever he could, and that conee quentiy he must have been considerably intoxicated by the time it is alleged the offence was committed. He is corroborated by a most disreputable witness named Doyle After hearing these two men, it. will be for you to say whether, on Buch evidence, you can find a true bill, remembering, of course, that a privia faqic case is all that is needed to enable you to do co. The next case is that of Regina v. Gordon Forbes. In this case the prisoner i« ■jbarged V'^b assaulting and robbing Lhas Sinclair, mate of the Rose Casey. I*, appears from the evidence thatprieoner and prosecutor had been driving about and drinking the whole morning, and that the prosecutor was so intoxicated at the time the offence is alleged to have been commit ted that it would hardly be cafe to tru-t to his evidence alone. But ac the prisoner is allegod to have eaid to anothor witur*B named David Stewart that he had succeeded in getting the prosecutor's watch and chain, you will probably have very little difficulty in deciding that case alao. Tho next, ca s o —one of perjury against one Conrad -may take you some time. The caee appears simple, but where Maoris are concerned you can always depend upon a lengthened examination. It appears that one Williamson allowed certain Maoris to dig for gum on bis land upon conditions which were stated upon tickets which were given to them and translated to them by the prisoner. Disputes subsequently arose bs tween Williamson and the Maoris, and in the course of examination [ before the R M. the prisoner swore that he had no know ledge of any arrangement or of any tickets passing from Williamson to the Maori*. If theee facts are proved you will have no difficulty in finding a true bill. The troubio will come afterwards when the case is bofore the petty jury. The next case is ono of forgery'of cheques, against a man named Schollin. The facts are very simple, the only thing striking in it beiim that both the cheques alleged ho have been forged by the prisoner were readily cashed, although irregular in form One of them was not made payable to tho bearer, and the amount of the other wafilled in by numbers only. One would have thought that, in view of the numerous cases of this offence that have been befuro the Courts in all parts of the colony, in which forged cheques were cashed, pome measure of suspicion and caution would have been produced on the part of the cashiers ; but this does not appear to be the caee, and consequently they have to suffer. I truct that tradesmen will be more careful in future. There are three cases of larceny —one of them being tthat of a revolver from a man named Butler. The prisoner appears) to have been at hiß place on the 21st January, the revolver waß missed after his departure, and was found on him when arrested two day a later. Now, when stolen property is found on one, as you are well aware, the rule of the land is for him to account for its possession, or otherwise the presumption of the law is that he is the thief. The next case Is Regina v. Lotfc, in which the prisoner is accused of stealing, and afterwards attempting to paes off in payment for drink, a coin which he is told is counterfeit. A? the prisoner acknowledges his guilt, you will have no difficulty with this case The next caee is Regina v. Coxhead for hone stealing. It appears to be one of the moat intricate cases that have come before the Court A man named Stephens says he turned the horse out on hie run on the 7th November, and failed to find it next morning. On the 13th January it was recognised at Hunter and Nolans sale, where it had been put by the prisoner, Moreover, on the 12th November, or five day* after the horso is alleged to have been stolen, it was entered by the thief for the Onehunga races. That is carrying impudence to the highest possible point. The presumption, of course, is that the possessor of the missing horse is the thief. Kegina v. McNair, the next case, is one of larceny of a boat. The prosecutor, William Wallace, left the boat at Lucas's Creek on the 18th January, and the same day Robert Ridley saw the prisoner on board of her, On the 18th February, when the prisoner was arrested, he Acknowledged that the boat was in his pos-

