SUPREME COURT.—Friday. IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. [Before his Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Chief Justice. ]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVIII, Issue 4722, 12 October 1872, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.— Friday. IN CRIMINAL JURISDICT ION. [Before his Honor Sir G. A. Arney, Chief Justice. ]

Sentence. — William Oakley, for a breach of the Anna Act, 1860, who had been found guilty on the previous afternoon, was placed in thedock to receive sentence. — Theprisonei asked permission to address the Court previous to judgment being passed. He said that he had been led astray by other parties, and that if he was to be punished he hoped those would be punished who had been the means of his breaking the law. He had been living at Maketu since 1869, where he had been employed by the officers of native and contingent troops to repair firearms. He had also received sanction to dispose of weapons. He had on occasions spoken to Mr. Hamlin. Resident Magistrate at Maketu, and had asked whether he, not being a licensed armourer, had a right to repair anna, when Mr. Hamlin had told him if any wrong had been done it was no fault of his, and that he (Mr. Hamlin) was alone to blame. He had pleaded guilty en the second charge because finding it had gone against him on the first. Besides which he had never been charged with the second offence at the Resident Magistrate's Court, and he never knew anything of it until it came up against him yesterday. Had he known of lb he would have been able to have proved his innocence. One piece of writing which affected him had been taken from a packet by the detective constable, and he hoped hia Honor would cau<-e the matter to be investigated. He had been quite deceived, for he had been employed by Colonel Mould, Major Mair, and otheis to repair arms, both for the natives and other foices, and he thought it was the duty of those who knew of these facts to come forward and prove his innocence. — His Honor, in passing sentence, spoke at considerable length, and m effect as follows : — He had no doubt that much of vhat the piisoner stated was quite true; and had the tlnee indictments which stood on the Calendar, changing him with lepainng aims, not been withdiawn, and had he bpen found guilty, he (bis Honoi ) should have considered it his duty to have recommended the Government to have giauted him an immediate paidon. Bat the piisoner had upon one charge of selling firearms without a license been brought in guilty, and to the second charge he had pleaded guilty. The prisoner was not an ignorant man. It was clear to him, from th documents which had bean placed in hi possession, that he (the prisoner) was well aware what he was about. He had found it expedient in all these cases that ho should obtain permits ; and the fact that he had made out a receipt to the effect that he had given Creek the gun,as he did not require it himself, was very good proof that he was aware he was evading the law. With regard to the repairing of arms, there was no doubt he had received authority, and he, considering these authorities had pledged the honour of the Government, would have applied for his immediate pardon. The present charges of which he was guilty were different. The law was very severe, and the least sentence he could inflict under the Act was three years' imprisonment. The sentence of the Court was that he be sentenced to j)enal servitude for four years. Perjury. — Ellen Kane was indicted that she did at Shortland en the 2nd August last commit wilful and corrupt perjuiy. Mr. Brookfield prosecuted, and Mi, Joy defended. —The Crown Prosecutor presented the following outlines contained m the indictment to the jury:— Some time in July last the prisoner had been sued by a Mr. Bryan for a debt of 10s., for which he obtained judgment. Not paying the amount, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against her, when she appeared before Mr. Fiaser to show cause why the judgment of the Court should not be enforced. The defendant then swore that she was merely a servant in the employment of a Mis. Lindsay, who kopt the Long Drive Hotel at Shoitland, and that, being in receipt of only 10s. per week wages, she was unablo to pay the amount, having a child to suppoit. In. consequence of these representations the Resident Magistrate ordered the defendant to pay the debt by instalments of Is. per week. Mr. Brookfield went on to say he should shoitly prove that, instead of merely being servaut of the hotel, the prisoner was the proprietress of it ; that she had falsely lepresented herself to be a serving-woman with low wages, instead of which she was a mistress, conducting the hotel on her own account. — James Butler Stoney, Clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court, G-rahamstown, deposed as follows : Mr. William Fraser is the Resident Magistrate. I lecollect a case being heard in that Court in which John Bryan was plaintiff, and the prisoner defendant. Judgment was given against the defendant. At the end of July a judgment summons was issued against the defendant. To this summons Ellen Kane appealed on the 2nd August at the Resident Magistrate's Court-house, Shortland. Mr. Fraser presided. She was sworn by the Resident Magistrate. She was asked as to her ability to pay the amount of the judgment summons. Amongst other things, she stated she was a general servant to Mrs. Lindsay, who kept the Long Drive Hotel, Grahamstown, and she only received 10s. per week, and was therefore not in a position to pay the debt. She was asked who owned the hotel, when she said Mrs. Lindsay. After this statement Mr. Eraser made an order that she should pay the debt and costs by instalments of Is. per week. The weekly instalments were made so small in consequence of the defendant saying she had a child to support out of her wages. These statements weie made on oath. — Cross-examined by Mr. Joy : It is not my duty to take down the evidence in civil cases in writing. The magistrate takes down the notes of evidence. I produce the manuscript notes of evidence, ihe notes merely contain the heads of the examination, — James Lloyd, bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court, confirmed the statement of the previous witness as to the expressions used by the prisoner when being; examined by Mr. Fraser as to her circumstances. A portion of the questions was put by the plaintiff, and the rest by the Resident Magistrate.' — Ann Charlotte Lindsay lived at Shortland, Was living in July last at Grahamstown. Had known prisoner since she took the Long Drive Hotel. Witness's name was over the door in July and August. Witness was not proprietor of the hotel, nor had she any interest in it. Ellen Kane was not her servant receiving 10s. a-week. Witness was not entitled to any profits' or share in the business. Prisoner had asked witness to allow the license to stand in her name, and to allow her name to be placed over the door. She consented forthe purpose of doing her a good turn. Ellen Kane did not give her anything for the iise of her name. Witness never served in the bar, but went occasionally to the house. Never ordered any goods for the hotel, nor ever paid for any. — Mr. Ehrenfried, brewer at Grahamstown, deposed . that the prisoner, Ellen Kane, and the witness, Lindsay, both applied to him about the license. He advanced all the money, less £10, and supplied beer to the house. He looked upon both as being liable for the goods. The prisoner was indebted to him upon a previous backstanding account. — Detective Murphy deposed that the application of Mrs. Lindsay for a. license was a mere ruse to admit of the prisoner obtaining possession of the hotel. He (witness, knew that Lindsay was working at another place. She was not living at the Long Drive Hotel. Mr. Bullen had objected to prisoner obtaining ( a license on account of her character. — This closed the case for the prosecution, when Mr. Joy addressed the jury for the defendant, and Mr. Brooktield replied. — His Honor summed up at length, when the jury retired. At a quarter-past 6 the panel returned with a verdict of Not Guilty. The Court was then adjourned until 10 o'clock on Monday morning.

