SUPREME COURT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 82, 13 January 1872, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

THURSDAY. JANUARY 11

(Before his Honor Sir G. A. Amoy, Chief Justice, and Common Juries.)

Assault am* Homuy llakm.---./W/e Xcnmdri':; (xiiib'iir; surrendered upon his bail, charged upon an indictment with this offence. The case was part beard on Tuesday, when the Court rose. r lhe further hearing was interrupted by an accident to one ol: the jurymen on his way home. The case was begun */■" mn'ii again this morning. We have already given a narrative of the facts deposed to by the witnesses on either side. The affray took place over some logs of timber,” the. claim to which was asserted by Mr 0. A. Harris, jiin., and the defendant. The prosecutor, a native named Minin Ilori Grey, was wounded with a 11 spike pole” between the shoulders. The defence was that the blow which caused the wound was given in self-defence. I lie witnesses for the prosecution were Munu iiori (Jrcy (native), Tapiala (native), C. A. [[arris (junior), W. Waller, and Dr Payne ; for the defndant. W. Little, Wm. Prior, Piobert Pennell, and Thomas Adams. —“Mr Cooper, in addressing the jury for the defence, said in the case there was a dispute as to the rightful ownership of six logs. There were two mills about a quarter of a mile apait, one belonging to Harris, the other known as Craig’s mill. It was important to bear in mind that these logs did not bear Harris’s brand, which was MO PTC. The real Jaet was that these six logs were in possession of the. defendant, and Harris, in whose employment the prosecutor was, was the agressor. The forcible seizure was by Harris. He quoted the authority of a ease in Payne and llates to show that where property is forcibly wrested from possession, such amount of force as might be necessary. without violence, could be used to recover it. The evidence showed that the crew in Harris's boat attacked Gibbon’s, stove in his boat, and nearly sank her. A man named Muir, of Gibbons’s boat, bad been severely injured by Harris’s party. There was abundant ground to inter that the charge was i! trumped up,” that it was the result of personal hatred. He appealed to the jury to give wcyglit to the high respectability of the defendant as a reason for the improbability of bis being a leader in the affray, which was a breach of: the pea'-e. ?dr Hronkfmld. in replying upon the whole ease, said the jury must dismiss from their minds all idea of the disputed rights of property. The questions for the jury wen—(!.)Y\'as an assault committed V (A) Who committed that assault? —and (o.) W as that assauit accompanied by actual bodily barm to the prosecutor V He regretted to see Mr Gibbous in his present position. He (Mr Hrooklield bail known him for a great many years to bo a highly respectable man : but on tins occasion he had gone too far: he had stepped outside of the law, and must answer for the consequences of the breach of the peace which had been committed. —TPs Honor, in summing up, said that whoever committed an assault in wresting property in tlie jioss. ssion of another, even though it might he his own property, such assailant acted at his peril. The jury would consider, first, whether such assault as was set out in the indictuu-nt had been committed V and second, wire they-satisfied that the assault was committed by Mr Gibbons:' It would be rather hard to make Mr Gibbons responsible for an act committed by another —-even one of his own crew.—especially as nothing appeared in the evidence to show that Mr Gibbons went out for the express purpose of committing the assault alleged. It would be rather too much to make a man responsible

for everything done by those witii whom he migiil be in company, unless there was some proof that such company was brought together for the purpose of committing the offence complained of. [His Honor road over the evidence for the defence.) There was only one of the witnesses for the defence whose demeanour could be considered at all unsatisfactory. No doubt there was a good deal of confusion and tumid!.. The ,|iiry_woii!d say bow far, under such circumstances, a witness might be mistaken, and if they had any doubt upon their minds, they should give the prisoner the benefit of it. It was to be regretted that some more evidence had not been offered of the circumstances attending the injury which was inflicted upon the man called Muir, throughout these proceedings. It: might have explained much in the evidence in the present case, that appeared obscure. Still the jury must deal with the evidence as it stood, and say whether the assault, followed by “actual bodily harm,” had been inflicted, and if so, it it was committed by the defendant ?—The jury retired at a few minutes before six o’clock, and shortly afterwards returned into Court, with a verdict of “Not guilty.”