SUPREME COURT.-This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume XIII, Issue 3558, 4 January 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.-This Day.

I'tiE GRA^b JURY,

V«% Criminal Sittings,

(Before Ifia Honor Mr Justice Gillies). TKti quarterly criminal scssious of the Circuit Court were opened this morning, Ilia Honor taking his scat upon the Bench 11 o'clock.

The Sollowing gentlemen were sworn in as the Grand Jury :—William Baker, John Buchanan, William Frank Bucldand Albert Burchall-, David Burnsidc, Richard J. Carbines, Ebcne/er Robert Catduo, Frank 'Bufaur,. John Edscn, Geoiro grft«er,-James Goldie, Kobeiib Hall, John ferkwged, Barton Ireland, Tho'ma* Ht?nt jVeVI, Thoma- Moore, John Reid, Williacj KoSert Walker; fairies Wallace, r and Jlepry Wprs^.. Mr. .Ba;ton ; Jrolau.i was flqcted lorriman.i, James Auckland was called, ..buti failed .to appear, while fefcemption/ < from ■ service was granted •William Daw, Gco. Kell?, and David Stewart,

THE JUDGE'S CHARGE, His Houor delivered the following charee:—Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury—l had hopod to be able to congratulate you on this occasion upon having a light calendar to deal with, for so it appeared Until withili ten .daya age! ; since when numerous commitments have ■ been !u*de, which have brought up ths • cases to the average nui'lbcr. Tluie aro I(J i petaona charged with 28 offences, and of ; these about; one-third are Maoris. The offences, with oue or two exceptions, are not of ;i very ghnc character, and amongst theße arc some in regard to which 1 Hlionld not be at ; nil surprised if you felt it to be yc.tr duty to ignore the bills altogether, inasmuch As ; they nre not of a nature that should bo teat lup to occupy the time of this Court. The principal ca/c to be brought before you is one in which one Maori is charged with killing another, It appears from the depositions that the two men quarrelled and were lighting, when one of them stabbed the other to the hrjart With the blade ef a knife. You will remember the distinction that exists between murder and llian. slaughter. Murder is the killing of oiie person by another with malice aforethought, while manslaughter is killing without malice aforethought. Malice, the law implies in every wise, but tliu lhalice hoed not go further than is shown iv the commission Of the unlawful act. Malice aforethought, on the contrary, shows that the person committing the crime has done it with some amount of deliberation, and mt rtpon a auddSn' determination. Ido not know with which of the crirlies the indictment will bo vent to you, bttt, at any rate, it will be your duty to examine tho evidence and decide whether sufficient grounds arc disclosed to warrant you iv returning a true bill for mUrder or a true bill for manslaughter, the distinction being as I have pointed out to you. If the bill sent is one for murder, you arc at liberty to find for manslaughter, if y'du do not think there is sufficient to substantiate the other charge. If you have any doubts on the matter, you had better send the case oh to the petty jury rather than resolve the matter yourselves. The next most serious charge is one of rape preferred by a Maori woman against a bu*hman. There is some little corroborative evidence in the case, because this man was seen by a boy struggling with the woman on the ground, but there is no further evidence except the woman's own. It will be for you. to determine whether, looking to the circumstances, you arc satisfied with her evidence of the offence having been committed, and even if you should not liud the evidence sufficient to prove the completion of the criinojthero may be sufficient evidence to bring iv a bill for attempting it» However, that will be for you to judge. There are two cases of indecent assault with which tou will havo to deal, and I desire to direct very special attention to them, inasmuch as the evidence in both seems to be of a very extraordinary character In one case a child is woke up in the night, as she states, by feeling a hand on her person. She turua round and find?, as she says, a man in tho room with a light. He puts out the light and disappears She alleges that this in< dividual is a black man who lives in the neighbouring house with a family of his own. She arouses her parents, and they institute a search, but without finding anything, except that the front door,which had been locked on the previous night, was open. The evidence is of a very strange i character, and you will have to say whether it discloses sufficient prima facie grounds to justify you in sending the case on for trial. The evidence is certainly very slight. So also in another case of similar