cession, and produced certain gear belong* ing to her. You will, therefore, havo no difficulty with this case. The other case of larceny is the theft of a watch, and is of the very simplest kind. There is one case of unlawfully and maliciously wounding, in which a woman is charged with severely wounding her husband. It appears that a domestic dsstuibance took place, and both parties being drunk, the wife wounded her hubband with a knife which he used to cuttobacco. The evidence is clear and presents no difficulty. The last case is one of attempted suicide by an unfortunate woman named Jane Homo. She states that she was driven to the act by a bad husband. lam afraid there are a j,reat many b.id husbands about, and of course it the man in this case deliberately drove his wife to attempt suicide, he ie probably as much to blame as she is, although the law will not touch him. The case offers no difficulty. The Grand Jury thoa retired. True Bills.— The grand jury found true bills in tho following cases :— Catherine Jones, unlawfully wounding; Thomas King, Peter Hardy, and Charles uoloman, assault und robbory ; Robert Can*, larceny; Jano Home, attempted suicide ; James Richardson Lett, uttering counterfeit coin : Wm. Anderson, larceny from a dwelling ; Archibald McNair, larceny. Unlawfully Wounding — Catherine Jones was oharged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding George Jones, with intent to do grovious bodily harm, on the 9th January, 1887. Prisoner pleaded guilty of committing tho i offence in her own defence. Hi's Honor reI marked that it was equivalent to a plea of not guilty and the jury were accordingly empannelled — George Jones, labourer, Tauranga, deposed that tho accused was his wife, and they were living together on the 9th of January last. Both of thorn were the worse for liquor and they quarrolled. His wife got in a passion and tried to strike' him with a table knife, but witness provontcd her, and in doing so he fell against the knife. Dr James Muiar deposed to attending to tho lust witness's wounds on the arm. One wound was 2+ inchoB long and half an inch deep. There was another wound throe inches long and two inches deep. There was also a contused wound on the little finger and a punctured wound on the head. Hart not prompt, action been taken lie believed that Jones might have bled to death.— Constable Jonas Abrams doposcd to wit ne&sing a portion of the assault. Saw prisoner push her husband out of the house and threaten to murder him if he again entered the house. Witness bitcnalled to Sergeant Cahill and they arrest.d the woman, who said that Jones was not iher husband, that he had frequently beaten her and that what she had done had been done in Belf-dcfence. Both tho complainant and accused wore under the influence ut liquor at tho tune.— His Honor briefly pointed out; that the wounds were the result of a drunken row. and said that the duty of the jury w ould ue tv consider whether or not the wotinns had been given in so'f-defencc. If •■ they lound that they had bo#n given in selidefenee, then they were entitled to acquit the prisoner. Thejury then retired for a few minutes and upon returning, found a verdict oi not guilty. Tuc Judge then discharged the prisoner, merely recommending that next time she had a domestic dirference, s>he should restrict herself to tho-e- weapons with which nature had piovided her. Stl mjnc? from the Pkhsox.— Thomas King, Peter Hard} .and Charles Colcnian were charged with the larceny of £25 in cash, and 10 ounces of gold dust, the property of John Hutches, on tho 20th January. Prisoners pleaded not guilty. The evidence of John Hughes showed that he arrived in Auckland from Kimberly on the loth January, having in his parcel 25 sovereigns and I 10 ounces oi gold dust. He knocked about town a bit on the 20ih instant He met the prisoners and they got drinking together with the usual result, that Hughes got oblivious, and afteri wards tound that he had lost his money.—Andrew Anderson deposed to seeing the last witness 1> ing on a vacant allotment in Swauson-street. He saw the three prisoners'trying to lift him up. Hardy called witness to come over. He did so, and Hardy asked witness to get Hughes a bed in the house until he was sober. Witness refused. He heard Hardy say, "I would not like to see that man robbed 4 he's got plenty of money on him." — David Gordon corroborated the last witnes&es's evidence. — Detective Hughes deposed to seeing Hardy in Albert-street at 12.30 o'clock on the 20th January. He took him into the Foresters' Arms, and in company with Detective Walker searched him. They found I7s 9d upon him. As Hardy was drunk they locked him up, and when he was sober they charged him with the oftence. After the prisoners were committod for trial witness in company with Detectives Walker and Doolan searched Lewis's stable yard in Upper Queen-street, on the 29th of January, and discovered 11 sovereigns wrapped in a piece of canvas. Detective Doolan doposcd to arresting the prisoner Coleman. Next morning Colcnian told them that I King robbed the man of £8, gave him two and Hardy three. He also said he saw Hardy with the gold dust. King also sent for the detectives, and stared that he robbed Hughes of £6 and divided tho money as previously stated. Detcctnc Walker also corroborated thisfatatenieni.