THE SEVERED HAND CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1492, 13 April 1886, Page 3

THE SEVERED HAND CASE.

The Howard case was resumed at Ghrigichurch on Saturday morning. Mr Harper, for the prosecution, said that the case did not depend upon (he non-marriage of the Howards, as the second count charged them with an attempt to defraud. Regarding the question of marriage, the evidence showed that the vessel cn which the Howards’ so-called marriage took place was registered and owned in ,Glasgow. The question was whether a Scotch irregular marriage was valid if not per* formed in Scotland, and followed by cohibitatiouin Scotland. He naked His Honor, if he had any doubt, to reserve that point, if necessary, for the Court of Appeal. Mr Joynt, for Howard, submitted that the ship was part of the territory of Scotland, and therefore a Scotch irregular marriage performed on board was valid. Mr Stringer, for Mrs Howard, adopted much the same line of defence as Mr Joynt. Mr Holmes, for the Godfreys, submitted that there was no evidence whatever to connect them with the affair at all, Mr Justice Johnston’s summing up occupied an hour and a-half. It was somewhat favorable to the Godfreys. At 6.20 the jury retired, and after an hour and a-half returned, when the foreman announced that they acquitted the Godfreys. With regard to Mrs Howard they had little doubt of her innocence previous to December 15th, the day before the severed hand was found at Sumner, but they wished to know if she would be guilty of conspiracy for the action she took with r eg>rd to the hand after that date. His Honor replied that he thought that, on the whole, he could rule that the jury might bring her in guilty if they thought she had knowingly made false statements after December 15th. After a short consultation the jury found all the prisoners not guilty on the first count, that of conspiracy, and Howard alone guilty on the second count, viz., attempt to defraud.

In tesponso to the question of the Registrar whether he had anything to say Howard said—l know nothing at all about the hand found at Taylor’s Mistake.

His Honor—That is nothing to do with the case. You have been convicted of another offence. As to you, there can be no doubt you deliberately planned a great fraud. You provided yourself with disguises, and though only a working man, insured your life for £2400. You went away and conducted your operations with some skill, and an enormous amount of effrontery. lam not going to trace your career ; throughout it has furnished a great deal of interest io the public. I only regret that the law does not allow me to pass a severe sentence, as if it be true, what Mrs Howard has got the benefit of, viz,, that you did not inform her of your intended absence, you have been guilty of gross inhumanity. I think worse of you if it be true that you went away leaving that unfortunate woman desolate. The offence is vaguely described ; I cannot even find that I can give you hard labor, which is a pity. The sentence of the Courtis that you be imprisoned m the common gaol at Lyttelton for two years, and I assure you, and I say so sincerely, that 1 regret I cannot give you more, as your fraud has been a most impudent and daring one. The Court rose at 9.10 p.m.