character,in which a drunken man goos into a houso where there are some young girls, and while there commits a widen indecent act in their prcsenoc. But as the olfcnce consists in tho lumiult there must bo a laying of hand* in an indecent manner upon the person assaulted. In the present case, while tho accused acted apparently in an indecent way before the children, they wont out from the kitchen wherein they were, whereupon the prisoner takes hold of one of the little girls. She screams, her father and mother come in, ai»d, after some altercation, the father gives the man a glass of liquor, and he goes away. It will be for you to consider whether under such circum- | stances the evidence is strong enough to justify the prisoner being sent to trial. There "is one case of attempted suicide, which in i Ihe eye of the law is an offence—that of f attempting to murder one's self. The facts are so clear that there can be no doubt as to the committal of the offence. There i«, too, one case of maliciously wounding a i horse, in which a settler, who is very much r annoyed by the intrusion of the animal and not being clear as to its ownership, h'res v shot and wounds it. No doubt this is an offence at law, and tho mere fact of the horse breaking into the man's place and vnnoyiag him is no justification, for the | person has his remedy in another way. The I facts aro almost admitted, and I do not think you will havo any difficulty, there. Jure, in determining whether the prisoner wounded the horse. There nro three criminal informations for libel, and it was to these that I referred when I said that some df the cases ought to be discouraged, leaving the pesons who are feeling aggrieved to seek a civil remedy by legal action instead of bringing forward a criminal indictment. You will find that of these cases two are against the same person, the alleged Hbel being contained in a letter or letters written to tho Poatmaster iv regard ■to another person—tho postmaster in a country district.. These letters certainly contain very strong statements, but as they wore not made public they were not likely , to lead to a breach of the peace, and that is usually the basis of a criminal indictment lor libel. In these cases, and in the other one also where a printed libel of a scurrilous and abusive character was stuck up in , a country township, it will bo for you to ' consider whether tho criminal indictment should be encouraged, or whether the perJ sons should not be left to the civil remedy. There are two cases of perjury, in one of which the cvidonco is tolerably clear, but to the othor case I wish to direct your special attention. It arises out of a case tried at the last sittings of this Court, wherein a •Maori woman charged a settler living in tho ' northern part of the country with rape. The prisoner Wits found not guilty, although tho woman swore positively to his having had connection with her. At the close of the trial application was made to me !to order an indictment to be drawn up against the Maori woman for perjury, but I declined to make any such order, as there did not appear then to be suilicient grounds for charging her with such an offence, even while there was suliicicnt to justify the jury In acquitting the prisoner. You will havo to consider whether the woman wilfully, I corrnptly, and intentionally swore falsely, and you will have further to sec that tho false testimony was given iv regard to certain facts which arc proved to be absolutely untrue. You will also recollect that the woman's evidence was given in Maori, and that it is vcrv difficult to translate so as to convoy the exact meaning of the witness. There are two cases of horscstealinfir, in one of which the evidence looks pretty clear, as the animal was taken away from tho paddock, and in a day or two afterwards found in the possession of a person rwho had purchased it from the accused, who is, • therefore, considered the thief, unless ho can prove that he ill honestly came by tho alleged stolen proI<"'pertY. Tbe other case is not ho clear, '] 'because in it the evidence shews that a !| horse belonging to some unknown owner li was running upon a property, the owner of I which de3itcd it to be takcu away. The I accused took it, and after some time disI posed of it, the owner subsequently turning I up and claiming it. There is one prisoner I (p come before you against whom there are I m>6 charges of sending threatening letters -letters threatening to kill, unless money h delivc^jl. Against him also there are three charges of housebreakiug. No doubt [, all of you luve heard of these charges I against this man. He was formerly conIkyicied, but* ho has served his worm of immjsttawent — S«<* ttie