—George Restou, chief gaoler, deposed that on tho 29th January the prisoner Hardy expressed a wish that Hughes should get his money buck, and told witness that he thought Coleman would tell where the money was planted. Coleman was called into the ofilce and explained wheie the money was hidden. King also confirmed Coleman's statement.— The prisoner Hardy stated that he never received any of the prosecutor's money.— Hie Honor briefly pummed up the evidence, after which the jury returned a verdict of guilty without retiring from the box —His Honor sentencedthe prisoners to 18 months' hard labour, remarking that they evidently belonged to a dangerous class. LmcENY —Archibald McNair pleaded guilty to the larceny of a boat, accordeon, and 2s in cash. Mr Theo. Cooper slated that he appeared fur the youth, and pleaded that he was weak in intellect, still he was responsible for his action 1 -. He would 'however ask" for a lenient sentence to be inrtic'ed as tho prisoner had given every assistance to the police in recovering the pioperfy. He considered that the prisoner was not in possession of tho highest order of intellect. His Honoi bentenced the prisoner to six months imprisonment with hard labour. Lahcl'nv kkom a Dwelling.— William Anderson was charged with tho larceny of one lilver watch and one gold chain the property of John Peterson, on the 28th of January. Prii our pleaded guilty. His Honor remarked that lust sessions this prisoner had escaped thanks to the absence ot the crown witness. He had however lobt no time in procuring another watch and had again been specially ungrateful. Ho was sentenced to tw o years' hard labour. CouxTHHiiKiT Coin.— James Richardson Lett pleaded guilty to attempting to pass a countcrj fcit sovereign on the 10th of February to Walter Stimpson. He stated that he was silly with drink at the time, or he should not have done it. -His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. AiTKMi v iisD Suicide.— Jane Homo pleaded guilty to attempting to commit suicide on the 22nd of January. The accused was dismissed upon obtaining bail for £25 to come up for sentence when required. She stated that she was driven to commit the offence by the ill treat1 meat of her hubhand. Larceny of a Watch and Chain.— Robert Carr v, as charged with the larcony of one gold watch and one gold chain at Otahuhu on the sth February, the property of Mary SteoJc.— Prisoner pleaded not guilty.— Tho evidence disclosed that tho prisoner stayed at Wills Hotel, Otahuhu, and tho watch and chain were taken from one of the rooms of the hotel. Subsequently the prisoner tried to dispose of the articles at Mr Mendelsohn's pawn office, Auckland. Tho juty brought in a verdict of guilty and the prisoner was sentenced <o 18 months' hard labour. Larceny ok a Watch.— William McCrcanor pleaded guilty to the larcony of a watch from his cnployor and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Forging and Uttkrinq.— Martin Schollin pleaded guilty to uttering a forged cheque at Otahuhu. Ho was further charged with proS.n 1 ing a forged cheque to one Thomas Usher, purporting to be signed by one Henry Butler, for the sum of £3. — Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Tho cvidonce disclosed that tho prisoner had been staying at Mr Butler's house. H-i loft ou the 21st of January, and the same day presented the choquo to Mr Usher, -the licensee of tho Papakura Hotel. The cheque had been taken from Mr Butchor's book. Tho sum was filled m bur. tho cheques were not signed. Henry Butler, farmer, Mangarewa, deposed that he had not signed the cheque Samuel Stowart Griffin also gave evidence. Martin Schollii«, who was charged with the above offence?, pleaded guilty to tho first charge, und was found guilcy in the last two He was aentenced to sevon yeara 1 penal servitude. Apsax7i.t with Jobbery.— Gordon Forbes was charged with aeeault'iDg aod robbing one Charles Siuclair, and taking from him £13 in cash, one watch nud chain^ one gold rompae--, one greenstone ornament, uud one meerschaum pipe, on the 26th of February. —Prisoner pleaded not guilty.— Charles Sinclair, mate of the Koee Casey, deposed that he was robbed of the money and articles aforementioned. Witness first met the prisoner in the Watomata Hotel. Forbes

