SUPREME COURT, NELSON.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 591, 9 December 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, NELSON.

THE MANSLAUGHTER AT CHABLESTON. A true bill having been returned against John M'Loughlin, Henry Michael O'Brien, and Patrick O'Sullivan for the murder of Patrick Kirk, the prisoners were placed in the dock, on Thursday last. They pleaded not guilty. Mr Conolly appeared for the prisoners, and Mr Adams and Mr William Pitt for the Crown. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said that the jury had to consider whether the evidence which would be taken before them was sufficient to warrant them to convict the prisoners of murder. If not, then they would have the indictment for manslaughter to consider. The law presumed that malice was always present on such occasions as these, until evidence was given to disprove it, and presumed that every man was responsible for the necessary consequences of his acts. In cases of manslaughter it was not necessary to prove that there was malice. If any man killed another through an unlawful act, it was manslaughter.

His Honor said that, from what he gathered from the evidence, he thought that there was no case to go to the jury for murder, and advised the Crown prosecutor to drop the indictment for murder, and try the prisoners for the second indictment, for manslaughter, which was done. The evidence, as takes, before the Coroner and Magistrate, has already been published. Mr Adams having addressed the jury for the Crown, Mr Conolly made an able speech on behalf of the defendants. The Judge then summed up, the jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour, returned a verdict of Q-uilty, with a recommendation to mercy, against M'Loughlin, who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment; and a verdict of Not G-uilty in the case of O'Brien and O'Sullivan. CHARGE OF BIGAMY. Thomas Braithwaite was charged with having married, on the 16th January, 1869, at Charleston, one Elizabeth Alice M'G-ee, he already being married to Mora M'lnnes, of Castlemaine, Victoria. Mr H. Adams appeared for the prosecution and Mr Kingdon for the defendant. C. Nedwill, a duly qualified medical practitioner, deposed that he had examined Mrs Ann M'lnnes (said to be the mother of the second wife), at Christchurch, and that she was too old and infirm to come to Nelson to give her evidence. On being questioned, the witness said that he was unable to identify the woman he had examined as the one who had made the depositions before the magistrate at Christchurch. His Honor said that ho was bound to tell the jury that the case for the prosecution had failed, as it was a necessary preliminary to the reading of the depositions of Mrs M'lnnes to prove that she was too ill to travel. This, it appeared, could not be shown, and therefore he was unable to allow the depositions to be put in. The Crown Prosecutor had said that, without this evidence, he could not proceed with the case. It, therefore, would be the duty of the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner was then discharged.