DISTRICT COURT, WESTPORT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 904, 23 December 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, WESTPORT.

Friday, December 22. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) The Court sat at ten o'clock. The names of persons summoned to serve as jurors were called over by the Clerk, all responding to their names excepting Nathaniel Edward Virtue, who was fined 40s, unless cause were shewn. The latter appeared before the jury were sworn, and his Honour consented to the remission of the fine. MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING.

Mary Ann Woodman, aged 32 years, was charged with having wilfully wounded one Margaret Murington Carr with stones on the Bth of November last. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the indictment was' laid under the 24th and 25th Victoria, for wounding. The assault he should show had taken place with stones. Assaults of the kind were unfortunately very prevalent, and the jury would have two cases of the kind brought before them at the present sitting. They would find that the evidence he should call would fully support the indictment, and the case on behalf of the Crown, he believed, would present no difficulty to the jury. Margaret Murington Carr detailed the circumstances in connection with the assault. She stated that the prisoner had resided with her about a fortnight, together with her child. On the Btb of November last she desired the prisoner to leave, and she went about 4 p.m., returning about 10 o'clock on the night of the same day. On that occasion the prisoner knocked at the door, Prosecutrix called out to come in, and on the party entering, seeing that it was the prisoner, she ordered her to leave the house. Thereupon she threw several stones at the prosecutrix which she had concealed m her clothes. One stone struck the prosecutrix on the back of the head, one on the mouth, a third on the forehead, and a fourth on her shoulder. At that stage Mr Maguire, the gaoler, arrived. Dr Thorpe was called in. She had no further recollection of what transpired until the following day. The stones produced were thrown at the prosecutrix by the prisoner.

The prisoner cross-examined the witness endeavouring tc show that the latter had first committed an aggravated assault, seizing the prisoner by the hair of the head, when she demanded her wages, and throwing her child nineteen months old, out of doors. The prosecutrix denied the allegations. James Arthurs Maguire, gaoler, and constable Stephenson gave evi-

deuce. The former corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix, he having been a witness to the assault. Samuel Thorpe, gave medical evidence which showed that a severe and dangerous assault had been committed. The prisoner called no witness. She stated that she was engaged at 10s per week by the prosecutrix. She served her for five weeks, and, when demanding her wages, was violently assaulted by the prosecutrix. The prisoner called the Gaoler as to character. He said that up to uer confinement the prisoner bore a bad character. There had been no complaint against the prison while under his charge. His Honour left the case to the jury as the evidence required no comment. The jury without retiring returned a verdict of guilty. His Honour, in passing sentence, said that the evidence clearly revealed that the prisoner had been guilty of a very brutal assault. It was fortunate that she did not stand charged with a graver offence. The sentence of the Court would be that she be imprisoned for six months with hard labour. EEGTNA V. O'DEA ATS t D BTXTJjER.

The prisoners were charged with wilfully and maliciously wounding John Anderson, on November 7th. The prisoners pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor called John Anderson, who stated that he went to the female prisoner's house to see Butler about borrowing a boat. He met the two prisoners outside. The female prisoner began to abuse him. He retaliated, and the abuse continued. They drank gin together. He had been on terms of intimacy with the female prisoner. He asked her to shout. She said that she would shout for the male prisoner, but not for witness. He (witness) said that he would take care that she should not have any, and with that took the bottle away. He returned the bottle. Witness told Butler to make the female prisoner .hold her tongue, and Buttler induced her to be quiet several times. Witness went into the bedroom, and shut the door to keep the female prisoner out. She tried to enter, and being unable to do so got a knife to cut the door, which was a canvas one. Witness called to Butler that the female prisoner had a knife, and that he should take it away from her. Witness came out of the bedroom and caught the prisoner O'Dea by the arms. She then had a knife in her hand. She wrested her arm away, and in the action slashed witness across the face with it. He was severely wounded, and bled profusely. Witness was sitting on the doorstep and got up to get some rags, as he knew where to find some, to staunch the bleeding. Butler resisted his reentering the house, and grappled with him. The female prisoner took up a tumbler and threw it at witness, striking him on the head with it, and inflictiug a slight wound. The hat he then wore was cut through with the glass. He wore the hat produced. Witness finally came to town, calling at the licensed house of Mrs Hall and that of Miss Stewart. He subsequently met Sergeant Kiely, and was attended by Dr Thorpe. By the prisoner O'Dea: I did say that I would do what I could for you in the matter of your defence. 1 wrote the letter produced. You were drunk. You behaved properly when you lived with me on the_ beach, because you were obliged to do so. I did not make you work in men's clothes. You were kicking up a row in Jules's the same day that the assault took place. You gave me £1 to buy boots. You paid for a shirt for me. I gave you money, and it would have been well if you had bought more and drunk less.

By the prisoner Butler : I did not abuse the prisoner O'Dea when you interfered. She asked me to leave the house. Tou quieted her once or twice. Tou did not try to take the knife from her. I took up the knife, and said I would fight the two of you. You put ho rag round my face ; you were as bad as she was. I went outside with a candle for the purpose of washing my hands. Sergeant Kiely gave evidence as to meeting the prosecutor, whose face was covered with blood, on the evening of November 7. Proceeded to O'Dea's house, reaching there early the following morning. Found the two prisoners in bed. The floor of the house appeared to have been recently washed. Found bloodstains about the place, and the knife produced. Found bloodstains upon a pewter pot. Arrested the prisoners, and brought them to town. Samuel Thorpe described the character ot the wounds inflicted upon the prosecutor. He examined the knife produced, and distinctly found traces of human blood upon it. This" closed the evidence for the prosecution. The priponers briefly gave their version of the matter. O'Dea stated that the wound was iuflicted accidentally, and she had no intent to wound. She exculpated the prisoner Butler from the charge of having been accessary to the act. His Honour instructed the jury that the evidence produced did not substantiate the indictment against Butler. With regard to the case against O'Dea they would have to decide whether the act had been committed deliberately as stated by the prosecutor, or whether they ought to accept the version given by the female prisoner as the true account of the circumstances in connection with the assault. There was also the other point to be raised—-

whether the assault had been justifi*" l by provocation. la respect to might tell them that the law did not justify the use of any deadly weapon even in self defence, unless it were shown that the party using it were in danger of receiving some serioua bodily injury. They would have to consider the relations under which the prisoner and the prosecutor had been living for some time previous to the assault, and having considered them they would have to form a verdict aa to the innocence or guilt of the prisoner of the charge laid against her. His Honour then recapitulated a portion of the prosecutor's evidence. The jury retired, and after a short absence returned a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner Butler, and found the prisouer O'Dea guilty, at the same time recommending her to mercy, on the ground of provocation. His Honour, in passing sentence, stated that he should take into consideration the term of imprisonment she had already undergone, and the jury's recommendation to mercy. The sentence of the Court would" be that the prisoner be imprisoned for three months with hard labour. His Honour decided to take the bankruptcy cases on the following day, and the Court then adjourned.