SUPREME COURT.—Monday.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 4154, 6 December 1870, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.— Monday.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. (Before Sir George A. Arney, Chief Justice.] The December criminal session of the Supreme Court was opened at ten o'clock by his Hon_r the Chief Justice. The following gentlemen were sworn as a Grand Jury :- Messrs. Reader Gilson Wood (foreman), Thomas Henderson, William Thome Buckland, James Farmer, Andrew Wardrop, William Crush Daldy, J. McMullin Dargaville, Richard Field Porter, William Baker, Allan Kerr Taylor, Robert Wynyard, James Baber, Charles Roskruge, James Walmsley, Thomas Paton, Walter Graham, John Sangster Macfarlane, A. Beetham, J. Dilworth, Robert Scott Machell, George Manners Mitford, Josiah Clifton Firth, and Henry Gilfillau. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury, said the business which would bo brought before them on the present session, he was glad to way, was not either a very numerous list of offences, nor were they of a very serious character, but were mostly of the ordinary description with which the Grand Jury were in the habit of dealing. The calendar was not such a heavy one of crime as might have been looked for. There had been in this district for some time past a very considerable depression in business, and there was no doubt but many persons had been labouring under very trying circumstances. There had been a series of offences which appeared not to have been committed by the regular settler * of , the colony, but by some who, judging by appearances, seemed to be living by crime. If such should be so, he hoped the Grand Jury would by their findings render this place not desirable for them to continue in. If the Grand Jury should apply the same discrimination which they had always shown to cases brought under their notice for consideration, and if the Common Jury applied their common sense to the consideration of the facts of the cases, and did not give way in any manner, but merely looked at the facts of the cases submitted to them, convictions would follow upon the commission of crime with that degree of certainty which would very soon cause that class of offenders to remove themselves elsewhere. All the cases on the calendar were of the ordinary character. His Honor proceeded to refer to the cases in detail. In reference to the case against Johnston, his Honor said it did not appear that there had been any formal taking by the accused. The mere fact of not accounting for money when a person may have receive it into his possession, would not justify the Grand Jury in finding a true bill of embezzlement against him ; but the Grand Jury might find that the accused had been in the habit of receiving payment of various accounts for his ornployers, and accounting partially for those moneys, but in no one account exactly ; and, if so, the Grand Jury would return a true bill, and leave his case for the Court to deal with. His Honor also referred to the charge of breaking and entering and stealing, against a man named Coffey ; also, to t!ic charge against a foreigner for grievously wounding. There were three persons under a charge of what is called forcible entry. No man could be admitted to assert his right by force. If the depositions in the case were to be ti nsted, a degree of violence had been used which was unjustifiable in law._ It appeared that one did not take an active part in the forcibly entering, but remained at a .short distance watching and directing the others. Should this be proved to their satisfaction, they would return a true bill against him. The case might be called rowdyism ; and, as it was a new one here, and never brought before the Grand Jury)prcviously,was the reason why he had made any remarks upon it. There was a case of manslaughter, by causing the death of a very little child. The circumstances were very peculiar. When any person heedlessly caused the death of any fellow-creature, he committed manslaughter. For example, if any mail rode iv amongst a crowd for the purpose of breaking in a horse, and the horse did injuries to any person so as to cause his death, lie would lie guilty of manslaughter, if it were proved that he rode among the crowd and did injury to tho lives of the people, although he did not do so for the purpose doing mischief. The death was caused by the child being crushed by a dray. The dray at the time was loaded with very heavy material, a heavy load of quartz. It seemed there were no external marks of violence upon the body of the child, yet the medical gentlemen would tell them that the right lung of the child was ruptured, the heart was also ruptured, and so were tho bowels, the effects of the crush the child had received by the dray. It was believed that the little child had got into some small corner or shelter when the dray had come upon it, else it was difficult to conceive how a child of such tender years would not have been thoroughly crushed by such a load of heavy material as the dray was loaded with at the time. The child lived a short time after the dray had come in contact