SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XII, Issue 738, 3 December 1859, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

criminal sittings. Thursday, December Ist.

(Before Mr. Justice Gresson.)

The Court opened at 11 a.m., and after the usual forms, the following gentlemen were sworn to serve on the grand jury:—Messrs. H. A. Scott, (Foreman), Sir M. LeFleming, Bart., Messrs. Lockhart, Lohgden, Marshman, Miles, Minchin, Morgan, Palmer, Peacock, Peel, Rowley, Sneyd, Stewart, Stoddart, Thomson, Vigers, Ward, Wilson, and Worsley. . ' '.

His Honor then proceeded to address the grand jury, as follows:—

Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand JuryBefore adverting to the calendar I wish to call your attention to the state of the gaol at Lyttelton, which contains various classes of inmates—comprising male prisoners tried and awaiting trial, lunatics and idiots, male debtors, and female prisoners undergoing sentence or awaiting trial, as well as those confined for debt.

It is unnecessary for me to point out the evils of receiving lunatics into the gaol, because I am sure that you are all fully alive to them and are anxiously looking1 forward to the erection of the central lunatic asylum about to bo provided for New Zealand.

Bub the want of proper accommodation for debtors as well as female prisoners has long been felt and is becoming more urgent as the population increases and with it the necessities of the improvident and unfortunate—a class from which oven the most prosperous ; communities cannot reasonably expect to be long exempt. , ■

Tho accommodation for debtors is little more than nominal, and there nrenomeaxm of separating or classifying female prisoners, for whom only one small room is provided.11 am nwnro that a sum lias been voted for additions to tho gaol a at Lyttolton and Chriatchurch; but I am persuaded that the amount specified is inadequate; and I avail myseli of this opportunity of expressing, my conviction that in all matters connected with prison, discipline a liberal expenditure will be found to be consistent not only, with'-the soundest policy but also with

true economy. Gentlemen, the calendar is by no means n light one, considering that burely_ three months have elapsed since the last gaol delivery. There is one case of n wire charged with the murder of her husband by poisoning;; one oi wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm ; and one of embezzlement. Upon the first case, gentlemen, I need scarcely remind you that in order to find a true bill you must be satisfied, not only that the deceased died from the effect of poison—administered by or through the instrumentality of the prisoner-—but also that it was so administered with " malice afore-thought"—-that is, a deliberate intention of causing death. The law presumes malice from the act of killing until the contrary be proved ; and therefore the main question for your consideration will be whether the evidence of this fact—which, as frequently happens in similar cases, is wholly circumstantial—is so strong as to afford a reasonable presumption that the death of the deceased was caused by the prisoner. The case of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm is founded on a statute (7 W. 4 and 1 Viet. c. 85, sec. 4), which enacts.that " Whosoever unlawfully and maliciously shall shoot at any person, or shall by drawintr a trigger or in any other manner' attempt to discharge any land of loaded arms at any person, with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to maim, disfigure or disable such person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to such person, shall bo guilty of felony," &c. The word "maliciously" in the statute does not mean ' malice aforethought;' but that the act was done without lawful excuse, with the intent of maiming, wounding <&o. Your only difficulty in this case will be whether the " intent" of the statute was satisfied: in other words whether the gun was fired by accident or design. It is not necessary, however, that the primary intent should have been to injure the prosecutor; and every man is supposed to^intend the necessary consequences of his own acts. "Upon the ease of embezzlement I have only to observe that the property in the chattels alleged to have been embezzled is laid in the Superintendent, pursuant to an act of the General Assembly which provides that all property belonging to any province shall, for all purposes of proceedings in any Court as well Criminal as Civil, be deemed and taken to be the property of the Superintendent thereof for the term being, in his proper-name. Gentlemen, the other bills; to come before you are cases of larceny, upon whic'li it is unnecessary for me to offer any observations.' The Grand Jury then retired, and in the course of the day true bills were presented in the following cases: — ; ' The Queen v, William Thomson, horse stealing. The Queen v. William; Thomson, larceny. For having on the 31st August ksjt stolen a mare and a saddle, the property of "W. : C. Smith. Pleaded Guilty. : '%"'"... The Queen u.TKomas',Codling, larceny. For having stolen 22 piles, three gate posts, and certain other pieces of timber, the property of W..S. Moorhouse, Superintendent of the' Province of Canterbury (Provincial Government stores). The prisoner, who bad been foreman'pi' the wqi-ks on the Waimamakariri and Lytteltotfjetty, pleaded Guilty. The Queen v. Hugh Williams, larceny. For having on the 6th June last, stolen one silver watch, the property of George Giggs. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty

The Queen v. Christina Gregg, murder. A bill against Daiiiel fchitpot for shooting with intent to murder, &c., was noi found. In this case the accused had been drinlcfngr with several others up at Oxford, one Sunday afternoon^ a dog bit him and he went for a ■ gun t6 shoot it. On his return the owner of the dog interposed, and got between Philpot and the dog. The gun went off in Philpot's hands and the contents strode the other under the

shoulder. The accused was discharged from cus

tody, after having been strongly cautioned by His Honor to exercise more care in future in the use of

firearms. ' .;;' These being all the cases on the list, the Grand Jury" were then discharged; The first, case called was that of QUEEN V. HUGH WILLIAMS. —LARCENY. A petty jury were sworn,'of vrhorri Mr. C. W. Bishop was foreman. The first witness sworn "was George Giggs, who deposed:—l am a butcher residing in Lyttelton. I remember the 6th June last. I was at the Plough Inn at Riccarton on that day. I slept there the night before. The prisoner slept in the same room with me. I got up about 7 o'clock on the morning of the 6thj leaving the prisoner still in bed. I put on my'trowsers and cap, and left my coat and waistcoat in the bedroom. My watch was in the waistcoat pocket. The waistcoat was on a chair in the bedroom. After dressing I went down stairs and was absent about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and on returning met the prisoner at the door coming out of the room. After passing the prisoner I went in and washed myself, and about five minutes afterwards I missed the watch from the waistcoat. [The watch was here presented and identified by the witness.] By the Prisoner—lt was before breakfast that I missed the watch. I went to town (Christchurch) on horseback that' morning after breakfast, having waited about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after I had dressed, and saddled my horse. I went after Wilson, who had gone first towards Christchurch. I went first to the* Royal, where I saw Wilson, and then on to Sergeant Price. This took me.about an hour from leaving Dilloway's. I went after Wilson because I suspected from what I had heard of his character that he might have taken my watch. Two others besides the prisoner and myself slept in the same room that night. I searched Wilson in Christchurch, and found nothing on him. It was after this that I told Price I suspected the prisoner. I am certain that it was not since the finding of the watch that I told Price I suspected the prisoner. I went to Port that same day, having first returned to Dilloway's; I did not then see the prisoner there. I have no further reasons than those now stated for suspecting the prisoner. By the Jury—l last wound my watch in the bedroom the evening of sth June. The prisoner, myself, and two others were in the room, but I cannot say whether they saw me winding the watch. I am positive that when I put on my trowsers in the morning I saw the watch in my pocket. On missing the watch I enquired about of every one in the house, except Wilson, who had left. Wilson had not slept in the same room. I saw the prisoner down stairs in about ten minutes after leaving the room, and; not again that day. The other two left the room before either the prisoner or myself. By the Court—When I left the room I saw Wilson outside close to the house. On enquiry about the watch prisoner answered;" as did every one else in the house, that he had not seen; anything of it. I know the watch to be mine by the number and by various other marks. I missed the watch about five minutes after returning to the room. I had some slight suspicion of the prisoner, but I did not like to accuse any one before making enquiry. It was after searching Wilstin that I first expressed to Price my suspicion of the prisoner, and asked him (Priee)to take measures to ascertain if he had taken the.watch. George Pearce sworn—l am a carpenter residing at Kaiapoi. I built a house for Mr. Pancklnirst, at Woodend, about five months ago. I was at Paticlchurst's about the 30th July. In the water closet I found a watch, on the upper plate on the right hand side going in, under a piece of paper, close up in a

corner. I called Mr. Panckhurst to see where t c watch was lying. (Hero the witness )dcnt fled the watch ) I gave it in charge to Mr. Panckhurst. By the Prisoner-The watch was only concealed by tho bit ofpaper, which, though Rmftll, was enough to ln-de the watch. I did not take it off the plate. Any one looking round the place might have seen the watch. Mr. Panckhurst took the watch down. The nhice was about 20 yards from the house, from which however, people could not be seen going into it Mr. Panckhurst was dressed; all but his shoes. ■He examined the number of the watch. It was not B°By'the Jury—l was staying at Panckhurst's, but I do not recollect having ever before seen the prisoner. I had no suspicion of the watch having been placed there clandestinely. I thought some one who had had a drop too much had put it_tnere. I examined the watch when I went back with Panck- | hurst but cannot now tell the number. 1 think there was one other lodger in Panckhurst'B that evening. The watch when found was dusty, and the chain discoloured. I had no suspicion of the prisoner. ... Edwin Panckhurst, sworn—l am a publican residing at Woodend. I have seen the prisoner before. He was at my house once before, when lie was arrested for the affair at Mr. Cuff's. On this occasion, he was about an hour-and-a-half at the house. He went first to the water-closet, then came to the house and asked me for some breakfast, after whiobhe asked me if he could go to bed. When the watch was found I was called out by Pearce, who said he had found a watch, and showed it to me at the place in his hand. (The witness here, identified the watch.) I took charge of it, took it to Kaiapoi, and delivered it to police-constable Hayman. By the Prisoner—You might have been at the house just shortly before, without my having seen you. My gardener did not accompany me to the Resident Magistrate's Court to the examination. I was in the yard, close to the back kitchen and within ten yards of the water closet, when I saw you go there. I did not see you come out. I know several persons by the name of John Wilson. I do not recollect any bullock-driver of that name. I took the watch from Pearce's hand. I did not myself take it down. I saw the paper which covered it, it was about 6 in. by 8 in. in size. I went directly Pearce called me. I was fully dressed. lam quite certain that I had my boots on. I examined the watch but could not see the number. The watch was not going, it had been there too long, and was black with ' fume.' By the Jury—l do not recollect the date of my first seeing the prisoner at my house. I think it was about the 30th July that the watch was found. The prisoner had been committed about a month before. I had had information that a watch had been stolen, and I thought this answered the description. I had never to my knowledge seen the prisoner before. This closed the case. •

