SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND. [BY TELEGRAPH.— OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1644, 18 January 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, AUCKLAND. [BY TELEGRAPH.— OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

Auckland, Last Night. Judge Gillies, in charging the Grand Jury, referred to the exceptionally heavy character of the criminal calendar. There >v ere 37 offences against 29 accused. It was difficult to account for the ivave of crime which appeared to, pass over the district at intervals, but crime appeared to be almost an infections oi* contagious disease, and when one class of offences occurred there'seemed to be arnn on such cases amongst them. There is a very large proportion of larcency cases, stealing from the person, stealing fromlhouses, burglary, horse stealing and such like. There is a case of' thaliciously wounding cattle to come before you. This is a crime upon which the law is exceedingly severe. It makes it felony to maim or wound cattle maliciously, and, malice does not mean that there is auV-'uvil iutentiou on the part of the. owner of the cattle, but wounding implies malice. In the present case > a lot of working bullocks were repeatedly trespassing upon a settler's land, and he put a charge of shot into one of them doing no real hurt beyond the shot entering the hind quarter of tlie bul look; ,Itis foiV you to say whether the evidence shows such malice as the law implies. If you are satisfied that tho , bullock was really wounded by shot, then of course the law implies, malice, but if there was no absolute wounding so as to negative the presumption of malice you will give accused the benefit' of the doubt. There are,several cases, some of them of a' very'serious character, which it is possible' that'tlie sanity of the person accused may be questioned, but with that you have nothing to do; jthat must be left for the determination of the petty jury. It is for you to find whether or not the crime lias been committed, and you have nothing to do with the sanity or otherwise of the accused. There is one very serious charge of murder against two persons, and to it I invite your very careful attention. They have been committed by the investigating niagistrate. and I do not see that he could • well do otherwise, under the circumstances, than to send tho case for further investigation before this Court. But you, gentlemen, are in a somewhat different position to an investigating magistrate. You are bound to deal with the matter npon the evidence. You will have to say whether there ■ is, a prima facie case against the accused, and a. prima facie case does not mean a case of suspicion, strong or otherwise. You are bound not to indict any person tor crime unless you have such evidence before you as to satisfy you that the accused commicted the crime. Without any further evidence being adduced, or any explanation given, there must be sufficient evidence to satisfy you of this. In the absence of any other that may be adduced, you are clearly bound not to indict upon suspicion, however serious such may be. This is not a court of investigation, but one to 'determine the guilt or otherwise of persons charged before it. I think'there are none of the other cases that require me to call your attention to them.

NO DILLS. The Grand Jury found no bills in the following cases, and the prisoners were discharged fromjjustody :—Annie Stackpole, conceahnent ot birth; Hohaia (native), lior.ae-stea.lhig j Ellen Curtis, stealing from the persojjjf William Appleton, maliciously wounding; and James Murphy, setting firo'to'a dwellinghouse.

, SKNTEMJKS. Richard Owen B^ighstock, aVi-is Richard Owen Simms, ,was charged with forging a cheque for the payment of money. Sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. Mark Marks and Sampson Josephson were araaigned upon ati indictment charging them with stealing 'twenty-four pairs of shoes from the shop of Francis Stephens, at Auckland. Sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.'