SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 266, 1 September 1890, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

f THIS DAY. i CRIMINAL SESSIONS. ; JUDGE'S CHARGE. " (Before His Honor Mr Justico Conolly). , Bis Honor Mb J'.bzick Gojcoi._y took his , seat in tho Supremo Court this morning at I 11 o'clock, to begin the criminal business of ', the Court. GRAND JURY LIST. The following gentleman were sworn as ■ a grand jury ;—Messrs Henry Allwrighb, Joseph C. Armitnge, Geo. W. Binney, My. Brett, Francis R. Claude, Wm. Colson, Win. J. Dalton, Jno. Dawton, Harkness Hamilton, Geo. B. Hutton, Wm. Johu--1 ston, James M. Lennox, Robb. Mahoney, , Herman Nashelski, Malcolm Niccol, John i Noakes, Wm. Jno. Wilmob Pbitson, Joseph > Potter, Jno. Hy. Upton, Mr J. H. Upton i was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury. Mr Edward W&yte claimed exemption «ts i being over age, and was excused. Mr Oliver 1 B. Uaymouth also claimed exemption on a 1 doctor's certificate, and was' granted it. On' 1 tlie application of Mr Jacksoi: Palmer Mr 1 Jno, Jiatgcr was also excused, he having 1 made prior arrangements to lea\'6 Auck--1 land. JUDGE'S CHARGE. In charging the Grand Jury, His Honor 1 said that on the present occasion there were 1 a very large number of indictments to bo 1 laid before them, and some were very ; serious, but he thought thak with one br two exceptions they were nob ab all ' complicated, and would not call for much 1 direction. By far the greater number were for breaking and entering into premises, some by day and some by night. Some were cases of burglary, the breaking ' and entering having- taken place between bhe hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., with felonious intent, and other cases wero hot bo--1 tween thosehoui ~and were, therefore, simple '. house-breaking. In most of the*e cases the ■ evidence was sufficiently clear, as a parb of tho goods were fomid almost immediately ■ after in the possession of the accused. 1 There were five charges against ono pri--1 soner, and about as many againsb otheis. 1 There were bwo very peculiar cases ■ of false pretences in connection with gum 1 robberies from ditlerenb gum merchants. : In one case the party represented that he - himself had brought the gum to the store, : and in the other case it was represented ! thab others than the accused had brought it. The gum in the latter case was never 1 taken off tho promises, being all the time ' part of bhe merchant's stock, and was simply shown in the heaps and sold. 1 In bho obhor case the gum, io was alleged, had been stolen off the premises, and then brought back and sold. The principal offender in this case was a young man in the employ of the merchant who had absconded, bub tho person by whose false pretence ib, was alleged that tho money was obtained was now charged with the offence. In the other case one man acted as accomplice and , gob in, took the gum, and ib was resold bo : bhe merchant. Tho case was peculiar, bub i there would probably be noI greatdifficulty" in making tho matter out. He was happy to. see that there was only one charge of 1. catblestealing. On previous occasions there 1 had been many such charges from various parts of the province, and he was glad to see a reduction of them. In the present case the person charged was accused of killing the boasc and stealing the carcase. There could be very little doubb as to the felonious intent, the skinhavingbeenburied, and afterwardsfound so buried. Thequestion of identity mighb arise, bub the person charged had admitted, killing tho beast, but alleged thab two others were implicated. There were two young mon, or lads, who were charged with assisting him. Now, he thought it right to tell the jury that so far as the depositions went there was no evidence againsb them except thab of bhe man who admibbed his own guilt. Other evidence mighb, of course, be broughb, bub if bhero were nothing further againsb these young men, except I this (statement, he must insbrucb them to throw out the bill against them ; for though bhe admission of an accused is very strong evidence againsb himself, it is no evidence whatever against other persons, more especially when tboso others are not present when the statement is made. If There is no other evidence , you will therefore find no true bill against these young men. There is also 3 case of perjury againsb one person. Perjury is the taking a false oath in a judicial proceeding in a matter material to thab proceeding. In this case the man charged with perjury was charged with unlawfully di £_i Q g R»ro at Puhipuhi. Under the statute passed last session, he. Was himself allowed to give evidence, and became liable just as other prisoners. Ho is alleged to have sworn in regard to that charge that he not only did not dig gum in Puhipuhi on that occasion, bub never had dug gum bbere. The jury would have to be satisfied that he did swear that.' If they were satisfied, there was no doubb the evidence waa material, bu. they must farther have the

evidence of two witnesses thab his evidence was false, thab he knew it to be false. Except bhe case of murder bhere was only j one charge of violence. In bhab case a man is charged with assaulting and attempting ] to rob a Chinaman. The evidence was that - he did assault the Chinaman and attempted bo throttle him and then to pick his pocket. Bub the Chinaman made a about resistance aud tho man was captured. There might 1 possibly be some doubt as to the identity of * tho man,.buo if they felt satisfied with the \ evidence of the man assaulted, they would bring in a true bill. CHARGK OF MURDER. He very much regretted thab the jury . and ho would have bhe very painful task of investigating a charge of murder. His ] Honor than weub on to describe the shoot- i ing ot a constable on the Northern Wairoa river. His Honor proceeded to observe thao ib might probably be said that if the • prisoner intended to shoot anybody he intended to shoot the captain, and had no intention whatever "to shoot the constable. Ho may nob even have been aware that the cotistaole was on board when he fired bhe shots; but thab would make no difference to b_o nature of the otfence. It would still bo murdor. If he tired with intent to kill one man, and . killed another, it would still be murder, if he lired into a crowd, though with no intention of killing any special individual, aud yeb killed a man, it would sbill bo murdor. .If he only knew that there were persons on bhe deck, and if he fired deliberately ab bho deck,it was murder ; and if the jury felb satisfied that ho lired directly at . the steamer at a short distance with pas- . sengera on bhe deck they could bring in no bill other than that of murder. Jb may be said thab he received provocation in having his gun baken from him, and it mighb be claimed thab the offence was r simply manslaughter ; bub tlie provocation received did not justify him in tiring a loaded pistol at persons who annoyed him. It mighb, and probably wou.d be claimed if a true bill wero found, when bhe case comes up for trial, thab the man was ailectod with drink, or that he was insane, and therefore nob responsible • for his actions. Those, however, would not ' be questions for the Grand Jury. In regard , to tne claim thab mighb be set up regarding tho influence of drink he might cay that if ' a man knowingly pub himself under bhe in- , fluence of liquor that was no excuse for any i crime. If ho were so afllicted in mind that : he was not responsible for hi 3 actions he ( mighb ba acquitted in Court; but the question was not one for tho Grand Jury to decide. TRUE BILLS. Tho Grand Jury then retired, and returned in a few minutes wibh a true bill against David Dewars Russell, for breaking and ontei ing. True bills were alao returned against Michael Kirby, on five counts for larceny, burglary, breaking and stealing; John Symons, burglary; Alexander McLean, breaking; and entering; Joseph Barry, obtaining money under false pretences ; Peter Wilson, larceny. Al_kg_d Breaking and Entering.—The common jurymen were then sworn in, and a jury chosen to try David Dewars Russell, who was arraigned on an indictmenb . charging him wibh having broken andenbarod tho houso of John Lindsay Boyd at Hender- ; son on tho 6th Way, 1890, and stealingtherefrom 1 silver watch and chain valued < at JCG 2s. There was a second counb of receiving bhe watch and chain knowing them bo be stolen. Prisoner pleaded nob guilty, and at his request all witnesses were ordered 6uc of Court. He conducted his . own case. (Lofb aibbing.)