Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


(FEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Nelson. August 21 Tha Suprenn Court criminal sittings open id to-day before Mr Justice Bichrarad. -a.-.g, White, .ate Superintendent of Nelson Lunatic Asylum, pleaded guilty to three charges of embezzlement, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment, with hard labour. Charles Powell, for killing sheep with intent to steal, pleaded gailty, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment with h ird labour. The case of criminal libel m whioh Thomas Henry Mabln, of Auckland, was charged by James Solanders, merchant, Nel-00, with libels oontalned m circulars, leaflets, etc, eonoluded to-night. Acoused conducted his own case. The matter originated In const quenoa of a letter from Shaw Savlll and Co, London, which accused said complainant forged. The authenticity of this letter was proved by Mr J* H. Cook, of Wellington. Acoused admitted publishing tha libels, but Insisted on their truth. His Honor then said that no plea of justification having been filed a verdlot of guilty must be returned unless the prose oit lon allowed aocused to bring forward his evidence. Thia was assented to by the prosecution, and tho case was gone fully Into. His Honor, In summing np, said the oase waa a most extraordinary one, on whioh Mabln had brooded for years, and, no doubt, to a certain extent it had a6f otad his mind on this particular übjpot. The jury at onoe returned a verdlot of •■Guilty." Mr Fell, for the oroseoutlon, said the proceedings were not vindictive*, but simply to stop the per. "latent libels oontlnued for over seven years. His Honor addressing Mabln, said ha did not propose to pais sentence at present. He spoke of aocused's ability as an average stater, and said that this might have been underrated In Shaw, Savlll's letter j but even If that was the cave, It was no justification for persevering In to foul an Imputation on a gentleman of unblemished character." It was absolutely neoeeaary to slop this course of libels j but be proposed to do no more than require accused to oome up for sentence when called on, but If his past oonduot were In any degree continued aocused must expcot no light meed of punishment. Aocused then entered {Into his own reoonizanoes In £200 to oome up for sentence when oalled on, and said his patt oonduot should not be repeated. Mr Fell intimated that if this was so Mr Solanders would not go further m the aotlon for damages. Tima-to, August 21. At the Supreme Court to-day, a lad of 17, an esoapee from Oa,yereharn school, was given 3 montb^i ft }he end. of.fcurront sentences, for robbmg >> p'oughlng camp In the first oise agafns \\\ rill, late clsrk tp the Deputy Offioial .Ut-i .-nee, of forging a receipt for £12 lis 3d, and uttering the sa me with intend t » defraud, the Jury i found him not guilty. At the Supreme Court, the second Qhargt of burglary agilci* Q,, Pcaree.

**lmaaamMmwMm.-\M I H ■ i l ■ mi iiiui*.„-__ semau, was withdrawn lo d*y, and prleon.r ecqultted, and on tbe first charge discharged. Birr ell, l«to olerk to the "Deputy OfficUl Assignee was acquitted on the first oharge of forgery of a receipt for dividend, the jury considering It not proved that the forgery w.a his. I J W. Francis, a waiter, was acquitted of : larceny of a £20 note found by him m a street one night. The secund charge against Blrrell was taken this afternoon. In a dividend Bbeefc, Frledlaodnr Bros., were down for a dividend of £19 3< 61 and this, H. Friedlande. received, and aigued the sheet for It afterwards, A line was ticked In beneath, giving there a further dividend of £385; ticks were placed under the signature, and two lihea braoketted aa If to show that Friedlandei treated them as one. Aooused had entered In the cash book amounts m one sum, £_0_ 3s 51. Eames, Audit Inspector, showed that the acootnt was defioeit by £385, If the Interlloation were Ignored. Sir Robert Stout for the defence raised the point ih**t the document was not a receipt, and this was reserved for consideration, if neoessary, the jury being told to confine their attention to the fact and Intent. The jury retired at 6.15, and at 10 o'olook were looked up for the night, after trying 'o effect a compromise of " not guilty of forgery, but guilty of Intent to defraud." His Honor said he oould not aooept that as a verdlot: Sir U. Stout claimed It aa a verdlot of acquittal, "not guilty of forgery." The foreman explained that tho jary wera not unanimous, and they thought they woold try that verdlot. Hia Honor said they mast be unanimous one way or other, and the jury again retired. At 10.25 they sent a message that there was no ohance of fcher agreeing, and .His Honor then directed tbe jury to be " looked up "-—taken owe of In an hoteltill morning. : Timartj, August 22. After being looked up all night tbe jury fn Blrrell's case returned a verdlot of guilty. Senteoo. was deferred pending consideration by Court of Appeal of two technical paints. One lndiotment baa been withdrawn and two others are held over till next Bitting. Ball was fixed at £500 and two eurleties of £250 eaoh,

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

SUPREME COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2206, 22 August 1889

Word Count

SUPREME COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2206, 22 August 1889