Untitled

Bruce Herald, Volume II, Issue 51, 30 March 1865, Page 6

Friday, March 2-1. The jury were called into Court on the Judge taking his seat, and were asked il they' had agreed. Tiie Foreman replied they had not nor was there any chance of their doing so. The Judge said that the protracted nature of this trial litis interfered with the general business of the Court. Had there, been any probability of the jury agreeing l he would still further have permitted that! business to be interfered with: but as there seemed to be no such probability, he had no alternative but to discharge them, and so to enable other business to be proceeded with. His Honor again thanked the jury for the attention they had paid to the case during its progress; aud said that, in discharging them he could not but recognise the inconvenience to which they had been put by so long a detention from their homes and business. The jury were now discharged. Mr Justice Richmond then took his seat on the Bench. Joiin Hurst and John Crossley Kent were placed in the dock. The prisoners were, at the December sitting, found! gudty of conspiracy to defraud the Pro- j vincial Government — Hurst being a sur-l veyor, in charge of a country party, and Kent one of the men employed therein.! After conviction, the prisoners were liberated on finding sureties — the condition being that, at the first sitting of the Court in Bunco they should move for a new trial, on the ground that the Court ought not to have taken notice of the fact that J.ohn Hyde Harris was the Superintendent of the Province. Neither ol the men had moved the Court; and both failed to appear when called on their recognisances. Hurst said that he intended to have tipplied tor a. new trial, but he did not know that be had time. He waited until the Criminal Sitting was over, not leaving Dunedin until he saw notice for the Civil Sitting, -and that of all the witnesses examined at the trial, only one was examined in the Police Court. He depended for his defence on the evidence of Kent and his wife; but Kant was not admitted to give evidence, and he had no copy of the depositions to use in his defence : and whatever was injurious to Kent's defence was equally so to his (Hurst's). The prisoner entered into an explanation, to the same effect as

at the trial, to show that he was not guilty. Kent said that he intended to have applied for a new trial ; bnt having a wife and; family dependent upon him he could not raise the means. When the prosecutions was instituted, it was the intention of theCrown to call him- as their witness, and he-, was at liberty for weeks before the sittingof the Court ; and was paid as a witness; by the Crown- to attend. But it was: found necessary to indict him in order to-, convict Hurst, and hence he was nowpresent as a prisoner. If he would havepleaded guilty, he would have been discharged, and been called as- a witness. But he could not so plead, because heknew that he was truly innocent, although the jury could not find him so in the way the oase was placed before them, Now he must suffer the punishment the Court mjght be pleased to indict;- but he hoped his recognisances would not be estreated. The Judge said that this was the first case of the kind that had been tried in this judicial district. The offence of which i the prisoners had been convicted was this j — That Hurst being a surveyor in charge.of a Government party, conspired with. | Kent, who was cook of the party, to fab-. j ricate a false voucher for wages and akI lowance in favor of Kent, which, well* j knowing that Lent was nor, entitled to theI money, rlursG certified as correct Of the- ! the truth of the charge, the jury werei satisfied. A technical objection was taken j that it had been omitted that John Hyde 1 Harris was Superintendent for the time | being of ths Province. Having some j slight doubt on the point, he gave leave to I move for a now trial. It was very likely that the prisoners did not know that they were bringing themselves within the law on such a charge, as that which had been* preferred ; but Hurst must have known that he was in the position of a trustee fbr the Government aud had broken his trust. It had not been proved that Hurst made any corrupt bargain with Kent, to participate in the fruits of the fraud ; had it been, the result would been worse for Hurst. He would now pass as light, a sentence as he could; but it must be understood that in any future similar ca»e the punishment would be much more severe. The sentence on Hurst was — -Three months' simple imprisonment, commencing from, the sirring of the Circuit Court. Kent's guilt was less that of Hurst, and rhe sentence would be — One month's simple imprisonment. Mr H. lloworth said he was not advised at present whether it would be better to leave the case of Jarvey over until the next sitting or to proceed to a new trial at an earlier date, The Judge thought there was nothing for it but to adjourn to the usual time;, and the Court was adjourned until the Ist, Maj, • '