October 8. WOUNDING.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 246, 17 October 1872, Page 6

October 8. WOUNDING.

Thomas Borland was indicted for having, at Dunedin, on August 22, assaulted hi* wife, with intent to do actual bodily harm. Mr E. Cook, who appeared for the prisoner, suggested that the Crown Prosecutor should accept a plea of guilty of common assault, but Mr Haggitt declined, and the case proceeded. - The evidence was the same as that given in the Mayor's Court, except in ono particular, and that was that the prisoner's daughter now supplemented her evidence by stating that her mother told her after the assault that her leg was broken by a fall. The little girl, on being asked why she did not state this when before the Mayor, said she only remembered it returning home from that Court. For the defence, James Lambton, wharfinger; Thomas Tomlinson, wharf carter; «nd G. F. Reid, commission agent, were called to speak to prisoner's character. Mr Lambton said prisoner had been in his employ for eight or nine years, and was a steady, honest, sober, and industrious man. Mr Tomiinson said he had known prisoner ten years as a hard-working, industrious, and quiet man. Mr Beid said he had known prisoner seven years, but more particularly the last two years, as a sober, industrious, hard-working, and good-tempered man. His Honor, in addressing the jury, said, upon the prisoner's own admission, there was very little for him to say. That the case was a most unfortunate one, there was no doubt. The woman appeared io have pursued a life of perfect degradation for a number of yean ; she bad five or six children, and was married to a man who had received from three of his employers a very excellent character. He came home, and found his wife in a condition of filthy stupid drunkenness scarcely knowing what she was about. He requested her to get his and the children's supper, which she refused. He afterwards got her home, and struck her over the legs and other parts of the body with a loaded whip. The jury could give him as much credit as they pleased for provocations, but no man had the right to take upon himself tho office of judge aud executioner. It was within the office of judge, and not that of the jury, to consider the provocation, when the question of punishment came to be considered by the former: the duty of the latter was simply to determine whether the prisoner was or was not guilty of an assault with intent to do bodily harm. There was no doubt that thore must be. a verdict : the question was, whether it should be one of common or aggravated assault. There was some very Blight doubt thrown - upon the circumstance whether the blows of the whip produced the broken arm, or whether it was the result of a fall. When the little girl gave her evidsnee before the 'Mayor, • she said nothing about a fall ; but when she came into this Court she said her mother told her that her broken arm was produced by a fall. That was capable of two explanations — possibly the child had been tampered with ; or what was more likely that the woman, if she had < got a spark of feeling in her, said so to screen her husband. But the prisoner himself, in his statement to the police officer, said people advised him to say that his wife broke her leg by a fall ; but he [would speak the truth : it was not true. The broken arm might be left out of consideration ; for the only evidence concerning it was that it was broken by a fall. The broken leg apart was then not sufficient evidence of bodily harm. There was an external wound produced by an external blow— not by the protruding of the broken b*bne through the flesh— such was the evidence ' of; the surgeons. And these wounds," apart from the broken leg ; then could the jury in their consciences say there was not actual bodily harm. There were bruises that were quite sufficient to justify such a verdict. The Jury, after a quarter of an hour's retjrem«it, f ,returned » verdict of guilty of bpminon^siajllt; • ' • '. ' Sentence deferred. ) " '•"• RHEEP STEALING. John Batty was indicted for having, at Blueskin, on August 3, stolen six sheep, the property of his employer, Edward Meclove. Mr Stout defended. The jury, after twenty minutes' retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty. October 9. SENTENCES. Thomas Borland (40), who^was yester.lay found' guilty of a common assault, was brought up for sentence. Mr E» Cock, who appeared we bias, $»Uc4