B.M. COVRT.— Fbiday. [Before Thomas Beckham, Est[., X.M,] Judgments foe. Plaintiffs. —J. McGarrigle v. E. Arnold : Claim £9 15s. This case

was adjourned from a former Courfc-day. Mr. Beveridge appealed for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. H. Lusk for the plaintiff. His Worship gave judgment, awarding £7 15s. and costs to the plaintiff. — Edward Arnold v. J. McGanigle : Also an adjourned case, claim £20. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £5 Gs., remarking that it was a gieatpity that litigants could not settle their disputes between themselves and save lawyers' fees and Court expenses. —A. Weeley v. C. W. S. Purdie : Claim, £5 Is. Gd. — J. George v. J. Martin: Claim, £5 10s. 9d. ; plaintiff to pay at the rate of ss. per week. G. Gilts v. George Ireland. — Claim, £5 155., for skins and hides. Mr. J. JB. Russell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. H. Kissling for the defendant. A sum of £5 ss. had been paid into Court, and the sum of 10s. appeared to be in dispute. — A considerable amount of evidence was taken on both. sido3, but the whole affair is thoroughly devoid of any public interest. — Mr. Kissling and Mr. Russell addressed the Court, after which his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the 103. he claimed. The costs were £4 3s. James Henne&sy v. C. F. Partijtgton. — Claim, £5 15s. Mr. Thorne appeared for the defendant ; the plaintiff was unrepresented by counsel. —The plaintiff and his wife gave evidence at some length in support of the claim. The items were made up by £4 15s. due to the wife, and £1 to the plaintiff, less 4s. — The defendant was also examined by Mr. Thorne, and declared the money claimed was not due, and was cross-examined by the plaintiff. — Mr. Thorne addressed the Court, and his Worship reserved his judgment until next Court day. The Couit then adjourned.