got a cab, and witness, in company with another man namod David Stewart, went for a drive. They drank at two or three hotels during the drive, and witness cot pretty bad. Witness oould remember that Forbes was sitting with his arms round witness's neck, and sent the cabman for some drinks. He pulled For bee's hand out of his pocket and triad to prevent him from taking his watch and chain, whereupon Forbes struck him in the face two or three times, and then jumped out of the cab and ran away. — David Stewart deposed to seeing both the prosecutor and the prisoner striking one another in the cab.— John OBrien, cabdriver, deposed to being the driver o( the oab in question. He saw Forbes and Sinclair fighting in the cab. Witness told Forbes to stop, and then he (Forbes) got out and cleared to the Domain. He heard Forbes ask them at the hotel to put bn»ndy iv Sinclair's beer. He thought ifc looked bad.- John Sinclair, barman at the Waiteniata Hotel, also gave evidence.— Annie Barrett, on behalf of prisoner, deposed that he was with her on the Saturday morning. She took 11s 6d from his pockets i Did not find a watch and chain. They were living together in the same house. - Constable McConnell deposed to the prisoner voluntarily stating to him that if he got out of this he would see that Sinclair got his watch and chain back again. He also said that the prisoner only had £4 10a upon him, and "Spotty " gol that. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty. — His Honor, in passing sentence, remarked that it was quite clear from the evidence that the prisoner belonged to a gang that followed drunken men about for the purpose of robbing them. That alone was bad enough, but aa in the present case violence had bean added, the sentence would be five years' penal sorvitude. The Court resumed at 10 o'clock this morning, when Sergeant Gamble stated that ho had made inquiries and had learned that Mr Heath, who was pumrnoned for the Grand Jury, was in San Francisco. His Honor said that under the circumstance? Mr Heath would be excused. He also stated that Mr Clark would be excused, as evidence hnd been adduced to show that he wag iv Dunedin one week "before the summons was issued | Horse Stealing.— Jesee Cockhead was charged with the larceny of one gelding, tho property of Percy Edward Stevens, on November sth, 1886, atHamilton. — Prisoner pleaded not guilty.— Mr Govor prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Jackson Palmer appeared for . the defence. ~ Mr Govor, in opening, stated that tho prisoner had been seen at Hamilton abou>; the time the horse was stolen. He was subsequently seen in Parnell in poesession of the horse After this the horso was entered at the Onehunga races by tho prisoner on the 20th of November. Ho then trave hie name as Cochrane On the 10th December the horse was sold &~b Hunt6r and Nolans saleyards by a person named Cockhorn. It was again sent to tho saleyards, where it was recognised by Detective Tuohy and identified by prosecutor. —Percy Edward Stevens, Bchooi teacher, Hamilton, deposed that about tho sth of November he had two horses. The hor^u produced at the Police Court on the 14th ot January was last in his possession on tho s'h of November at Hamilton, when he turned it on the public run. He missed it on the following morning, and next saw it iv Hunter and Nolans saleyards on the 14tb January. — Walter Milli son, bootmaker, deposed that he knew the prisoner about two years ago in Paruell. Ho ulbo saw him at the Onehunga races. He had with him a bay horse, which he | called Warrior. He said he had got it from h's brother in-law sit Hamilton. The horee produced at the Police Court wa? the one prisoner had with him at Onehunga Charleß Walinutt,Secretary of tho Plumpton Park Jockey Club, deposed to the horse in question being entered for the OnoLunga races on tho 20th November, by a man named Cochruoe The horse was called " Warrior. ! " Could not identify the person or pertfomwho entered the hor^e. Witness knew the prisoner at Hamilton about 4 yeais ago — William Stewart, traveller for tho Stanleystreet Vinegar Work", deposed to the pre Boner engaging a stable from him, a^ be hnd a horee to train for the Ono hunga races. The prisoner stated that he intended to dispoee of the horse — Constable McConnell deposed to fetirig toe prisoner riding the horse at the Onehungj races. The horue produced at the Polict Court was similar to tho one in prisoner';? possession at the racecourse Could not sweor to it being tho same horse The prisoner said that the horse cavne from the Waikato, and cost £9. — Winter John Le Quesne, clerk afc T. aud 8. Morrin'B, deposed that he had known the prisoner for about 10, year*. Ho knew that the horee produced «fri the Police Court belonged to Mr Steven?, of Hamilton. He saw tho horse sold. — W illiaia McCullougb deposed that as letter carrier at Hamilton he had delivered letteirs to the prisoner They wore addressed •' Jesse Cochrane " The prisoner had told him that he ex pected letters so addressed. — Joseph Moody, horse-dealer, Mangare, dopoecd to purchasing the horse in question at Hunter and Nolans eale last December. Ho give £5 103 for the horse and 30s for the saddle and bridle. Did not buy it from the prisoner; it was another ycung man. - Charles Ransome, accountant at Hunter and Nolans, deposed to paying for a bay gelding The name given was Cockcrn Could not identify the prisoner - I Detective Tuohy deposed to identifying the horse