I penalty for his prcviona offences, and thorefore you mu,t not be guidedAy his previous character, but by the evidence sot before you. In some of the cvcithe evidence is not oi the strongest character, still you ncott not have much difficulty in dealing with them. There are some trifling larceny cases, in which the evidence is of the usual simple kind. There is also another charge of house-breaking—breaking into a store— against four Maoris, who are only connected frith the ollenci; by being observed ill tab vicinity d some Scrub wliero the

stolen goods were louna conceaiuu. *-.... excuse is that they were searching for some horses which they had lost. The only other case you have te deal with h one of' r. somewhat novel character. It is a charge of impersonation laid under one el the statutes pasoDd during the ■ last session of. Parliament,,Viz;,.The Corrupt Practices Prercptisa A,t t, ths alleged ift. peraonution conqistinf>,in a man sending i,u a clam fcranother perrson tc vote without having obtained ■ his authority. The evidence shewn on the u laco ofi the .depositions does not seem to make out the commission of this act very clearly. A question may arise regarding the wording of the section as to whether the claim was one sent in, seeing that the accused took and handed it in himsclr, but, of course, that is a question of law with which you need not trouble yourselves, These," shortly, are ttte cases that, you have to deal with, and if yen will ndw retire the bills will be Idid.barbre you', Tlio Gi-and Jttry theii retired. , i'RtjE iiiLLS. , . The Grand Jujry foiind true bilk in tha cases of Alfred Chine, stealing from a dwelling; J. E. McGiverh, attempted suicide; and Richard Robinson, stealing from a dwelling. The Grand Jury found true bills in tho two Plummer threatening letter cases. ITO Bltti. The Grand Jiiry foutid no bill iii tha Awitu breaking and enteriilg case. HOnSE.STKALINCi. Tuhi, a liativo youth, a-»cd If), was charged with stealing a gelding, the property of Frances Augustine Luck, from Hapiltonj on November 30th last. Frisbner pleaded not guilty. The following jury was ompahnelied •- James White, A. Millon; W. U. Mowbray, R. Little, R. Platt, J. Flctplier, C. Lamp, D. McPbereoh, F; Corbett, J. Ramsey, \v, H. McAdaiii. The Crown Prosecutor,having stated the ca?e, called Frances Augustine Luck, a Catholic priest, raiding at Hamilton, who deposed that he left the liorse with a Mr McGurk at Hamilton' about the 18th Novenibor, It was a bay gelding r/itl> an X brand on the shoulder and a white star on tho forehead, He did not see the animal again urltil he saw it at Te Awamutu in a paddock- Mr Apployard claimed it, stating that lie had bought it from prisoner. Witness gave no one authority to move the liorse from MeGurk'.", nor had he sold it to anyone. Ho paid £20 for the horse, and was perfectly positive the animal he saw at Te Awamutu wai his. Prisoner declined to cross examine the witness. James McGurk deposed that he was a farmer residing at Hamilton, and recollected Father Luck leaving a horse with him on tho ISth November last. (Witness described the horse.) He had occasion to leave the residence for a few days, and on returning the liorse was missing. The following day he telegraphed to Father Luck, and also to the police at ' Te Awamutu, He saw the horse subsequently at Te Awamutu outside the police station,

By prist nor t I did not see you take the hor."c from tho paddock, Frederick Applcyard, a storekeeper residing ot Te Awamutu, deposed to purchasing the horse from prisoner on November 30th for £1. He had not seen prisoner before to his knowledge. Prisoner informed him that his name Was Harry Peter, that he lived at Whatawhata, and that his parents resided there. (Witness produced a receipt signed " Harry Peter.") Prisoner was quito sober at tho time of the sale. Two days after the purchase Father Luck claimed the animal.

To Prisoner : I am certain you aro the person from whom I purchased the horse. You wore light clothes with holes in them.

To His Honor : I pointed out prisoner on the 7th December. Uu that date he wore the same clothes as he wore the day he told the horse.

John Glass, a baker, residing at Te Awamutu, who was present at tho sale of the horse, deposed tv seeing Applcyard pay prisonor £4. He saw the receipt, which prisoner signed with a cross. To prisoner: I am certain you are the person I saw in the store. 1 know you by your face and appearance. Constable R. J. Gillies, sworn, deposed that he arrested prisoner on a charge of horse-stealing, on tho 7th December, at Alexandra. Mr Appleyard was present and pointed out prisoner as the man from whom he purchased the horse. Mr Glass identified prisoner at once. To prisoner : There were not more than three persons saw me arrest you. Prisoner then made a statement to the effect that the last occasion on which he visited Tc Awamutu prior to his arrest was when the King visited that place. He waa falecly accused of stealing the horse—he knew nothing about it. He had never seen the place fiom which it was said he had taken the horse. In summing up, His Honor said the only question was one of identification. The jury retired and on the Court resuming at two o'clock returned a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour, LAKCENY. Richard Roberts, otherwise Robert Robertson, a negro cook, aged 26, was charged with stealing £10 10s, on December 23rd last, the property of Paul Francis, from the Blue Post IJiniog-room, Tho prisoner pleaded not Ruilty. Paul Francis, a bnshman residing at Whangarei, deposed that December 22nd last, he came to town, and took a room at the Blue Post Dining Room. When he went to bed he bad £12 10s, and on examining it on tho following morning, found it was all there. Ho took £2 out, and wrapped £10 10s in a piece ot rag, forgetting all about it left it on the bed. He first missed it at 6,30 that evening, when ho went straight to the room and looked for it, but could not lind it. He recognised the £5 note produced by the hole in the centre and his own handwriting on the back. After hearing Mrs Amelia Johnston, Mr Robert Murdoch, and Constable Jonof, the jury found prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, with hard labour.