SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Post, Volume LVII, Issue 31, 7 February 1899, Page 6

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

(Before Mr. Justice Edwards.) Yesterday. the masterton outrage — douglas found guilty. In the course of the trial of the young man Robert Douglas, charged with criminal assault, the question of the accused's 3anity was raised by the foreman of the jury. Mr. W. Cook, a farmer who had employed Douglas, happened to be in the box at the time, and was asked generally as to the mental capacity of the accused. He replied that Douglas appeared to have an average amount of sense, and had not at any tame led him to suspect that he "was not in his right mind. Dr. Hosking was asked the same question, and said that beyond a defect in his speech the prisoner seemed perfectly sane, and quite responsible for his actions. At the close of the case for the Crown, the accused, in reply to the usual question, said that he would tell what he knew. He then went into the witness box, but spoke in such a hesitating and strange manner that his Honour observed that he appeared to him to be putting on an appearance of idiocy, on account of what had been said by the jury. He would ■warn the jury that it could only treat him according to the evidence. If he ■wanted to say anything he had better say it in a rational way. Douglas then told the Court that on the day in question he was out on the hills from half-past 2 until half -past 7, and after tea he, went to Dew's, a neighbour, and played cards until 9. He then went to bed. About half-past 12 a man came to the house, saying that Mr. Cook had sent him, and he got out of bed and made him some tea. Ihe rest of his statement referred to his trial at Masterton. His Honour said he did not understand part of the statement, but he could not think that it was quite so purposeless as it appeared. It was perfectly plain to him that the prisoner was not so foolish as he pretended to be. Mr. Cook, recalled, said that the prisorfer had made tea for a man named Warren, who lived at Upper Opaki, and was in Masterton when the outrage occurred. Douglas could speak better than he had done in the Court if he chose. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and his Honour then said that although he was quite confident that the prisoner was as sane as criminals generally were, he would like him to be examined by the gaol doctors. More than a year ago the prisoner had been charged with the same kind of offence, but had been acquitted. However, there could be no doubt about the justice of the present verdict. After listening to some evidence as to the prisoner's antecedents, his Honour remanded him until Friday for medical examination. FORGERY. Patrick O'Shea pleaded Guilty to an indictment for forging a cheque for £9 2s od at Palmerston North in December, attributing his wrong- doing to drink. His Honour pointed out that the prisoner had a record, and said that he would give him a chance of getting the drink out of his system. He sentenced O'Shea to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. The Court then adjourned until next day. This Day. the grand jury's work. The Grand Jury was unable to complete consideration of the list of bills put before it yesterday. This morning Trne Bills were presented in the following cases : — William Hani, theft ; T. Pell, .theft ; Thomas and Annie Looney, shooting" with intent ; Charles Neilsen, common assault (the jury ignoring the count for assault with intent) ; Thomas Moorhouse, receiving stolen goods, the bill for breakingand entering being thrown out, but a true bill found against his companions James Mai kin and Allan Farquhai'son ; Albert Wbiskie, attempted rape; George tAllman and George yon Schoen, making false representation. A LIFE FOR A BLOW. The first case taken this morning was the charge against Patrick Murphy, otherwise Thomp Kelly, originally charged with the murder of Ernest Nicklen, but reduced by the presentment of the Grand Jury, on the recommendation of the Judge, to one of manslaughter. He was defended by Mr. Jellicoe, and pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. G. Anderson was foreman of jury- » Mr. Gully prosecuted for the Crown, and in opening the case explained that th« broad distinction between a charge of murder and one of manslaughter was that in the case of murder it would have been essential for the Crown to prove that death was intentionally caused, whereas, in a case of manslaughter, the question of intent was not a matter of moment. Although there may not have been any. intention on the part of the accused to bring about the death of Nicklen, it was sufficient for the purpose of the charge that he was the cause of the death. If the present case was proved; it was a typical case of manslaughter. The facts were of the simplest possible character. The quarrel by which the unfortunate man Nicklen lost his life took place on the morning of the 24th of December outside the Masonic Hotel, at Palmerston North, kept by Mr. Harnett. Nicklen and Murphy had arrived at the hotel the previous evening, and when outside in the morning some discussion appeared to have taken place as to whether Nicklen should go to "Wellington or spend his Christmas in Palraerston. Eventually Nicklen made up his mind to go, and left the hotel to catch the early train. He missed the train, however, and came back to the hotel, finding the accused and others still outside. Nicklen apparently expressed his disgust at losing his train, attributing it to Murphy, but not using any language which should have led to an assault. Murphy replied that he would " hit him under the ear," and without any further warning struck him with one hand on one side of the head. The account given by one of the witnesses of the assault was that after receiving the blow Nicklen swerved slightly forward as if paralysed. It was clear that he made no attempt to attack the accused or to defend himself. But although he had apparently injured the man Murphy struck him a second blow with the other hand, and the man fell slowly to the pavement, and was practically a dead man from that moment. No one suggested that it was a premeditated attempt to kill, or that the accused in striking the blow intended to take the man's life. The only other evidence was the medical testimony, which would show that the deceased's neck was broken. There might be a question as to whether it was caused by the blows or by contact with the pavement, but he (Mr. Gully) thought there would be no doubt that it was done by the blows. Evidence was then called, and the case is still going on this afternoon, but was interrupted at 2 o'clock for the passing of sentencw. SENTENCES FOR FORGERY. George M'Comh° pleaded Guilty to an indictment charging him with forgery, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Edward Walsh pleaded Guilty to charges of forgery, false pretences, and breaking and entering at Pahiatua and Ballance, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. BURGLARY. A plea of Guilty was also entered by a young man named Henry Sellars, charged with breaking and entering the shop of W. H. Lamb at Palmerston, and stealing various goods. Mr. Wilford, on accused's account, asked for probation, and His Honour remanded the prisoner for the report of the Probation Officer, and re-

marked that he would require a more satisfactory explanation than had been offered of how accused hapjoned to have a skeleton key in his possession, and concerning other matters.