at Hunter and Nolans ealeyards, and getting the prosecutor to recognise it. That horse was produced at the Police Court. Witness arrested the pri=oner the same day. He gave the name of Cockhead —This concluded the case for the pro-ecu-tion. — The first witness for the defence was Mrs Anne Evereed,ststor of the accused. She deposed that her brother was a jockey and horee trainer. He had not been in the Waikato since the end of October. She went to the train to meet him. Was cure it was about a week before Guy Faw ken Day. — Both counsel then adclresfed the Cjurt at some length, after which the judge briefly summed up Aitiv being out for some time the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and Hit Honor sentenced the prisoner to thrco years' penal servitude. Assault and Robbery.— Fred irick Ellis and William Small were charged with feloniously and violently steal ng from tho person of Henry Cuithbert the sum if 18s, aid also with assaulting the wd Henry Cuthbert on the 7th Janua r y, ISS7. • Both prisoners pleaded not guilty. — Mr Napier appeared! on behalf of tho prisoner Ellie, and Mr Gover conducted the prosecution. —Mr Govor, in opening, stated that this was another of thoRO cis.s whioh were directly the results of drink The prosecutor had been, going from hotel to hotel drinking, and thus got into b<vi company. At length he ie'iched Abercrombie-Htoreet. where he met the prisoners, who seized him round the neck with eufficient violence to leave marks. He then was either knocked or fell down, and he felt a band im his pocket. After-worrieherau-Eqd 18s, which he bad wrapped up in his pocket. Aejit was bright moonlight, he distinctly recognised the prisoners run- i ning away. The assault was also witnessed by a man named Doyle.— Henry Cuthbert,

gardener, Abercrombie-street, deposed to the assault and robbery as previously reported in the lower court. - John Boyle and John Keir also gave evidence for the proseoution. John Doyle deposed to seeing Ellis take Cuthbert by the throat, and also Small pat his hand in Cuthbert's pocket. He heard Cuthbert afterwards call out, " You eooundrels have robbed me." The scuffle took place in the passage off Aberorombie-staeet. Witness caw a man named Kerr looking out of a window from which he could see the assault.-— Crosi- examined by Mr Napier : He believed that a robbery was going on, but he did not interfere. Did not say in the lower Court that he had seen other robberies committed. [The evidence taken in the lower Court was here read, and showed that the witness had stated that he had witnessed several robberies, and said nothing about them.] John Kerr also gave unimportant evience.~Constable Kelso was present when the prisoners were arrested. He heard Cuthber, addressing Ellis, cay, " You ruffian, you assaulted me, and robbed me of 18s " Ellis replied, "I never saw you before in my life " When Ellis waß searched, only 3s 4d was found upon him.— This closed the case for the prosecution. — After Mr Napier had been addressing some time, he decided that it would be necessary to call the witneßa Charles Maok, as His ' Honor declined to allow bis deposition to go in as evidence This was accordingly done, when it was discovered that Mack was not in attendance. Mr Napier requested that a warrant ehould be issued forthwith. His Honor granted the request, and adjourned the caee for an hour to enable the police to hunt up the witness. After the lapse of about an hour and a half, however, the police failed in finding Charles Mack, and then he strolled into the Courtyard in the most unconcerned manner, and was run into Court by Detective Herbert. He was evidently under the influence of drink. His Honor asked him why he had not been in attendance, and his reply wos that he had not been paid ior attendance at the Police Court, and be had n wife and family to support. Bis Honor told him that he was not likely to bo paid now, and ordered him into the witness box. He then, in answer to Mr Napier, detailed a conver a atioo he had with tbe prosecutor. — Margaret Kerr, wife of John Kerr, Aber-cronabie-street, waa then called, and deposed that a day or two afl-er the arrest of the prisoners she ha'} n conversation with Cuthbert, and he told her be did not know the men who assaulted hits from Adam, and would not recognise them nt all, but he had a witness who did know th^m In answer to Mr Gover, witne-s s r ai she was a Mrs Sherry, and not tho wife of Kerr. — Detective Herbert was culled by Mr Gover to give rebutting evidence, a-_J deposed to the witneeo Mack having to)d him that when Ellin's brother Bob and Islr Napier asked him to give evidence, hs told them he would do them mure harm than crood, as anything he could cay would be against Ellis. — Both counsel then address:! the Court, after v. bich His Honor briefly summed up, pu/ntin^ oug that; the e\ i'ence for the Crown was of the clearest" prwdble descrip'ion The jury retired a' 555 o'clock, and at 8 30 returned to Oourt ft-id recorded a venlicfc of guilty.