with it. The mother took it up and carried it homo ; she heard it cry, and several persons saw it also before it died. There would be evidence given that the accused, Crowe, who was the driver of the dray at the time, was seen driving ifc in the direction in which the child was playing, that he was seen to go out of the ordinary track, and passed over private property before coming to whore the child was. It . would also be proved that tho driver of the dray had fallen fast asleep and had left the horses to go where they liked, and thus caused the death of one of her Majesty's subjects. If the Grand Jury were satisfied that the dray driven hy Crowe was the one j which caused the death of tho little child, there would be sufficient evidence to justify them in bringing in a true bill for manslaughter. There would also be evidence brought before them that Crowe had been drinking that day, and it was thus suggested that, while under the influence of drink, he had fallen into a heavy sleep under the warm sun, and thus became heedless aud unconscious where his horses were going. That was the last case upon which he thought it was necessary to make any remarks ; but, while on this subject, he could not help condemning the common habit of indulging in drink. It was not his usual practice to indulge in giving lectures from the Bench, but, on the present occasion, he could not help remarking that if the employers of labour would show their discouragement of the present common habit of indulging in the use of strong drink, by giving a {preference to those who were sober, and if society would discourage the same evil habit by example as well as by declamation from the platform, a great change for the better would be produced on that class of society who were in the habit of indulging in the use of ardent spirits. The habits of the educated portion of society had greatly improved in that respect within his own time. The use of wine had helped to 'effect that great change, and it was now almost impossible to see those persons indulging to excess, even while they were enjoying the pleasures of the table. The restraint from the inordinate use of strong drink was to he accomplished by society discouraging it, the same as had been done in the better classes of society. If employers would decline to em- i ploy those who indulged in the habit j of drinking, a great influence for good and the improvement .of society would be accomplished. He. made those remarks because of the death of this little child. He would not detain the Grand Jury longer, but ask them to retire to their chamber, and return some of the more simple bills as soon as they could. BRKAKiNa and Entering-.— John McClin* took and James Miller were indicted with breaking and entering into the shop of Richard Barnes, at Newton, on the 14th October, 1870, and stealing therefrom 18 pairs of boots, 60 boot laces, and.one knife, the property of the said Richard Barnes.— Prisoner Miller pleaded guilty, and McClintock pleaded not guilty. — A jury being empanelled, evidence was called by ,Mr. Brookfield as Crown Solicitor. Riohard Barnes,

proved that his shop was broken open on the day referred to, and identified the boots and other articles produced as part of those stolen from his shop, — Michael Burke, a general dealer, residing in Chancery-street, proved that on the morning of the 15th October he bought several pairs of boots from prisoner McClintock, and that he afterwards gave them over to the police. He identified the boots produced as those purchased from prisoner, and which he handed over to the police. — Detective Ternahan gave evidence of prisoner's arrest. Witness was cross-examined by prisoner at great length. — George Taylor was called to give exculpatory evidence on prisoner's behalf, but in respect to which Mr. Taylor failed to satisfy the prisoner. — Mr. Brookfield addressed the jury, after which his Honor summed up. — The jury, without retiring from their seats, returned a verdict of Guilty. — The prisoner addressed th ■■>. jury, protesting his innocence, and declaring that he had never been before a Judge or jury in his life before. — His Honor interfered, and asked him if he had never been previously before a magistrate. — The prisoner replied that he ha), oftcner than once. — His Honor : Do you not consider a magistrate a judge.? — Prisoner : 1 mean, your Honor, such a Judge as you, and a jury like those gentlemen (pointing to the jury). — McClintock then pleaded guilty to five previous convictions for larceny between the Ist of April, 1865, and the 14th of April, 1870. — Prisoner Murray pleaded guilty to seven previous convictions of larceny between the 25fch of May, 1866, and the sth of July, 1870. — His Honor sentenced each to four years' imprisonment, with penal servitude. False} Pretences. — Henry Trdevena was indicted for having, on the 24th of October, 1870, obtained, by means of false pretences, a bag containing a large quantify of clothes, the property of James White. — Prisoner pleaded guilty to stealing the clothes. — Prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment, with hard labour, for six calendar months.

