SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 11099, 27 November 1899, Page 3

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

(Hefore His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His (Honor took his scat at 10.30 a.m. TltK CHAN!) ./rilY.

! The jurors sworn were: —Mr A. C. Hei?g (foreman), and Messrs Arthur Allen, John Arthur, A. H. Hridger, Waiter Hull, J. G. Cannon. W. J. Canning. K. M. Chirk, Wm. Duke, H. Guthrie, H. Harraway, sen., F. A. Hooper. J. M. Jamil-son, Alfred Joel, R. i <ybl"'!'<l. ,]-,<<. Maetie, Jas. Mann, Jus. M'Gill, Peter Miller, W. A. Moore, N. Paterson, Uertie Whitcouibe, and C. H. Statham. Ms honor's nr.vnGE. Mr Foreman .'ind gentlemen of the Grand Jury. -Vou will have this morning to consider ibarges against seventeen persons. The number oi persons charged is slightly in excess of the average, but I do not think that it i- suffcientlv in exerts to ca.il for any special remarks. There are several cases of assault. In one case four persons are charged together with assaulting a woman. There are two eases of assaults on policemen. There is a case of assault and robbery. There are three cases of house or shop breaking and several cases of theft of various kirnN. In one case a. woman is charged with breaking into her husband's premises and stealing his property. The law on the subject is this : that a. hu.sb.wd cannot be convicted of stealing during cohabitation the property of his wife, and the wife cannot hi' convicted o: stealing during cohabitation the property of the husband. But whilst living apart from caj'h other each may he guilty of theft, and each is. if he or she fraudulenutry takes anything which is the property of the other in a way in wh'ch in any other person would amount to theft. In the. case which you have to consider it appears th:it the husband and wife were living apart, so that if the wife took property belonging to the husband in the manner in which in any other person would be theft, she is guihy of theft. The only question in a ease of that kind is whether they wore cohabiting or not. If they w-re not cohabiting they are really in the position of strangers so far as the otfericu of theft is concerned. There is a case where a. person is charged with carnal knowledge of a, girl under the age of sixteen years. This is a. criminal offence even if the. girl consents, and even though she may have solicited the man. There is a case where two persons, a man and a. woman, are charged with conspiring together to cause the miscarriage of nnorher woman. If there is evidence of the existence of a common intention on the part of ihe two accus-ed to cause the miscarriage, you slu.uld rind a true bill. The female acenscd is also charged on another indictment with using an instrument with intent to procure miscarriage. You arc doubtless aware that your function is not to determine finally as to the guilt or the innocence of the accused persons, but simply U> ascertain whether the fvidence, which is brought before, yon mokes out a which in your opinion the accused should be called upon to answer. (f that is so, then you should find a. true bill; hut if in any case the evidence dop-s not amount to more than mere suspicion, not sufficient to call upon the accused to explain, then you should ignore the bill. Tf you will retire to your room the bills will be laid before von.

TETTT-; nir,LS. The Orand Jury found true bills against Wm. Saunders, assault with intent ; John Ambler, housebreaking and theft; Annie Tdct, housebreaking and theft ; Francis Smith, horse stealing ;'Charles Stewart UorI'nn, theft; Catherine Ashton, illegal operator) ; .lame's Kccbts, brealcing into a shop ; Chas. John M'Le-nnan, breaking into a shop ; James Reid. theft; Titos. Bryce Wilson, assault ; Reginald Isaac, assault; P. M'C'allion, I'd.vji.rd Ponner. John Taylor, and Wm. Herbert, assault.

NO I'.llilS. The (rrand Jury threw out the bills in the cases of A. T. Price and Catherine Ashton (conspiracy) and J as. Hammond (robbery). THK COMMON* JTTRORS. Messrs John Craig. J. C. Cameron, L. C. '■Hazlett, C. S. Reid.' W R, Siigo. and Rowland Waghom were excused for various reasons. Messrs T. P. Webber and John Waldie appeared late and were fined, but His Honor afterwards remitted the fines. ASSAri.Ttxr; a constaiilk.

