SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1245, 4 June 1864, Page 5

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

TmiHsiur, 2nn Jim;, istH. Mr. Justice Greason took his seat in court precisely at ten o'clock this morning when Robert Fisher, who was found guilty by the jury on tho previous evening of the crime of rape, was brought U p for sentence. K Before the passing of sentence, however, Mr Moorhouse told his Honor he would call Thomas KHia to give evidence as to the character of tho accused. This witness deposed that the prisoner had been in his employment for two venrs and durinir that time had proved himself to be a 'most confidential, good, and faithful servant, and as far as regarded moral character, had never known anything against him until the present occurrence took place. S. lledfera, a store-keeper at Oxford, was also examined. He stated that he had known the prisoner for five years, and throughout that period had not known anything against him.

Henry Livett gave similar evidence. The prisoner on being asked whether he had anything to say why the sentence of the Court Bhould not be passed upon him, replied that he had not. His Honor then proceeded to pass sentence. He said—Robert Fisher, I concur with the verdict which has found you guilty of the crime of rape • and I see no reason whatever to doubt the correctness of that verdict. You have been found guilty of an outrage, the grossest that a man can commit upon a female, that female the wife of your fellow shepherd—the wife of a person with whom you were on friendly terms of intercourse ; and upon a person whom you yourself had volunteered to protect, and whom you were bound under the circumstances specially to defend. You have not only done that, but you have aggravated the crime that you have committed, by the defence you have made through your counsel in this Court. You have endeavoured to proclaim in open Court that the woman whom you have so grossly outraged was no better than a prostitute and a perjurer. Your attempted defence was that she had entrapped and seduced you—that she had actually solicited you to this criminal intercourse with her. Fortunately for the ends of justice, the jury were not deceived by such a defence. You have received a good character generally, and you are young, and I hope that the opportunity you will have while undergoing the sentence of the Court may lead to your reformation and improvement. I will not pass upon you the heaviest sentence in my power, but the sentence of the Court is that you undergo penal servitude in this colony for the term of eight years from the Ist of June instant. The prisoner was tlien removed. Mr. Moorhouse said that his Honor had remarked rery strongly in the course of his charge to the jury upon the conduct of the prosecutrix's husband in attempting to compound felony by accepting a sum of money from the accused. He would therefore apply to the Court that 110 money be paid by the Crown to the prosecutrix or her husband. His Honor could not see what interest Mr. Moorhouse could have in making such an application. He would hear what the Counsel for the Crown had to say in the matter. Mr. Duncan, Crown Prosecutor, considered the application of his learned friend a novel one, indeed. He admitted that the husband of the prosecutrix had been tempted to a certain extent by the prisoner to accept a sum of money; but he did not do so for the purpose of compounding felony.

His Honor said that the conduct of the prosecutrix's husband was certainly deserving of censure, and it was under that impression that he made his remarks with regard to him to the jury. At the same time, he thought it quite possible that ■ a man in Barlow's position did not understand what he was doing when agreeing to accept a sum of money from the prisoner. The application of Sir. Moorhouse was refused. His Honor, addressing Mr. Ellis, said that from what had transpired on the previous day an impression was left upon his mind that the part he had taken in the transaction was certainly a very improper and unbecoming one in a gentleman of his position. Mr. Ellis said that he had not been allowed an explanation. ' His Honor assured him that he would be most Imppy to listen to any explanation he wished to make.

