THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 8770, 10 March 1892, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SITTSIGB, .y* (Before His Honor Mr Justice Willlajfli.) In the oaae of ThonmMeaky tfcCJury were asked by the regiitvei at ninetfotook last evening whether they bad agreed upon their verdiot, and, replying in the negative, they were looked up for the night. At ten o'olook this morning the Court sat again,

His Honor (to the jury): Have you; agreed, gentlemen? The Foreman: We are unable to agree. His Honor: Then all I can do is to discharge you. Abont another trial, Mr Haggitt? The Crown Prosecutor: The other trial, according to the Act, may take place forthwith, or at some other time daring the sittings. It is a matter for yonr Honor's convenience. If your Honor'a engagements allow it, we can go on at once. The witnesses are all from the country, and it would be expensive to bring them down again. His Honor: If the parties are prepared to go on at onoe it will be as well to go on. Mr Chapman: We are quite prepared. Hie Honor: These gentlemen, I suppose, had better be discharged, and not be asked to serve again. (To the jury:) Well, gentlemen, I am much obliged to you for your attendance. lam sorry you could not come to an agreement. I will not ask you to serve any more. You are discharged altogether; you twelve. The jury were then discharged from attendance,and a fresh jury were empannelledj Six persons who were palled ae jurors were challenged by the prisoner's counsel, and seven persons were ordered to stand aside at the instance of the Crown Prosecutor.

His Honor, addressing the Crown Prosecutor, said; la stopping you in summing up yesterday, Mr Haggitt, I did not express myself so clearly as I should have done. I did not explain why I stopped yon, and as the case is coming on again it may be as well that I should explain. The question involved had been raised before me at Inveroargill, and my objeot was not to rule you out of order in summing up, but to call your attention to English authorities to which my attention was galled at Invercargill, so that the matter might be disoussed.

The Crown Prosecutor: I had not then looked at them, your Honor. His Honor : That was my object. It was not to rule that you were wrong, but simply, as the matter had been raised before me recently, to have it discussed.

The Crown Prosecutor: I did look at the cases afterwards, yonr Honor, and it seemed to me that it was a matter entirely at my discretion.

Hie Honor: Probably that may he *<>• The Crown Prosecutor : Unless \ went too far.

flis H/mor: Yea, » 8 I have said, my attention had been called to these cases at Inveroargill, and as the same question arose I wanted to have it discnssed, not to deprive you of your rights.

The Crown Proseontor: If I had known that, your Honor, I should have been prepared to discuss it. It took me by surprise. The new trial then oommenoed.