Rev.* Dr Stuart, who said : I have known Borland for a number of years, and have looked- upon him ai an easy, good-tempered man — one who would not be quarrelsome. ] cannot cay very much about- him being a thoroughly. steady man, but from my own knowledge know him to bo fond of his family, and apparently anxious to mak€ them happy and comfortable. Perhaps 1 may be allowed to. say that Mrs Borland, from the day of the accident and afterwards, repeatedly told me that the fracture of hei leg was the result of a fall. His Honor : That is done with now ; the jury have negatived the f«ct that it was otherwise. (Addressingthoprieoner.) Thomas Borland, the-jury, very fortunately for you, have evidently by their verdict, negatived that part of the evidence, which would hay« aggravated the punishment, and have found you guilty of common assault. There is always a difficulty in dealing with a case oi this sort, and under the circumstances I am disposed to pass a lenient sentence that will meet the justice of the ease, and be a warning to you in the future. You have evidently borne a good character ; those who have employed you from time to time — three persons — have given evidence to that effect, to which is now added that of the Rev. Dr Stuart,- and you will hare the advantage of that. There is another circumstance that I cunuot help taking into consideration, and it is that the punishment in all these cases falls partly upon the family. In your case there is this evidence, given by the police sergeant, that sines your wife was removed from the house,' the children appeared to be kept in a cleaner and tidier condition, showing that the effect, go far as your influence wns concerned, ha? b.-en beneficial upon the family. I also take into consideration the great provocation —no doubt it was great ; at the same time, the law must be vindicated, because no person has a right, to use a common expression, to take the law into his own hands. I shall pass upon you a lenient sentence, and I shall also require you to give security to keep the peace. The sentence is, that you be imprisoned for three months ; but before your liberation you will have to enter into your own recognisance in the sum of LIOO to keep the peace for twelve months towards all her Majesty's subjects. I :ichard Chapman Evatt (23), who pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a chtque for L2OO, the property of his employers^ Messrs Murraj', Roberts, and Co., was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. plcmmer's trial. Frederick Piumraer was indicted .'or having at Duuediu, on August S, been illegally at large, he being at the time a prisoner of the Crown. The prisoner, who was undefended, obtained tho removal of a'l « ituesses from Court, and cross examined tath, taking down their answers in a book. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening his case, snid the indictment was brought under the Prisoners Act, which allowed of the production of certificates of a prisoner's sentence as sufficient evidence of such sentence. The necessity of proof of the signature and official character of the person signing the certificate was dispensed with by the Official Documents Act. The simple duty of the Crown was to show that the prisoner was at large at a feme when his sentences were unexpired. The certificates of the Kecistrar of the Supreme Court at Auckland bhowed that on March 10, 1867, the prisoner was couvicted of two separate charges of burglary, receiving four years' penal servitude on each, the sentences being ' cumulative. In September, 1869, he was convicted of escaping from the Auckland gaol, for which offence-he received a sentence of two years' penal servitude, to be accumulative upon the former sentences ; and for a robbery on a ship in a river while illegally at large, he received a further sentence of four years, also accumulative, making 14 years in all, so that his imprisonment would not expire till 1881. The witnesses examined were — L. Walker. j warder in the Auckland (Jaol, who identified the prisoner ; Mr Governor Caldwell, Sergeant Ferguson, Detective Farrell, Constabla Bain. The prisoner, addressing the jury, said the^ charge was utterly groundless and fallacious. He did not dispute anything that had been said by the Governor of the Gaol, the warder from the Auckland Gaol, or by the warders of the Dunedin Gaol. Ail that they said was perfectly true. The charge against him was that he had been illegally at large, " against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown, aud dignity." The first thing to be proved was, that he had escaped from legal custody. Did it follow that because he did not return to the Gaol on the afternoon of August 8, with the other prisoners, that he had necessarily escaped from legal custody; That afternoon, when at Hillside, he obtained leave to go to the water-closet, and went to the nearest one, but some oae being there, and the case being a pressing one, lie went to another water-closet, and stopped t!-iere about ten minutes. Sergeant Ferguson missed him almost immediately afterwards, and, being under the impression, he supposed, that he (Plunimer) had run away, walked off the other prisoners earlier than usual, and the consequence was that he (Hummer) was left au unprotected prisoner of the Crown. It was the warders,' and not he, who had run away ; and because they did so was he to be held responsible for running away, which he did not do '! The blunder was on the part of the warders who had charge of him, and w»s he to be held responsible for it? Would the jury allow a blot to rest on the escutcheon of the British Crown by saying that a prisoner of the Crown was to be held responsible for th s blunder^ of those in charge of him ? The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to two year's' imprisonment, the sentence to be accumulative. Frederick Pluuimer was next indicted for i stealing a number of purses, the property of ! E. Nathan, tobacconist, Princes street. The prisoner made a long, rambling statement in defence. He said that on the evening he was captured he went into a publichouse—he did. not know in what streec — and afterwards went out intending to see the Japanese at the Theatre, but seeing a warder at the Theatre door, retired. He then went into a public-house in some street off Princes street, and there, had a glass of whisky. Hearing some voices in a roun, he went in and found some men gambling. One of the men, mad at' losing, offered to play him (Plummer) euchre, and he did so, winning eight or nine shillings from him*. The man, further maddened by his losses, offered to play for, his last sixpence, which he ( Plummer) refused. The man went away, and returned witi a hawker's j>ack, and displaying its content?, invited him to play for anything in it. He. at first' dec ined, bnt ultimately played, and won a looking-glass, kuif«, and two purses, which he set against four other purses and>won them. ' He promised the man to return and continue- the play ; but as the jury knew, he did not get the chance. That was a plain, straightforward statement.- Of course the jury might ask him who the man was, who played with him. He could not tell them. They must remember he had never been in Dunedin before, and knew no one in the place except the Gaol officials and Mr and Mrs Hudson. Jf he had been a resident in the place the charge would not have been brought against him, for he would have known the man, the persons present, or the hotel in which the occurrence took place. But six weeks had elapsed since the occurrence, , jmd the phwge being brought

l against him ; and of course he could not 3 remember at that distance of time what had I happened. Besides, what motive had be for [ stealing the galtry purses ? If his liberty or i his life depended on being able to point out i from whom he obtained the purses, he could i not do ao Of the robbery he was as ignqrant 3 as the sileht dead or the unborn babe. He [ bad nothing more to say. The man from , whom he got the purses must have been a , hawker ; his name lie coold not tell ; but he f remembered he had sandy whiskers, and was about thirty years of age. 3 His Honor, in charging the jury, said the i prisoner's story was the same a1?a 1 ? that invari3 ably told in like cases : the stolen articles • were got from a man unknown. Prisoner t attempted to urge absence of motive. If the 3 purses were worth gambling for, they were I worth stealing. > The jury, after over an hour's retirement, £ returned a verdict of guilty. The prisoner i was also found guilty of stealing some arl tides of wearing apparel from the Dunedin - Cricket Ground, and pleaded guilty to the ' other three .charges preferred againat him. 5 He was sentenced to six months' imprisoni ment on each, making two and a half years ; > the sentences to be cumulative. r m i i r