Mr. Ellis said that as regarded himself he had not acted one way or the other towards staying the administration of justice. t His Honor—But when the prisoner and Barlow were-conversing you went aside, and told them you did not want to hear what they said. You must have known they were negotiating about this transaction ; and you even told one of the parties that you would be ready to rectify any arrangements they might make: in other words, by paying the wages due by you to the prisoner. I think, however, that it is possible you may not have fully considered what you were doing; but I throw this out for the gentlemen of the country to consider that it is the bouuden duty of every member of the community to lend their aid in having the administration of justice carried out. , ,' , Mr. Ellis—l never in my life attempted to do otherwise than to allow the law to take its course. My own- conscience tells me that. His Honor—l am glad to hear it, and I hope these remarks will answer the purpose I intend they should. According to the evidence given in the case I did not .feel satisfied at the course you had pursued. The matter then dropped, and the following cate was called on. OBTAINING A VALUABLE SECURITY UNDEB FALSE PRETENCES. John Murray Mitchell was placed at the bar on an indictment charging him that lie, on the 2 2 nd of January last, unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly did falsely pretend to one James Brown that he had received a promise from Mr. Samuel Bealey to give him, on the following day, a bank cheque or order fortfie payment of £100, and that if be, the said Thomas Brown, wonld give him a cheque for £60, lie would repay him on the following day, by which pretence he obtained from Brown a cheque for £60 In the Union Bank of Australm. The prisoner Pl ncan 1 con ducted the case for the prosecution • the orisoner was undefended. The case having been briefly stated to the jury by Mr Duncan, the following evidence was adduced Thomas Brown, sworn and examined-I am a carter residing in Chnstchurch. I have known the Drisoner since the beginning of Decembei last. He came to my place frequently. About a week before the 22nd of January the prisoner came to me and told me there was a property in Akaroa which he w shS to Purchase, as the doctor who then lived in. ILamwKutto leave, and proceed to England in thp White Star He wanted some money to aid to £ TriLe of the property, and said that >f he Bealey he could h« vel»he money ouiredat a moment's notice. 1 went to try ana i ? I Tr ,C 0 f the a£d and told me he had v iSk and that that gentlemen had prolet Mm hare.. che,,« for the cheque IT on the following morning. In from Mr. Bealey, ent j ga ve him a cheque conseqnence of that statem £6Q (- Cheque on the Union Bank o That is the cheque dated 21st January „ £ I gave the prisoner. tiiat f gave him tliecher|uc, statement he made to met » . j believed for I ranted the money his statement. If ne n would pay borrowing the money from , that he had a back 0» S K Bealey, I person to go as security which you said read a letter over in my p » B tated, you lmd received England and whiicn^ according to your r^^ f Jry. l'would nrised to be sent m<mcy J horn fluitw of not have lent you -the money on ,e By (Tjuror— I tave never received any part of the £60 which I lent the P" 80ner - • ter of t j, e last Emma Brown the prisoner. I witness, and liv * fc" onße about the third week saw him at my brotl,er , B ak t0 n ,y brother on in January. I brother if he could let that occasion. He asfceu my larger sum. him have £60, .in <*{* to make up Before he the c ' he 3 ' f or £100 on the Bealey had promised him q wou jd give him t,ie following morning, and iL vitout of the £100 on cheque for £60 he would rep y' . [produced and thenextmorning. I saw the cheque Lpr identified]. . „„™,,ntant in the Union William James Grey, accountan depoß ed Bank of Australia, vfas next examm fm< m that on the 22nd of J Mitchell. [produced] P re8 ® nt of Canterbury, Samuel Bealey, l have seen the priwas examined. He deposed-I have s mh of soner before. I believe I «»w him

Lt RVO t S | ° n ]' m Ut Mle prisoner promise to give him a cheque for So 1 mil Thrill ant If °, nt - v t0 ÜBC name in any cheque 1 hisi closed the case for the Crown; and 1 »« i !(;°" 0r « Tlllg charged the jury, they retired ™hSS" r X " U,M ' <,clil,Jtio " : refurS Colonial Office to the prison road. Ilis Honor tlien sentenced t™ prisoner to siv months imprisonment with hnrd labour. rhe prisoner, who Bobbed bitterly, was then removed from the dock. •" c LAItCENT. John Ossett was next placed at the bar charged vuth bavin# taken a parcel containing seven brooches and other articles of jewellery from one Julia Moire on the 2nd April last. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for six calendar months, and durinc that time to be kept at hard labour. I.A.KCENY PROM A DWELLING HOtJSE. George Chilman, 15 years of age, pleaded guilty to n charge of having stolen a silver watch and curb chain from the dwelling house of George Angus situate on the Bridle path, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. LAItCENY. Charles Robinson was indicted for having stolen a pair of blankets and a miscellaneous amount of edibles, the property of Robert Manson, on the 9th of May last. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for six months and to be kept at hard labour. STABBING. Charles Melbourne, a man of colour, belonging to the Geelong, was indicted for having, at Akaroa, on the 31st of March last, unlawfully, and with intent to do grievous bodily harm, inflicted a wound with a sharp instrument on the left side of the neck of one John Glynen. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Duncan prosecuted, and Mr. Moorhouse defended the prisoner.

