SUPREME COURT SITTINGS. AUCKLAND.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2144, 6 April 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT SITTINGS. AUCKLAND.

[bv telegraph.— own cokbespondent.] Auckland, Monday. The Supremo Court criminal sessions opened to-day. The Judge in his charge said: " Tho calendar with which you have to deal on the present occasion is a somewh.it lengthy one, there being 27 charges against 2(! person.^ ; eitjht of those charged aro Maoris, and the total number of t (Fences charged is nearly equally divided between the city and the surrounding country districts. Nono of the offences are of a very grave character. They are principally larcenies in various forms. There are only a few case* to which I think it necessary to call your attention. There is one private prosecution for libel against five Maoris, and the charge is alleged upon the strength of a telegram sent by the Maoris to the chairman ot the Native Affairs Com* initteo in Parliament. Seeing that they attached their names to the petition, the question may be raised whether it is not a privileged communication, but with that you have nothing to do. It may be necessary to ha\ c that question argued. Before you can say there is no bill you must be satisfied that the accused did not sign their names to that telegram, or that they did not authorise it to be signed and despatched on their behalf. If you are satisfied that they either signed it or authorised it to be signed for them, then it appears to be prima facie libel, but unless it is made clear that they cither signed it or author* isod someone to sign it for them, then there can bo no bill. There may be other questions of law iv connection with this prosecution, but you will not have'' to deal with them. In one of the Telegraph Acts thore is provision to the effect that the despatch of a telegram is prima facie evidence, whether it wan signed by the person purporting to have signed it or not. but that section of the Act, it seems to me it does not apply to criminal prosecutions. The wording of this section of the Act is somewhat different from others, and it.appears to be intended to apply only to civil actions. There is one charge of an in* decent assault upon a married woman which .seems to depend nlmo-t entirely upon the woman's own i-tateinent. In such cues you ought to be very careful before finding a true bill to koo that there is corroborative evidence, for, as has been well shown, such charges are easy to bo made, hard to, be met, and difficult to be dis|>oied. such cases is of a trivial character, and the evidence is slender, I think it would be wne of the committing magistrates to see how far the ends of justice would be serred by handing the case on for trial." Mathew Ryan was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling of M. Kiely, at Hamilton, on the 26th December lost, iijd stealing the sum of £S 4s. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr James Russell, who appeared in this cose, having addressed the court, the prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with bard labour. Robt. Griffiths Rees, for stealing from the dwelling-house of Capt Fi«W, Thames, the sum of £17 8s 4d, was sentenced to two years. John Warren. a half-caste, was arraigned upon 1 ' » charge of breaking aud entering the shop of Mr J. D. Hill, Alexandra, on the 18th January, and stealing the sum of £3 13s. Also goods and wearing apparel. Prisoner pleaded not guilty.' The evidence in this case has already been published. His Honour summed up, and the jury found the prisoner not guilty.