Burglary.— Martin Michael Weldon was indicted for having, on the 31st August, 1870, at the house, at twelve o'clock at night, burglariously entered the house of Isaac Gwynne, at Epsom, and stolen therefrom one revolver, one meerschaum pipe, several bottles of gin, some tobacco, &c, of a total value of £5 17s.— -Prisoner pleaded guilty. Burglary.— Martin Michael Weldon was further indicted with having, on the 10th of September, 1870, at the hour of 12 o'clock at night, burglariously entered the house of Edward Foley, Otahuhu, and stolen therefrom two bottles of brandy, one pipe, &c — Prisoner pleaded guilty. Burglary. — The same prisoner was further indicted with having, on the 12th Sspteruber, 1870, at the hour of two o'clock in the morning, burglariously entered the house of James Hogan, Panmure, and stolen therefrom two pair of trousers and two Crimean shirts, the property of tin said James Hogan.— Prisoner pleaded guilty.--In answer to a question by the Court, prisoner stated he was a stranger in this part of tho colony, having been in it only for a few months.— His Honor sentenced the prisoner to three years' penal servitude for each offence, the sentences to run concurrent! V.

Stealing from the Person.— William Gtiadry was indicted, on two count', viz., with having, on the ISth October, 1870, in Mills-lane, Auckland, ntolen one purse, containing the sum of £9 17s. Gd., the property of Alexander Lamb ; with having, on the 18th October. 1870, stolen from the person of Martha Lamb, a purse containing | £9 17s. 6d.— Prisoner pleaded t-uilty to having had the money, but not to taking it. — A jury was empanelled.— Mr. Brookfield explained that the two counts in the indictment did not mean that two offences had been committed, ' but, as there might be some doubt raised who the legal owner of the money was, it was to guard against any mishap of that kind that tho two counts were inserted in the indictment. He then called evidence. — Constable Kyron Brcnnan gave evidence respecting prisoner's arrest. Ho found, on searching the prisoner, four one-pound notes, two sovereigns, two half-crowns, ten shillings, three six-penny pieces, twotlrreo-penny pieces, and one four-penny piece. He saw the prisoner in prosecutor's bouse on the morning of the ISfch October, when Mrs. Lamb was counting the money she had in her purse. — Martha Lamb, wife of Alexander Lamb, gave similar evidence respecting prisoner's visit to her house and seeing her count the money. After she had counted her money, she returned the purse into her pocket. When the constable left, prisoner asked her permission to stay all night, aa he would be locked out of his own lodgings. She consented and showed him his room, an I locked the front door. At this time her husband was lying drunk on the floor of the back kitchen. She went to assist him into the bedroom, which was pff the kitchen. Prisoner came downstairs and followed her into the kitchen, and wanted to assist her in getting her husband into the bedroom. While doing so he went behind her and leaned her over on his left -arm. She had no support on the right side where the purse was in her pocket. .She refused hia assistance, -and when she got her husband into bed prisoner was gone, the doors open, her purse and money taken away, and her pocket turned inside out. On looking out 3he saw a man running: up West Queen-street very fast, and afterwards gave information to the police. There was no other stranger in the house save prisoner when she lost her purse. She identified several pieces of the money j produced as having been among the money j taken from her person. — Sergeant William ' Evers was watchhouse- keeper on- the 18th October, Prisoner was in his custody on the previous day on a charge of drunkenness, and when liberated he handed to prisoner Is. 4£d., all the money which belonged to him. — Prisoner called Alexander Lamb, who deposed he never knew the prisoner, and remembered nothing about the 18th October, having been "too tipsy." — Mi*. Brookfield j addressed tho jury, after which his Honor l summed up and charged the jury.— The jury, without leaving their sea's, found a verdict of Guilty. — Sentenced to nine calendar months' imprisonment with hard labour. True Bills. — The Grand Jury found true bills in every case submitted to their consideration, after which his Honor thanked them for their attention, and discharged them. At 5. 50 the Court was adjourned until ten o'clock this morning.