SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1442, 17 December 1885, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Timaru, Tuesday, December 15th.

[Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Williams.] His Honor took his seat at 10 a.in.

LARCENY FROM A DWELLING, Albert Hoskins was charged with stealing £6 10s from the dwelling of John Boughton, of Geraldine, on April 6th, 1885. Prisoner pleaded “Not guilty,” and was defended by Mr M. J. Lynch. The following jury were empanelled :• - Messrs D. Martin (Foreman), J. C, Binskin, J. Velvin, W. Telford, J. Jones, T. White, J. McKenzie, W. G. Rutland, C, Woodley, D. Cunningham, J. Orr and J. Wild. The evidence in this case will be recollected to our readers. Last Easter Monday (April 6th) the • prosecutor, John Boughton, placed a sum of £26 in a drawer in his bedroom, £6 °los of which was in a bundle by itself, and a one pound note included in bundle was in two pieces. The prisoner and Bonghton left the house at 2.30 p.m., and went to the Bush. Hotel, no one being left in the house. Prisoner left the hotel some time before the prosecutor, and was away for twenty minutes. On returning he was asked where he had been, and he replied “ Up to the house ; my children got wet and I had to change their clothes.” On Wednesday the prosecutor went to the drawer and found that the £6 10s bundle ' with the exception of one half of the divided £1 note had been stolen, and the police were informed of the robbery some few days after. No trace could be dis : covered of the money until October, when the prisoner gave half of a £1 nete to a man named Hurcombe to get what he could for it, and the latter sold it for 7s 6d. The prisoner on being arrested said he got the half note from a man who was getting up sweeps on the racecourse, but no evidence was forthcoming to bear the statement out. His Honor summed up against the prisoner, and after ,a retirement of 15 minutes the jury found the prisoner guilty. In reply to His Honor, Inspector Brohum said the prisoner had twice been convicted of larceny at Oarnani, —on the 12fh~J«fl'e, 1879, when he was sentenced to two months’ imdrisonment with hard labor, and on the 20th March, 1880, when he was sentenced to three months. His Honor then sentenced prisoner to eighteen months’ imprisonment. MALICIOUS INJURY, Henry Palmer was charged with having at St. Andrews on tiie 29th Juno, 1885, feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously wounded one cow, the property of Walter Frank Brown, of the St. Andrews Hotel. Mr Hamersley appeared for the accused, who pleaded “ Not guilty.” The following jury was empanelled Messrs E. Cornish (foreman), R. Warrington, W. J. Dodd, J. Wanlle, J. 0. Williams, H. Pieldman, M. Fitzgerald, G. Culmer, W. Ferrier, C. Jackson, S. Orlan, and Edward Hewling% senr. The evidence went to show that on the 29th June last the prisoner went to the St. Andrews Hotel, and at 9.30 p.m. asked for and was accommodated with a bed. Nothing more was seen ©f him by the licensee of the hotel till 7 o’clock next morning. A witness, however, named A. P. Dick, said that he saw the prisoner at halfpast 11 o’clock that night. The witness was coming round the coiner of the h< t :1, and saw a cow and some one standing,

besideher, and a'so heard a tricklingsound as though it were being milked. Looking more attentively he found that there was a coat over the cow’s horns, that she was not being milked and that the cow was biding behind her. He said “Hulloa, Harry, what are you doing with the cow 1” Prisoner replied ‘‘ Nothing,” and took his coat off the cow’s horns and ran away. It was a bright moonlight night. On prisoner running: away the witness struck a match and saw blood on the ground and a good deal trickling from the cow. He went to the Hotel to find somebody, and saw two men in conversation whose attention he called to the cow. Next day a knife and poice of rag were found near the scene of the outrage and were handed to the police. A witness who took off the hide of the cow counted 20 wounds on the left side of the belly, within a circuit of a foot. The rump was slashed about and the entrails punctured. When arrested the prisoner said to Sergeant Morice; “Can’t 1 settle .the matter by compensating Brown for the loss of the cow. I must have been mad when 1 did it.”—Mr Hamersley said the deed was done with no malicious intention. The prisoner had been drinking heavily and did not know what he was doing. The jury found the prisoner-guilty, and his Honor, addressing the prisoner, said he would take into consideration that he had never been bronght up before, and that he had already been in detention some six months. He would be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard labor. DIVORCE. Walaer v. Walker.—This was a case in which the petitioner applied for a divorce from his wife on the grounds of her adultery with one Alfred Parker. Mr C. T. H. Perry appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the respondent.—Mr Perry stated that the co-respond-ent, Parker, had since died, and after stating his client’s case, called T. A. Walker, the petitioner, who proved to his marriage with the respondent, adultery with the co-respondent. He had never condoned the offence.—His Honor granted a decree nisi , and on the application of Mr Perry, made it returnable on the first sittings of the Supreme Court at Titnaru, after three months has elapsed. Qovier v. Govier and Poupart.—This was' a case in which the petitioner applied for a divorce on the grounds of his wife’s adultery with George Poupart, the co-respondent. —Mr Hamersley appeared for petitioner. There was no appearance of either of the other parties. Mr Hamersley, after stating j his case, called Benj. C. Grovler, the petitioner, who proved to his marriage with the respondent at Colamstock, Exeter, in 1867 i and also as to his arriving with her in the colony about thirteen years ago. He first knew the eo-respondent about ten years ago, when he was living at St. John’s Wood, Timaru. Poupart lived with them for some time, but he did not notice any undue familiarity between him and his wife till one night in 1883, when he surprised the respondent and corespondent. Petitioner reprimanded her, and on her refusing to take notice of him he left the bouse the next day, and had not since cohabited with her. Petitioner proved to Poupart visiting the respondent when she had been in different situations since, and also to the respondent and co-respondent at different times living and co-habiting together. He had offered to condone the offence and send her Home to her parents, but she refused totgo.— Corroborative evidence was given, and His Honor granted a decre nisi, returnable the same date as the previous case t and granted costs. The Court then adjourned at 4.40 p.m. till the 26th January next at 11 a.m.

At the criminal sessions, at Gisborne, held before the Chief Justice on Monday and Tuesday, there were five charges. Hy. Holland received two years for altering the amount of a cheque, and one for larceny ns a bailee. A native boy got six months for stealing a horse. John Deapet for an attempt to cause abortion on a young.girl, was sentenced to five years’ penal servitude.