Mr Hoßking opened for the Crown, and the witnesses oalled were W. A, Scaife, J. Coyle, J. C. Miller. Sergeant Green, ConBtable Johnston, James Reid, and Robert Little. Ihe last-mentioned witness was under examination at 4 45 p.m. AUCKLAND, In the Supreme Court Etheridge, late reeelyer of-land revenue, pleadedguilty to a pharge of the fraudulent appropriation of money; and in the other cases a nollf r^p r sequi was entered. In mitigation of the offence evidence was given to, show that prisoner had, a sunstroke about two years So, and that he bad been since, r Q'Hara Smith, the audit inspector, called by the Judge, stated that he had gone into the prisoners' accounts so far back as 1888, and found that irregular items amounted to L 9.66- Of this sum L 613 was cash appropriated by the prisoner. The prisoner did not give him the impression of incompetency, but the system of keeping the accounts was vile. Prisoner was not responsible for that. His Honor, in passing sentence, took into consideration the prisoner's high character prior to these frauds, bat discounted the evidence as to incompetency by pointing out deliberate forgery and the appropriation of money. He sentenced prisoner to four years' penal servitude on each offence, the sentences to ran concurrently. WELLINGTON. The trial of Smith and Harrison for tbe murder of Dalton at Eketahuna was begun this morning, and is expeoted to last over to-morrow, Mr Gully, Crown Prosecutor, in opening, mentioned that although blood was found on the prisoner's shirts, he could not prove it was human, the corpuscles having dried too much. The evidence will be much the same as that already adduced, and it is not thought that there is much likelihood of a conviction. The two remaining oases on the calendar have been postponed till Monday. RRSIRENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before His Worship the Mayor and Mr G. Calder, Justices.) Georgina Ferguson v. Jane Hawkins.— Claim, L? lis 6d, on a judgment summons. Mr W. Maogregor for plaintiff.—There was no appearance of defendant, who was ordered to pay the amount by two weekly instalments, in default seven days' imprisonment. F. Smith and Co. v. William Sharp.— Claim, L 5, for a suit of clothes. Mr Thornton for plaintiffs.—Judgment by default, John Edmond v. Thomas Turner (BlackStone Hill).—Claim, L? 4s sd, goods supplied. No appearanoe of defendant.— Jndgment for amount olaimed less LI paid J. Gordon and Co. v. Hugh Beeby.— Claim, lis lid, goods supplied. Mr Thornton for plaintiffs.—Judgment by default. CITY POLICE COUET. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness.—Two first offenders were oonvioted and discharged; Robert Wilkie was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Attempted Larceny.—A young woman was charged withtheattemptedlaiceny on the 9th inst. of the sum of 3j 6d in money, the property of the 'Otago Daily Times' and * Witness' Company. Accused pleaded j guilty.—Chief-detective Henderson said the accused charged on the information of Mr Hunter, the company's accountant, bnt he understood that the complainants now'wished to withdraw the< case.— Hia Worship; What are the f aots ?—Chiefdetective Henderson replied that the acoosed and her mother had for some years back been employed to clean out the office, and for some time back money had been missed from several drawers. Yesterday morning Mr Hunter watohed the office, and he saw the aocused take a large pair of scissors and attempt to force open one of the drawers, which at the time contained 3s 6d. He aocused the girl of tampering with the drawers,' and she said she did so, and that a man had asked her to do it. fie (Chief* deteotive Henderson) might say for the girl that he had employed her on several ocea< slons, and he had always found her highly respectable and honest.—His Worship said be did not think It was a case that should be allowed to be withdrawn, especially as the aceosed had pleaded guilty. She would be ordered to enter into her own recognisance in the sum of HO to come up for sentence when oalled upon, Alleged False Weights.—On the case of John Hansen (inspector of weights and measures) v. Adolph Frederick Wm. Lorie being called, Mr Eraser, for Mr B. C. Hagfltt, who was representing the Crown in the npreme Conrt, asked for an adjournment to Mr Lorie's application for a rehearing for a week.—Mr Lorie said that a week's adjournment would have a very serious effect on him. The case had had s most disastrous effeot so far, and while suoh a stigma was resting on him he* might as-well dose his doors. If an adjournment were granted, he would ask that *he case to brought on as eoon as possible.—His Worship remarked that it .would be necessary IB fceaxtffcaf Mr Haggitt bad to say respecting Mr Lorie's application, but as he was engaged for the Crown In another Court it wonld be advittbje to "adjourn ti}e case, as fee {Mr

Haggitt) was conversant with all the facta. The case would be adjourned until Monday, at half-past ten. ' hX-IBEATINO A Doo. TkotlUU Nourwml Mon-iH, of Higholiff, pleaded guilty to |Neharge of, on the 10th February, at South Jtapedin, cruelly ill-treating a certain dog 4*liled " Smoko/' owned by William Harley, of Anderson Bay road.—Mr Gallaway appeared for Mr Aitken, inspector for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Mr Maogregor for the accused. —The evidence for the prosecntion showed that on the day mentioned defendant was '(ding along Oxford street with two collie doge. On meeting with the greyhound the three doga began to fight, and defendant coming up to them used a whip with such violence «n Smoko that he was cut severely in several places.—For the defence it was contended that the greyhound attacked the oollieswd was worrying one of them, when defendant struck it once.—His Worship said the weight of evidence was against the defendant, who would be fined ss. AmuATios. George M'Beath was obarged with failing to support the illegitimate child of Margaret Topping, of which be was the putative father. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared on behalf of the prosecutor, and Mr D. D. Macdonald for defendant— Mr Hanlon said that in the present rehearing of this oaae he did not intend to make any opening statement, but would simply proceed to call evidence.—Catherine Finlayaoa, boarding-house keeper, deposed that Bella Tapping, who was in her serviceon Christmas, 1890, went out on Christmas Eve about eight o'clock, and did not return till nine o'olock. Catherine Jryirk and Catherine Russell also gave evidenoe.—The testimony of these witnesses went to prove that the oomplainant was in the shop of Mrs M'William between the hourß during whioh the latter previously swore that the. girl and her sister were out.—harry Gal* land and Bella Topping also wore called.— Francis Cutten, ledger-keepw in the Union Bank of Australasia, deposed that on May 1, 1891, a cheque drawn on his bank ia favor of defendant was cashed^—Margaret Topping having given evidence, the case for the prosecution was closed. Eliaa M'Williams gave evidence that the com* plainant oame to her shop at seven o'clock on Christmas Eve, and went out again aft 7.30. She afterwards contradicted this statement, and said that she and her sister wept out at seven o'clock on that evening, and subsequently returned. Margaret Topping was in her house at 7.30» but witness might be mistaken.. If the former swore that witness went out at 7 Sft on that evening, and did not return until a quarter to ten, suoh was not true. Cross* examined; There was a little ill-feeling between witness and complainant, owing to a. small dispute which took place. Witness objected to complainant going out bo often at night time.

[Left sitting.]