SUPREME COURT, INVERCARGILL.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3677, 27 April 1883, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, INVERCARGILL.

Invercargii.l, Thursday. The Masscy trial was resumed to-day. The Melbourne stockbrokers who were brought over as witnesses in the case identified the female prisoner as Lucy Brown and Louisa Allen, in both of which names she had sold debentures to them. The payment to Massey of large sums of money by'drafts on Dunedin and"Christchureh was proved. Mr Draper, one of the holders of the original debentures, testified that he had never parted with them. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Chapman raised several legal points with regard to Mrs Massey, contending- that a married woman was not responsible for actions committed at tho instigation of her husband, and asked His Honor to consider same before dealing with the case of the male prisoner. To this course Mr Stout objected, and His Honor concurred, stating that he would not direct an acquittal of the female prisoner at that stage on the ground of implied coercion by the husband, as he had not made up his mind on the point. The objection by Mr Cha.pm.au raised a question that should be decided by a higher tribunal. He would therefore direct the jury that the debentures were valuable documents, but would reserve the point for tho Court of Appeal. Mr Stout then addressed the jury shortly, and Mr Chapman at some length. His Honor's summing up was not of great length, and shortly after 11 p.m. the jury returned with a verdict of guilty against the male prisoner and of not guilty with regard to the female prisoner. This day.

On resuming to-day the Judge proceeded to pass sentence. On behalf _of Masscy, who gave his age as 54, Mr Fitchett submitted, in ajritated .sentences, twenty years service for the Corporation, during which time £2,000,000 had passed through his hands ; also the fact that Masscy, whether rightly or wrongly, had been suffering under a burning sense of wrong in consequence of his treatment by the City Council. The Judge said he did not concur with what counsel advanced. The case was a very bad one. For a long series of years Masscy, by an outward show of respectability,''had imposed on his fellow citizens. He had held an important office of trust, and might or might not have been badly treated by the Corporation. The Judge offered no opinion on that point, but it was absurd to suggest that any injury accused might have received could be any possible excuseor palliation for tho shameful and deliberate breach of trust reposed in him. More than, that, he used his wife as an instrument of crime, and endeavored to degrade her to the same moral level as himself. The punishment provided in such cases was almost inadquatc to the offence. The maximum penalty was three years servitude, and that was the sentence he would impose on Masscy. On the application of Mr Stout the prisoner was condemned to pay all costs of the prosecution, and an order was made for the forfeiture of all monies in his possession when arrested to go towards the payment of costs. Mr Stout said the moneys on the accused consisted of a draft for £200 and some small sums. Mr Stout intimated that he would enter v nolle prosequi in the other indictments. Mrs Masscy, wdio refused to leave the dock while her husband was being sentenced, was then discharged.