— His H^nor then sentencod both prisoners to seven years' penal feorvitude. Perjury.— A native named William Conrad wa3 charged with committing perjury in a case of trespass which was held at Mongonui R.M. Court on ihb 18th January, 1887, before Mr Henry Wedderburn Bishop, J.r. The prisoner appeared on behalf the prosecutor, Isaac Wxihamson, and swore that he never translated any document regarding a reservation of r^iit tv die: gum upon Isaac Williamsons properly, whereas it waa alleged that he di-i uanßlate the afortHjaid document, aad aha that he did know of the reservation and iko boundaries of euch reserves. — Mr Gover prosecuted on bahaif of the Crown, and Mr Theo Cooper appeared for the accueecs. Mr Hammond officiated as Court interpreter. — Mr Cooper stated that he baa a preliminary obj ction to raise that be thought might remit in the indictment b^mg qua«hed. It v/af <ha f the indictment did not show any jurisdiction of the Court in v»hich the case han been heard. Mr Cooper went on to say that ihe iadictinent did not disclose eny cfllnco known to the law. — His Elotior would see that the charge that was heard before the Magistrate was laid under the Police Offences Am, 1884, subsection 3, section 6, which related to wilfully trespassing after havit;£< been warned not to do to by the owner of the lan: i. It wasthis Acfc which and created the criminal offence of tre^pa'eiag, for befoio :nafc. property owners had their remedy ir> a civil action, There waa really no "uch orhace known to t o law as unlawfully trespassing upon another person'rf land Mr Cooper then quored a number of c<»s-.= in support of his contention, viz., Baxton v. Gouch, and a Ntw South Wales c-iae, Re-rina v. Arms'r'mg, which both hold tbai the witness's oath waa not indict ible if tho Court in \vh«ch ifc waa taken had no jurisdiction. Po'e>, on " Surntnaij Convictions," aleo luid ifc down that if a cbart^e falls short, f he ou,heion is not remedied by an allegation, no more than the legal intuenco which muet be supported by the premises. He submitted tnat the insertion of the word "unlawfully" did not create the perjury as signed upon an oath. Tne indictment set forth a charge unknown to tho Act, and an offence unknown to the law - His Honor asked Mr Gover why he had not copied the information. — Mr Gover replied that he had nothing to do with it, but it was evidently a lapse on the part ot Brme person. He drew His Honor's attention to the fact that the information k»j correctly Uid, but not coped ujon the indictment. — His Honor remarked that "unlawful" trespass had been inferted instead of *• wilful "—Mr Govtr said that the o'^ction waa no doubt a strong one. He would, however, a^k His Houor whether tne indictment could not be amended. — His Honor said that could not be done. It would be practically creating an mdi tment The Ciovtu must be ready with its indictment. —Mr Uover then asked that time might be allowed him in which to ook up the authcritied upon the matter. — His Honor remarked that would be keeping tho jurors of tho Court waiting, but con sen ted to allow Mr Guvcr IS minutes. — Upon returningto CourtMr Gover Srfid he was sorry to state that he could not discover any authorities which dealt differently with the question than those quoted by Mr i/O-p»r. Carpenter v. Mason was slightly different, but it did not go far enough, fie inusb admit that the authorities were against him, and would leave the matter in the hands of Hia Honor.— HU Honor said that at lea*t words must be used importing that trespass had been committed.—Mr Gover "aid unfortunately the words of the Act had mt b en uaed —Hie Honor paid that the indictment specified an i ffence from tho ppecial clauses of the Act, end " unlawfully " would not stand for 1 wilfully."- Mr Coop r sad that the matter pimply resolved itself iato the fact that Wi Hongi Ruini did not " unlawfully " trespass en leaac Wiiliatn3on'a land, and therefore the J.P, had no jurisdiction, so that the accused could not have committed perjury.— His Honor mid that he had no choice in the matter The words of the law were that " the magistrate may upon hearing an information for trespass,

but here practically no offence was disclosed. The case was really nonjudice, and therefore the Indictment mast bo quashed* —Mr Cooper then asked that the prisoner might be discharged. —Hie Honor said, "Certainly the prisoner will be discharged, bat it will be well for him tn remember that had he been convicted he would have been severely punished. Certmuly he has escaped by the ingenuity of bis counsel ' -The prisoner then left the dock and fcho criminal sessions terminated.