John Glynen, sworn and examined by Mr. Duncan —I am a labourer, living at Akaroa. I remember the 31st of March last. I was at Akaroa on that day. The prisoner was there also. I met him first in the Commercial Hotel there. I had some conversation with him. He asked me if I would "stand" him some drink. I said, " No; when I ask a man to drink I will pay for it, but not without." I had a glass of ale, and lie had one also. I asked him how he was off for pigs for the steamer. He said he would require two or three the next time he came. I told him I could supply him with them. He had previously told me to have some butter for him when he would return from Dunedin, but when he came he had no lipney to pay for it, and I refused to give it to him on credit. I told him, therefore, that if I supplied him with the pigs I hoped it would not be like the butter. We then went out upon the jetty, and he commenced to call me by abusive names. He had an open knife in his hand, and I told him to put it aside, and go about his business. He never moved, but continued to abuse me. I then made a blow at him. I cannot say whether I struck him or not. For a considerable time before I made the blow at him he was flourishing the knife opposite me. He was standing at one side of the jetty, and I at the other. He then stabbed me with tire knife on the left side of the neck. I said to two men alongside of me," lam stabbed." I then went in seach of a doctor. I did not see what became of the prisoner after he stabbed me, for it was dark. I struck at the prisoner, in order that I might get clear of him. Before I struck. at him the prisoner said, •' You brute beast, I will, down you as a beast."

Cross-examined by Mr. Moorhouse—l made only one blow at the prisoner, but I cannot say whether or not I struck him. I couldn't say whether I knocked him off tlie jetty or not. Upon my oath the butter which I had agreed to supply him with on a previous occasion, was not rejected by him in consequence of its being salt. I had taken two glasses of beer that day. I was sober. I cannot tell what the depth of the jetty is at the point at which the prisoner was standing. I called the prisoner a b—y nigger before I received the stab in the neck. When I had a conversation about the pigs I told the prisoner "it would not be like the butter," and that if I gave credit it would not be to a black nigger. The prisoner had not touched me before I made an offer to strike him. He had not a basket of apples with him on the jetty. It was a pocketknife he held in his hand. From what I saw of the knife I would say that it was between three and four inches long. That is, the blade and handle. I cannot say what length of blade I saw, or what length of handle either. The night was not very dark, and I could see the knife shining. I know Napier Monmouth, and also a man named Davie. I saw both these men on the jetty at the time I made the blow at the prisoner. They were standing about half way clown the jetty. I recollect Davie coming in between us after I aimed the blow at the prisoner. We were both standing on the jetty at an equal distance from the shore and the end. I called him a black nigger, because he called me a brute' beast. The prisoner is not my equal in colour. (Laughter.) Upon my oath I didn't say I would sell him if I had him in America.

To the Court —I swear positively that I received the stab in the neck at the time I aimed the blow at the prisoner. When I made the blow at him he was standing at the other end of the jetty. I was going towards where he was standing in order to get clear of him when I was stabbed. I could not get clear of him by any other direction, because there was timber lying in the way. The reason why I didn't go away by the end of the timber farthest from the prisoner was because I didn't wish to run away from hl John Woodhall, examined—l am a labuorer at Akaroa. I recollect the 31st of March last. I was on the end of the jetty at Akaroa that night. I saw Glynen going towards the end of the jetty and the prisoner after him, as if in pursuit. Glynen said iO me, " Look out, John ; he has a knife." He did not say where the prisoner had the knife. Afterwards I saw the prisoner and Glynen " close." The prisoner had a knife in his right hand, and he struck at Glynen. Glynen struck at the prisoner at the same time with his left hand. The prisoner seemed to fall backwards on some timber which was lying on the beach. I saw the prisoner strike Glynen about the head, but cannot say positively where he struck him. Immediately upon being struck Glynen said " I have got it in the neck." I examined his neck. After he took his fingers off the wound blood flowed The prisoner got up, jumped up on the wharf, and ran towards the steamer. Cross-examined —I went to look for a constable. Two minutes elapsed, before I got a constable from the time Glynen was stabbed. The prisoner started off for the steamer before I went for the police. I found the constable coming along the beach, about a hundred yards from the jetty. We proceeded on board the steamer, and the prisoner W3»s Rrr6stcdi John Shuttleworth and Thomas Feltham gave evidence corroboratory of last witness s testimony. Dr. J. H. Aichesor., who attended to the wound the prosecutor had received, deposed that it was two and a half inches deep by half an inch wide. It had evidently been inflicted by a knife or some sharp instrument, but might have resulted from very little violence. „ ~ This closed the case for the Crown. Mr. Moorhouse said it was not . his intention to call any witnesses. In his address o the Jury he admitted that a knife had been used, but he contended that the wound had arisen from accident otl His Honor then summed up, and in the course of his charge said there could be no doubt that provocation had first been given by the prosecutor himSe The jury retired, and after a short absence from f'ntirt returned a verdict of not gudty. After a few cautionary remarks from His Honor witli refirard to the use of the knife the prisoner was SmtgeT and the Court adjourned till ten next morning.