William Saunders alias James Kellv was charged that about the 3rd October, at Weikaia, he assaulted Constable Herlihy with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hanlon.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr J. F. M. Fraser. opened the ease to the jury. Assaults of this nature, he observed, were fortunately rare in this colony. It was a very serious thing indeed to assault a peace ofricer. A constable was practically the representative of Her Majesty--he was the representative of law and order and all that goes to make life tolerable in a community, and it was a very serious thing to disregard all these considerations and to assault a man so acting. On the 3rd October last Constable Tleriihy visited the Crown Hotel, at Waikaia. On coming out accused and a man named Cairns followed him to the centre of the street, and accused called out in a loud voice : "It's no use now that • Herlihv has ,-poilt it." Accused and (.'aims afterwards followed the group will) which Herlihv was standing and made, an offensive remark about "a nice push of donkeys." Herlihv made some response to the effect that if accused went home there would he one the i&s.s, and he warned accused .hat his language was offensive and that he ha-d better go home—if not, he (Herlihv) would lock him up. Accused asked what right the (■unstable had to order him about, and his conduct became very violent. Herlihv thereupon stepped ncross to him, whereupon accused aimed a blow which Herlihv warded oil, but aceih'ed got in a blow with a. full porter boWlj, striking the constable on the side of the fivce. The blow smashed the bottle. The constable pluckily stuck to hi« man and effected his arrest. A>i a result of the assault Herlihv had lost an enormous quantity of blood and sustained serious injury which threatened to be prrmiHHit. The only reason for the assault that Kcjliby could suggest-was that a month previously he, as clerk of the court, had 'o check Saunders under the warden's instructions, during the progress of a case in v hich Saunders was giving evidence. l)r Closs, tiie first witness, sail that nil the 21st or 22nd of last month Herlihv was brought to him by Dr Murphy s.ti Serine; from n salivary fis.uh>. in the cheek! evidently caused by a wound. The lower jawbone was enlarged, evidently from a blow. Herlihv also s"cnied lo be shaky and nervous and \'<:ry excitable. On the following morning witnes.; operated with the oh'cot of closing the fistula. During the operation >t piece of glass was discovered in the scar of the wound. Witness thought that m \v. so far as the fistula was concerned, Herlilf" was cured, but he had a. scar on hk face and his jawbone was enlarged and wou'i probably remain permanently so. In all likelihood Herlihv would permanently have a stillness in the jaw. Drs Murphy and Ward we also crlied for the Crown. Constable Herlihv said in the course of his evidence that accused hit him deliberately with the full force of the bottle. He had never been able to take solid food since. Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, witness said that he had intended to arrest Saunders for conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. So far as he (witness) could say, that charge had never been gone on with. It was a deliberate blow, and not a blow received daring a tussle. Samuel George Inder, butcher, said that, standing three feet away, he saw accused

make ;', Ui-Mv at iitriihy unci heard the, bottlo break. To Mr Hanlon: The constable did not have Saunders arrested when the blow was struck. Mr Holland caught hold of Saunders. The bottle was actually thrown ; Herlihy was not quite within reach when Saunders struck.

James Holland (farmer) and William Francis Indor (solicitor) also pave direct evidence as to the assault. Mr Inder, asked as to the condition of accused, said that he had had just enough drink to make him nasty. As for the constable, he (witness) .had never known him accept a drink.

