SUPREME COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 311, 10 December 1873, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, LAWRENCE.

Monday, Bth December. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman.) This Court opened this morning. There were only two cases on the criminal list — that of Charles Monaghan for theft, and that of James Leslie for maliciously, feloniously, and unlawfully killing a horse. The Grand Jury was duly called and sworn, after which His Honor delivered his address, which was necessarily brief. With reference to Monaghan, he chiefly emphasised the admission of guilt by the accused, which admission the Grand Jury would probably be able to estimate properly. He reminded the jury that their function was to ascertain if the prima facie accusation was of sufficient value for trial before the petty jury. On the subject of tbe alleged injury to a mare, to which accused pleaded guilty, His Honor did not see that the case called for much remark. The jury nas chiefly concerned with the question : Was tbe injury malicious or not ? His Honor said he would recommend that the second Tuesday in March, and September should be BubstituteJf or the present day and month for the holding of the Tuapeka Supreme Court. Charles Monaghan (the Grand Jury having found a true bill) was placed in the box, and pleaded guilty to having stolen, on the 3rd October, 1873, from Jonas Harrop, storekeeper, Lawrence, a sum of £15.

Mr. Mouat appeared for the Crown, and made a statement to the jury, in which he reviewed the facts of the case. Jonas Harrop, chemist, druggist, and general storekeeper, Ped-street, Lawrence, deposed to his missing the sum of £15, to his hearing all over the town that the lad Monaghan was the thief, and to his giving information to the police.

Myles Hay, a late companion of the prisoner's and a messenger in the office of Mr. Mouat, barrister, deposed that the prisoner, in his presence, counted orer a sum of £15 in notes on a day not far distant from the date of the discovery of the theft.

Sergeant Ticthener, stationed at Lawrence, deposed to the prisoner's arrest, to his confession, to his (the prisoner's) recovery of £23 in a water-< loset, where he (prisoner) said he had deposited it, and to all the circumstances connected with the accusation. Prisoner made two written statements of the articles he had variously stolen, one of which statements was as f oHows : — Mr Harrop's, spocket knives ; Mr. Harris' 14s. 6d. ; Mr. Harrop, £15 ; Mr. Jeffery, £2 4s. 6d. ; Mr. John Roughan, £4 ; Mr. Hill, a watch. He said " £4 of the money was my own." Several tradesmen -were called, -wlio deposed fchafc the prisoner's expenses in their shops was of a very small amount. It was also elicited in evidence that the prisoner was in receipt of occasional sums of money for services on the race course.

Pressure on our space prevents us from reporting (as it deserves to be reported) the admirable defence and legal points made by Mr. M'Coy. His Honor summed up the evidence. The only effect of Harrop's evidence is that £15 was taken from his shop, and he (Harrop) missed it. There are some slight circumstances of evidence which confirm the prisoner's own admission. There are some facts of little importance by themselves which become clothed with significance when linked with other facts. His Honor referred to the circumstance that Myles Hay could not fix the date of the conversation he had with the prisoner, which uncertainty as to date was not unfavorable to his evidence, for it sometimes happens that a two great exactness as to dates will produce suspicion of pre-concocted evidence. The three circumstances, that Harrop states he lost money amounting to not less than £15, that Hay saw the prisoner counting out £15, and that the prisoner confessed that he he had, in different sums, at different times, taken about £15 from Harrop's shop, were sufficient to induce the jury to find a verdict of guilty. The rule is that when a prisoner makes several contradictory statements, a jury will often accept that statement which is most against the prisoner's interest, and this rule is observed even in civil cases. If the money was the prisoners, why should he conceal it? Why did he not bank it? Why did he conceal it in so nnusual a place as water-closet ? Two statements made to the police were false, made for the purpose of deceiving the policeman

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1.30 a.m., and returned into Court at 4.15, and stated they were not likely to agree. His Honor informed them that they would have to return to the juryroom ; they remained there until 1.30 on Tuesday morning, when, in consequence of continued inability to agree on a verdict, they .were discharged by His Honor.

James Leslie was placed at the bar, charged with maliciously, feloniously, and unlawfully killing a mare, the property of Thomas Bedpath, on the 28th day of August. Mr. Mouat conducted the prosecution, and Mr. M'Coy defended the prisoner. [As the evidenceiin this case was fully reported by us when. Leslie was committed for trial, we -purposely exclude it on this occasion.] Mr. Mouat opened the case, in which he emphasised the allegation that the animal was killed in a malicious manner

Prisoner confessed that he had killed Bedpath's mare, and he paid the latter £20 compensation. The question here is, Was the killing accidental or malicious ? The animal's body bore four wounds, which, unexplained, would seem to indicate malicious killing; but one witness — Sergeant Morton — deposed that probably some of the wounds had been inflicted by pigs after death. The wounds were flat wounds, and Mr. M'Coy, who defended prisoner, stated that experience had shown that wounds inflicted after death were flat.

His Honor considered that the prisoner's payment of compensation was slightly in favor of his not having acted with malice. After about 30 minutes deliberation, the jury returned into Court with a verdict of " Not Guilty." '

Skylarks are now quite numerous in the neighbourhood of .Auckland. The Canterbury Government propose to expend £58,500 on school buildings during the nest year.