Friday, Junk 3. (Before Mr. Justice Gresson and a Common k Jury.) Af the sitting of the Court this morning, liichard Qt Hill was idwjed at the bar charged with having St. liiu wa& y order for the payment of feloniously fog Zealand at Chnstchurch 2nd of April lot. b. «. -» indicted on a second count of requested that a Osborn waa examined, and 6»ve the pri--10 ira " prisoned for one year, with hard labou . ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A RAPE. Edward S—, a man «"W™ indicted for haying""S'S&Srt Wells, under the agtot Mn yearef SSW&2- -

was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hnrd labour. I'OKOIiItV AND UTTUKINU. All red Robert Stuige was next arraigned charged with having, iu the months of February and March last, forged and uttered.several cheques on the Bunk ot New Zealand. The indictment contained three counts, and to two of these tho prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr. Duncan said that as tho prisoner had pleaded guilty to two of the counts, he did not intend to prosecute in the remaining one, and the jury consequently acquitted him. On one of the counts he was sentenced to be imprisoned for two years, and and on the other, three—live years in all. Mr. Joynt applied that the money found on the prisoner when arrested be returned; but his Honor refused the application, stating that the money, which amounted to £9, found on the prisoner, had been ordered by the Crown to be forfeited. ASSAULT. [ Timothy O'Brien, Thomas Ryan, Michael Corry, and Edward Manning were indicted for having cotn--1 mitted an assault on Thomas Khull, Guy Seeord,and Jane Gilmore, at the Accommodation house at the llakaia, on the 23rd of May last. Mr. Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, The prisoners were undefended. Evidence—the substance of which was published in the Lyttelton Times a few days ago—was then gone into. Jane Gilmore was called, and stated that the prisoners threw several large sized stones through the window. One of these struck her on the cheek, inflicting a rather severe injury. The next morning, on entering the room for the purpose of cleaning it, she found a great quantity of stones lying on the floor. Could not tell who threw the stone which struck her. Charles Flowers was the next witness, and stated in answer to questions from the Court, that on his arrival at the spot where the disturbance took place, he found the prisoner Manning, who was handcuffed, making efforts to strike any one in his reach. Seeing this, witness, to prevent further mischief, struck him on the head with a small whip which he had in his hand, and knocked him down. Witness then unlocked the handcuffs and fastened bis hands with the handcuffs behind his back. Witness then tied his legs and put him into a room by himself. The next day Manning complained that his head was cut, but witness did not see any blood from the blow at the time when it was inflicted.

By the Court—The next morning I saw the sheets and pillow-case of the bed, on which the prisoner Manning slept, saturated with blood. Before I came to the house he was bleeding from a wound which he had received.