This closed the case for the prosecution, and the Court adjourned for luncheon. , rtn resuming, Mr Hanlon addressed the jury for the defence. He submitted that there could be no doubt that accused should bo acquitted of the charge of wounding with intent to maim or disfigure or do grievous bodily harm. Tf there was a conviction at all it could only be on one of the minor one of which charged the iic- <"'. ■■ 'd with assaulting a policeman on duty, the other being a charge, of common assault. Kvcrybodv must sympathise with a man who met with such an injury as Herlihy had sustained ; but the jury's duty wns rot to find a verdict out of sympathy. Thev had to find according to the evidence. Where was the evidence of intent to maim or disfigure? He (Mr Hanlon) submitted that it could not be found. The evidence showed that the Court had been sitting, that a lot of people had congregated, that there was a good deal of drinking going on, that on the night in question the accused made use of improper remarks to the constable and others, and that the constable endeavored to arrest him. The jury should ascertain why Herlihy interfered with the man. He said it was "for tning language calculated to provoke a breach of the. peace. If that was so, what had become of the charge? Nobody had heard of it since. He (Mr Hanlon) put it to the jury that this suggestion of the breach of the'peace wa.s an afterthought, on the part of the constable, brought forward as an t'-ccuae for his wrongful interference with Saunders. It seemed reasonable to suppose that this wrongful interference caused a scuffle, and that during the scuffle the eonstable got. injured. If Saunders had deliberately thrown the bottle with intent to injure lie would have, smashed the constable's skull, perhaps killed him. There had been no quarreK the suggestion that Saunders did this because a month earlier a. woman with whom Saunders was acquainted had been reprimanded in the Warden's Court was preposterous —and in the absence of a. quarrel where was the evidence as to intent? All tlia.t Saunders did was to prevent arrest on a. charge on which the constable had no right to interfere with him, and if he was convicted it could only be on one of the minor counts.

In summing up His Honor said that ordinarily a person's intention was judged by his acts. If a man did a thing which he and others must know would be. likely to cause certain result*, the reasonable inference was that he. acted for the purpose of obtainin? that result.

The jury retired at 2.2R p.m., and returned at' 3.15 p.m. with a verdict of "Guilty" on the first and second counts. Sentence, three years' hard labor. HOUStf-STKAUNi;.

Francis Smith, sixteen years of age, pleaded guilty to » charge of stealing a mare the property of Titos. C. Hriley. Mr Hanlon spoke for prisoner, saying that be had been in gaol since the 22nd September, and that in regard to previous: convictions all were practically one j'.nd the same. The bov stole a pin and was fined 20s, and then, feeling iwhanvd, he wanted to clear out, and he "took a horse with its saddle and bridle.

The Crnwn Prosecutor said that the police gave the lad an indifferent, character. Hi- Honor passed a. sentence of three months' hard labor.

nnt;si<;itit];AK[.v<;. John Ambler, liftv-one years old, \v;is cbiirgt'il with breaking into the, dwelling of Walter Paterson. at Otepopo, and stealing a. pair of trousers, ;i coat, a pair of boots, it. pannikin, and two handkerchiefs. He. pleaded guilty, and had nothing to say. The. frown Prosecutor said that prisoner arrived in the colony in 1862, and first came under the notice of the police this year, when he got fourteen days' imprisonment for theft a! N;weby, and he. was afterwards sentenced for being illegally on the premises at Naseby. His Honor asked whether the man was all right. VI is maimer seemed to be peculiar. Mr Phillips replied that the prisoner war, about half-witted. He had been examined two or three times by the surgeon, who had made no report. His Honor sent-ncod accused to six months' hard labor. He pre.-umed that the doctor would see the man again it ml that he would be watched.

•rnr.i'T nv ax kjti'l.ovk. Charles Stewart (ion'.ou was charged that while; in the, employ of Thns. Scott and John Wilson he stole various sums of money. Jle pleaded guilty, and gave his age as thirty years. The Crown Prosecutor said that accused was convicted of embezzlement at Christchuvch in 1030. Prisoner said that he was then only seventeen years of age, and had control of a business having a turnover of .330,000. He was introduced to gambling circles by his master's friends. As prudent charges, he had only £1 los a v, eek when engaged by Scott and Wilson. He would like to call Mr Wilson.

John Wilson, questioned by prisoner, said the fact wtis as stated, hut accused was allowed to take work from other firms, and witness advanced the price of a piano in order to enable Mrs Cordon to help the family. This piano the accused sold.

Sentenced to twelve months' hard labor TIIKKT VUCIM A RAIMVAY STATION.

James Roid was being tried.on a'charge of this sort during the latter part of the afternoon.