SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 141, 15 June 1888, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

(YesierdJiy Concluded.)

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) Indecent Assault.—Henry Palmer, charged with this offence, was found "guilty" by the jury, and pleaded, in extenuation, that he had suffered from brain fever since a child,—His Honor sentenced prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, and to twenty strokes of the cat. during the first months. The gaol authorities would see that he was physically fib to bear this punishment. Brkaking and Entebing. —Robert Johnston and Edward Muinford were charged that they did on the 3rd May last unlawfully break-and enter the premises of John Charles Farrow, Hobson-street, and steal therefrom one diamond ring, Waterbury watch, two purses, and £1 6s ■in money; and . Bridget Johnston was charged with receiving one diamond ring, • knowing1 that it was ! stolen. The former (two lads) pleaded "Guilty," and the latter " Not guilty." She acknowledged having pawned the ring, but denied knowledge that it was stolen property. The evidence given was the same as that recorded in the Police Court, and the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor passed sentence. This being Mumford's first offence, and the Probation Officer's report being favourable, he Was bound over for two years, his father becoming security for his good behaviour during that period. The lad Johnston, having been previously convicted of larceny, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour; and Bridget Johnston was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard-labour. The Court then adjourned. THIS BAY. Assault and Bobbery.—Nicholas Hand, Henry Arthur, and Alfred William Cracknell were charged that they 'lid on the 26th April unlawfully assail & one John Bell, and put him in great uodily fear of his life; also that they did feloniously steal a dingy, the property of the said John Bell. - Tllere was a second count in the indictment, charging the prisoners with stealing a dingy, the property of John Gouk.—Mr Humphreys appeaved on behalf of the prisoners, who pleaded not guilty, and witnesses were ordered out of Court. —Mr H. Williamson Crown Prosecutor explained the law with respect to assault and robbery, and stated the particulars of the charge, which are well known. John Bell was a gumdjgpr who resided with his wife at .tlobsoDville, and on the evening of the 26th mst. he received a visit from the prisoners, who, it y, :as alleged, used some ycry bad language, assaulted Bell, and *°f , ™, ay u a dingy, threatening to -cut Bells throat if he interfered. It was also alle|ed that one of the prisoners stiuck Mrs Bell and knocked her into the water.-John Bell was cross-examined at considerabe length, but adhered to his cK a\f^ raenV mado the Police Court. -Mr Humphreys, when addressing the ]ury, submitted that the story told by Si nt' VaStoo{- S\ COlT cd' and that S client., took the dingy under the impress™ that it belonged to ihem.-His Uttering.-Robert Foster, alias George pleaded "guilty" to the uttering His Honor, seeing that the prisoner hid been eSce 1/ , COnT tCd- °f > sJMar offend S nSn™lLVur PnS °mneni3f°rt-to-SiS* ?™ adj°Urned tIU «> >•*,