Tuesday, July 7.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 373, 15 July 1874, Page 6

Tuesday, July 7.

THE GRIND JURY. In the -case of the Queen v. Goodison, the Grand Jury found no true bill. A true, bill against Louis Buisson, for attempt at murder, was found. FELONIOUSLY RECEIVING. Samuel Wills was indicted for feloniously \ receiving, on the 28fch March last, L 34 belonging to John * >rr, Wills knowing at the time that the money had been. stolen. The j prisoner pleaded not guilty on the previous day, and was now defended by Mr Stout. — I The prosecutor deposed that he went to sleep on the day in question m Wills's house. On awaking he saw Lucy Leighton standing near him. He then missed his money, but the woman denied all knowledge of it. Ultimatoiy she pointed to a LI note on the floor. He pick id up the note, and then went downstairs and told Wills ' and his wife that lie had lost his mouey. they said they knew nething about ir. — The cross-examina-tion by prisoner's counsel elicited several statements contradictory of the evidence given oy the prosecutor on a previous occasion, amongst which was the following : that he saw Willa (the prisoner) on the Sunday following the day of the alleged robbery, whereas the evidence taken previously showed that the prosecutor had stated that he did not see Wills until the 7th April. Lucy Leighton, who was at the prisoner's house -on the 28th March, stated that the prosecutor was sober when he came there, but afterwards he had some drink. Witness went up stairs with the prosecutor ; shortly afterwards Mrs Wills advised witness to take the prosecutor's money from him ; and accordingly, when prosecutor wai asleep, and while witness was under the influence of drink, she took from him L 34 and handed it to Mrs Wills, who placed it under a stone in the back yard, -but afterwards gave it to the prisoner. The prisoner offered witness Ll3 of the money which she had taken from the prosecutor, but witness refused to take it ; and prisouer then said that he would not keep the money in the house. At a subsequent period the prisoner again offered her the Ll3, telling her that she had •better take the money and go away, as he would not have her or the money in the house any longer. She refused to take the money, but left the house; and two days afterwards gave herself up to the police for stealing the money. Yesterday sue pleaded guilty, to the charge of stealing it. The witness was subjected to a severe crossexamination by the learned counsel for the prisoner, when it was found that some of her statements differed somewhat from those made by her in the Resident Magistrate's' Court. The apprehending conStable deposed that the prisoner voluntarily j told him that he found the money (b2l) in his own house, and that the woman Leigh- | ton was living there at the time. I'he prisoner also told witness that he found the money on a Saturday, kept it until the following Monday, and deposited it with Moore. — Sgt. Golder stated the conversation which to jk place between himself and the prisoner en his telling him that Lucy Leighton had confessed that she took the money from the prosecutor, and that it afterwards reached his (the prisoner's) hands. The prisoner then stated that he found L2l on the sofa in his house, and was afterwards told by his wife that the prosecutor had been there. — Mr Stout, in addressing the jury for the prisoner, said that as Lucy Leighton .was, an accomplice in the robbery, the jury should not accept her testimony uncorroborated. He also submitted that even had Leighton been an untainted witness ; the jury were bound to refuse to receive her testimony, because her evidence was contradictary of that she had previously given, and that her refusal to say whether she had or bad not made certain statements in the Magistrate's Court showed that either on that occasion or since she had not spoken the truth, tie also commented at -length on the manifest inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecutor given on different occasions. Further, he pointed out that the prisoner had given the money to

Gardiner, afterwards went in search of the prosecutor, found him, and gave him an Older to get the money from Mrs GardiDßr. The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he was discharged. AIDING AND ABETTING. The Crown Prosecutor intimated tha*; he did not intend to offer any evidence in the case of Elizabeth Wills, charged with aiding and abetting in the case against Samuel Wills. The jury, therefore, under direction, found the accused not guilty, and she was liberated. Wbdnesday, July 8. BKNTENCE9. Lucy Leighton (32), robbery from the pprson, was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labor. *John Jenkins was next brought up Messrs Alexander Morrison, Thomas Douglas, and W. A. Ewing were called to give evidence as to the prisoner's antecedents. They sfoke of him as baying been a hard-working and industrious man, and as having borne a good character. He was sentenced to bs imprisoned for twelve calender months. Themas Conley (26), assault at Cavershrm, addressed the Court, mentioning that he had been ill-treated by the police. His Honor said that there was no evidence whatever that the prisoner received ill-treat-ment at the hands of the police. The officer apprehended the prisoner in the discharge of i his duty. The evidence was that the pri- I goner attempted to get away from legal custody ; and, under the circumstances, it was the officer's duty to use force to ajet him away. The attack the prisoner made upon the officer was a most furious and brutal one, and he (the learned Judge) was only sorry the statute did not allow him to give prisoner more than two years' hard labor. •"- The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner be incarcerated and kept to hard labor for two year* Alex. Gillon (33), forgery, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labor. J. C. Abernethy (19) was next brought up. His Honor said the offences with which the prisoner had been charged, and to which he had pleaded guilty, were of a very serious character ; but fortunately for him he (the learned Judge) could find no other crime against him on the record. It was a melancholy thing to see a person of the prisoner's age falling int» crime in that way. Two of the four offences were of a very serious character, because they involved a breach of trust. The prisoner had been in respectable employment ; and the sentence of the Court was that oa the first indictment he suffer two years' imprisonment with, hard labor ; oa the second, one year with hard labor ; oa the third (ebtaining money under false pretences), six months, with hard Jabor ; each sentence to take effect after the expiration of the former.

John Morrison (30) was then placed in the dock.

His Honor said it appeared frora the records of the Court that the prisoner had been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on four several occasions. Three of the previous offences* wevo Rimilar to those to which he had recently pleaded guilty. In fact, forgery and uttering seemed to have become almost a trade with the prisoner. In March, 1865, the prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for assaulting and attempting no commit a rape oa a young ; in September, 1868, for forging and uttering, two indictments, he got three years' penal servitude ; and then one year's imprisonment, with hard labor, making four years in all. Three months afterwards the prisoner was brought out of gaol upon another charge of forging and uttering, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labor, six yeai s in all. The punishment, however, seemed not to have acted as % warning to the prisoner ; and, looking at the character of the offences, it seemed almost wonderful that any man should have the folly to commit them, they being such as rendered detection absolutely certain within a day or two ; because upon presentment of the cheques, and upon its being declared that they were forgeries, they would of course be put into the hands of the police, who would be set upon the track of the culprit perhaps within twenty-four hours afterwards. So, besides the criminality, of the prisoner's proceedings, there was the great felly, seeing that there was the certainty of almost immediate detection ; and it made one almost think that the prisoner had desired to get himself into trouble. The sentence of the Court was that the accused undergo five years' penal servitude ; on the second indictment, one year's imprisonment with hard labor ; on the third, one year, with hard labor ; and en the fourth, one year, with "hard labor ; each punishment to commence on the expiration of the former sentence.

ALLEGED ATTEMPT AT MURKER,

Louis Bouisson was charged with an attempt to murder hia wife. M!r 15. G. Haggitt and Mr Stout for the Crown ; Mr Johnston for the prisoner. Catherine Buiason, wife of the prisoner, Dr Burrows, and Emily Matheson gave evidence similar to that given on the case being heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, ob June 9 Dr Bakewell's evidence .agreed in all material respects with that of Dr Borrows.