By the prisoner Manning—l did not see you struck with a stone, nor did I make any insulting allusions to the Irish. The other prisoners I had no difficulty in managing. By the Court—No more violence was used towards Manning tha;n was absolutely necessary to prevent him from doing more mischief. This was the case for the prosecution. . The prisoners having declined to make any statement, His Honor summed up the case, reading some portions of the evidence, and commenting upon it as he proceeded. He remarked that it was for the jury to decide whether an assault had been committed, and whether the acts complained of had been committed by the prisoners conjointly or were the acts of such of them as had been proved to have taken the most active part in the transaction. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty against the prisoners Manning, Ryan, and Corry, with a recommendation to mercy as regards the two latter, and of not guilty as regarded the prisoner O'Brien. His Honor remarked that the prisoners had been found guilty of a most disgraceful and outrageous assault. It was true that two prisoners, Ryan and Corry, had been recommended to mercy; the sentence upon them would be imprisonment with hard labour for three months in the gaol at Lyttelton, to be computed from the Ist June, and upon the prisoner Manning, who had been the ringleader in the affray, a similar sentence for twelve months. LARCENY FROM A DWELLING-HOUSE. Mary Croft was indicted for that she, on the 13th of April last, did feloniously take from the dwellinghouse of Wm. Scott, situate on the Springfield road, the sum of £6. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The following evidence was given:— Inspector P. Pender sworn, and examined by Mr. Duncan—l remember the 18th of April last. On that day I received information of a theft having been committed. In consequence of that information I went with Mrs. Scott to Colombo street,where the prisoner was. Mrs. Scott, in my presence, charged the prisoner with having stolen a £5 note and a sovereign/ I told the prisoner that Mrs. Scott had made the charge to me. After being told the charge, I cautioned the prisoner in the usual manner. Mrs. Scott's husband and son were present. Mrs. Scott told me, in the prisoner's hearing, that she did not wish to do anything with the prisoner, but riierely wanted her money. She (Mrs. Scott) told me that the prisoner had agreed to give her the money, but would not admit having taken it. In consequence of that,' Mrs. Scott said she would not take the money. I said I could not allow any compromise, and that, if she charged the woman with taking the money, she should take the usual course. The prisoner's husband replied that'l should go and mind my own business ; that they had the matter settled. I then stated I could not allow any settlement, that the magistrates were the persous to settle it, and that the prisoner should come to the lock-up. I told all parties that they could" be punished for compromising felony, and that if the prisoner was guilty the matter should be properly investigated. Mrs. Scott, in explaining her reasons for suspecting the prisoner, stated that she was the only person who was in the house on the morning she missed the money. I took the prisoner to the lock-up. When she was there she said she had only Is 6d. She gave that up. I asked her if she had any more money, and she said she had not. I told her if she had, it would be better for her to give it up. I got a woman to search her. I went into the place after the prisoner had been searched, and under a desk, close to where she was standing, I observed a piece of paper. I asked the watch-house keeper what it was, and he stooped down, and picked up £2. I then went to Mr. Calvert, the tinsmith in High street, and got from him the £5 which I produce. Mrs. Scott had described the £5 note, but whether or not in the prisoner's presence I cannot say. Mary Anne Scott deposed—l am wife of William Scott, who resided on the Springfield road in April last. I know the prisoner. She came to my residence on Thursday night, the 14th of April last. She said her husband had put her out, and in consideration of her circumstances I took her in. On the Saturday morning after I took her in, she went to see her husband, and returned on the following morning. She left my house on the Tuesday morning following. While in my house she slept in tiie front room with my two daughters. When she came to my house she told me she had got no money, nor any clothes either, save those she had on at the time. I was in the habit of keeping my money in a chest in the room in which the prisoner slept. I examined the box in the prisoner's presence the day before she left. I took some money out of the box becausel was going to town with her. On Tuesday, the day upon which the prisoner left my house, I went to the chest to take out of it some money with which to pay the baker. I missed a £5 note and a sovereign. The money was kept in a pocket book. The note which was taken was of the Bank of Australasia. There was one £5 note remaining. The note produced is like the one I lost. I cannot swear to the number of it. I saw the prisoner on the evening of the day she left my house, onthePapanui bridge. I said to her " It is a very cruel business, I have lost £6." She said she knew nothing of it. I told her not, to go away until I would see about it. I went for a policeman, Mid showed him a noteof the same Bank. A little girl of mine had gone shopping with her on that day. Before I got to the policeman she sent iny little girl after ine. In consequence of what the little girl had told me I went back. She told me she would rather pay the money than have any bother about it. She did not specify any sum. I wanted her to admit that she had taken the money, but she would not do so. She repeated her offer, and I told her I would not take the money unless she admitted she had taken it. Sergeant-Major Pender then came forward, and said I should be punished if I took the money. I then gave up all idea of taking it. The money was in the pocket-book at ten o'clock on the night before I missed it. The prisoner and her husband were alone in the room of my house about half-an-hour on the morning she went away. After her husband left she remained alone , in the roorq. To tliQ. prisoner—You had a large parcel of clothes with you when you returned on the Monday morning, and also a watch. To the Court—The prisoner told me on the morn- ! ing she returned from seeing her husband, that she had no money. . | To the prisoner—l did not say to you anything

about, spending money on your husband and not on yourself. William Calvert exnniined—T am a tinsmith and live in Iligh-street. I remember a female coining to my shop on the 18th April last, and buying a tin dish for Is 6d. She tendered a£s note of the Bank of Australasia in payment. I put my initials on the note, and then put it in my purse. I. gave it up to Mr. Pender on the evening of the same day I received it. at the prisoner.] I cannot say that that is the female who bought the tin dish at my shop, and tendered the £5 note on the day in question. Miiry Scott, daughter of the prosecutrix, was examined, and gave evidence in corroboration of her mother's statement. George Spray, formerly watch-house keeper, was next called. On being sworn it was found that he was intoxicated and unable to give evidence. His Honor fined him £5 for contempt of Court, but on saying be had no money, he was ordered to be taken to the loclt-up, and there kept for 48 hours. The case for the Crown having closed, his Honor charged the jury, who retired, and after a short deliberation returned a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the term of six months, with hard labour. The following are the remaining bills of indictment sent up to the Grand Jury, and the finding thereon:— Regina v. Sampson.—Assault with intent. True bill. Regina v. Brittan.—Same offence. No bill. Regina v. William Calcott.—A ttempting to commit suicide. True bill. Regina v. . Timothy O'Brien, Thomas Ryan, Michael Corry, and Edward Manning.—Assault. True bill. [In our report of the Supreme Court in our issue of Thursday, the name of Wm. Malthus, who was convicted of arson, was erroneously spelled Matthews.]