The Crown Prosecutor then addressed the jury, running over the various salient points in the evidence, stating !his opinion that the case was a simple one, and pressing for a conviction. The Prisoner, in turn, addressed the jury in a vehement style and in a long and for the most part incoherent harangue, declaring his innocence, _ and appealing to English justice for a verdict of acquittal. His Honor summed up in a few words, saying that, though there was a great body of evidence, not much material for consideration was afforded. The case, though a simple one, was one especially to call into action the functions of an English jury. If they, after weighing the evidence, found any doubts in their minds as to the guilt of the prisoner they were bound to give him the benefit of those doubts. It was a thing within the bounds of possibility that during the short absence of Giggs from the room the watch might have been taken by some one besides the prisoner. The Jury then retired, and after an absence of ' about an hour brought up a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was remanded for sentence, and the Court adjourned;at p.m., to "next day. • '•. Fhidat, 2nd December. The Court sat at 11 o'clock a.m. to pass sentence on tlie prisoners tried yesterday. William Thompson, aged 31, convicted of horse stealing, was placed in the dock. His Honor addressing the prisoner remarked that the crime of which he had been found guilty was [ one of a very serious character, one for which not many years ago he would have forfeited his life. It was one easily committed here, and was frought with many evils to society. The Court could not pass it over lightly, though at the same time desirous of dealing mercifully in the present instance, so as to afford an opportunity of repentance and amendment, the truth and reality of which would be proved by the prisoner's conduct in gaol. The conduct of every individual prisoner was made known to his Honor by monthly reports ; and on these were based any recommendation to the mercy of His Excellency the Governor. Keeping this in mind the prisoner would know that he would have some prospect by good conduct in gaol of having the term of his sentence abridged.

Sentenced to be imprisoned in Lyttelton gaol, with hard labor, for two years from 12th September last.

Same prisoner for larceny, sentenced to be imprisoned in Lyttelton gaol with hard labour for six months from expiration of first sentence.

Thomas Codling, convicted of larceny (stealing Government timber, &c.) was next placed in the dock. He had only to ask for merciful treatment on account of his wife and family, who would be left destitute. ■ , , .

His Honor said that he had received and carefully considered an application on behalf of the prisoner, and had also made enquiries as to his past character, which he was' gratified to find had been heretofore good. The' plea of the destitution of his wife and family, however painful, was not one which would be admitted by the Court. It was one which should have been thought of by the prisoner when tempted to commit the crime of which he had pleaded guilty, and which; was one of a worse character than ordinary and simple larceny. He had been placed by the Government in a situation of trust, in which it was his duty not only to abstain from himself abstracting any portion of the property, but also to protect it from others who might appear desirous of doing so. Taking however into consideration his past good character the sentence of the Court would be a light one.

Sentenced to be imprisoned in Lyttelton gaol, with hard labour, for one year from 10th November last.

Hugh Williams, aged about 30, convicted of larceny (stealing a watch), was the last prisoner placed in the dock. When asked what he had to say, he said he had reason to doubt whether the jury had understood what he had said in his defence.

His Honor said he had carefully considered this case, both during the trial and since, and he had no reason to be dissatisfied with the finding of the jury. This was not, on the prisoner's own evidence, the first time he had been accused of breaking the law. The sentence of the Court was one which could not,' under the circumstances, be considered a severe one! Sentenced to be imprisoned with hard labour in Lyttelton gaol for one year from Bth October last. The Court then rose, and adjourned to Monday, sth inst., at 10 aan., for the hearing of the case of «The Queen v. Christina Gregg,' for murder.