Supreme court. CRIMINAL SESSION.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XIII, Issue 958, 2 September 1856, Page 2

Supreme court. CRIMINAL SESSION.

The Court was opened yesterday morning at 10 o'clock by his Honor the acting Chief Justice. The following Grand Jury was empannelled : Messrs. J. W. Bain, Walter Brodie, Hugh Carleton, Archibald Clarke, William Connell, W. C. Daldy, James Dilworth, J. A. GilfilUn, William Mason, Henry Matson, David Nathan, Marmaduke G. Nixon, James O'Neill, John Salmon, Thomas C. Williams, John Williamson, William S. Grahame (foreman). His Honor "addressed the Grand Jury in a few words, congratulating them on the lightness of the calendar, and remarking that neither of the cases for trial called for any special observation. The Grand Jury, having retired, in due course found a true bill on the indictments, Queen v. Woodford (2), aad Queen t. Neesham. On the names of the petty Jury being called, William Laurie was excused on the ground of mental disorder, * certificate to that effect having been produced. Assault* Before the following petty Jury :— Richard Lawford, Laurence Lorigan, Solomon H. Levey, Etnilius Leßoy, William Lepine, Henry Masters, Edward Lewis, Wm. Lorigan, George May, James Macky, Thos. Londergan, Every Maclean (foreman). James Scott was indioted with having, on the 22nd April last, at Mount Eden, committed an assault upon one Robert Johnstone. The defendant having been placed in the dock, his Honor said that the charge being simply a misdemeanour, the defendant should not be plactd in the felons' dock, but on the floor of the Court. He (the learned Judge) would • always wish to preserve the destinction. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The Attorney- General haviag briefly stated the case for the prosecution, called — Robert Jobnstone, who deposed,— l am a carpenter, living in Auckland. In Apiil. I was superintending the work, at the stockade, Mount Eden ; the defendant was.

at work there. On or About the 25th, I gave defendant instructions to do certain work. He said he had done so. I said it did not look like it. He said, if you say so, you are an infernal old liar. He continued to abuse me. I said, there's no use your coming at this time of the day, drunk. I then turned up the passage to the other end of the building. He followed me up. I went into one of the cells to get nail*. He stood at the door, abusing me, and then said, Come out and I'll shew you something to astonish you. I did not go out. He put in his hand and took me by the collar, dragging me out into the passage, and then shoved me back into the cell, twice. I said, if you serve me like that, I will strike you with something He was coming at me again, •when I reached out my hand and rafted a pair of saw clamps, but did not strike him with them. He wrenched them ouf of my hand. I then lifted a piece of wood about seven-eigh'hs round, and struck him with it. He then rushed into the cell, threw me down, dropped on to my body with his knees, worked his hand into my neckerchief, and held me there, choking me, till one of jhe men crime and took him off me. I then went 'to work. He shortly afterwards .said to me, Johnstone, you're-not done with this yet. I said, I don't care for the threats of a blackguard. He then rushed in upon me, seized me lsy the head with one hand, and hit me on the face with another, several times, breaking my. jaw in two placM. I fell on the floor. He then put his foot on my body, and give me a push from him. The defendant cross-examined the witness at considerable length, but without in any way shaking his testimony. The Attorney-General next called,— William Little, who, on being called, did not appear. The service of the subpoena was duly proved. Samuel John Stratford, sworn, deposed — I am a surgeon, residing in Auckland. On the 22nd April, I examined the face of defendant, and found a comminuted fracture in the jaw. [The doctor entered into particulars which we need not give.] The blow must have been a very severe one to cause such injuries. The Attorney-General having considered it unnecessary to address the Jury, The defendant availed himself of the opportunity afforded him, to give his own version of the circumstances, at considerable length. According to his statement, Johnstone struck him first with the saw clamps, causing a great effusion of blood ; and that, in short, he (the defendant) was more sinned against than sinning. His Honor having summed up, the Jury retired, and, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor, in passing sentence, commented upon the obvious fact that the defendant had taken advantage of his bodily strength to commit a violent assault upon an old man. The defendant had not probably contemplated the consequences of the act, but still, he had shown himself to be a person of ungovernable temper. In the absence of any evidence as to trie general character of the defendant, he (his Honor) would not feel justified in passing a more lenient sentence than six months' imprisonment. Larceny. Before the following Jury :— T. C. Law, Robert Leslie, Matthew Laurie, James Laurie, George Leech, Philip Levy, John Lilewall, Francis C. Lewis, T. L. Macky, Henry Lewis, Stephen Latham, William A. Lax on. Robert Neesham was indicted with having, on the 14th June last, stolen a bundle of wearing apparel and other articles, the goods and chattels of John Henry King. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. King, William Neal, servant to Mr. King, Mrs. Ruxton, who bought part of the stolen property, and Mrs. King, severally gave their evidence for the prosecution. The particulars have already been before our readers. His Honor having briefly summed up, the Jury retired, and, almost immediately, returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor passed sentence of 12 month's imprisonment, with hard labour. Larceny. William Woodford was indicted for having stolen one gold watch, the property of Thomas Finlay, Remuera. The particulars, which have already appeared in our columns, were not gone into, the prisoner having pleaded guilty. His Honor, in passing sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, commented upon the fact of the prisoner having broken trust with his employer, and on the necessity, under such circumstances, of inflicting a spvere punishment. A second charge against the prisoner— that of stealing * gun, was withdrawn by the Attorney- General. The Court then adjourned sine die.