SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 8, 28 June 1887, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast. CRIMINAL BUSINESS. Ths criminal sittings of the Supreme Cottft opened yesterday before Chief Justice Prendergast, in McFarlane’s Hall, Grind JtM, The following gentlemen were sworn in M a Grand Jury 1—• W. Hmith, J, Ferguson, A, O'Neil, F. A, Hardy, J. Townley, P. W. Donner, J. Wamn, D. Morioe, J. Thompson, W. O. Skeet, A, ■ McLean, J. H. Stubbs, A. McDonald, W. 8." Akroyd, C. J. Shaw, J. Kirk, J. Wallace, B> Dodgshun, J. Bigley, B, Sheriff, G. South, J, Berry and J, Allen, Mr J, Townley was chosen foreman, JuDoz's Cams. In his address to the Grand Jory, Hi* Honor said there were four charges for consideration. One was of murder against four Natives for killing two other Natives. The tacts appeared to be that one Native who was in the where of the two Natives who were murdered on the night of January 80 heard some attempt to open the window, and two shots were afterwards immediately fired, and the two Natives killed. A further examination showed that the whare had been burnt, and the bodies burnt. Upon examination, the medical officer was unable to sajf where there were any signs of the Natives having been shot; but from that examination he considered that the deceased had met with • sudden death ; also that it was not inconsistent by the appearance of the body that death had been caused by gun shots. Then there was evidence to show that the prisoners had pre-arranged to kill Nuku. The reason appeared to be that he (Nuku) had, by alleg'd witchcraft, caused the death of a child of OM of the prisoners. Of course that afforded no justification or excuse for the crim*, r Thera was ah" ths evidence of one wltmu, who lived dose by, who also heard a gunshot, Dr, Pollen did not say that it was Improbable that death had been caused by a gunsho,, although the shots had nst been found in the bodies. There were 28 witnesses. It was only necessary for the Grand Jury, allot hearing the evidence, to find a prima /aoit case. The charge of rape was upon a child of seven years of age. She said she was left to her father’s house almost alone with the prisoner, who was in her father's employ, and there the offence was committed. Bns did not appear to have complained to her mother, but the next day tola her sister. It appears to have been some days after this that the mother heard of the alleged offence, and the Doctor’s evidence showed that the offence must have been committed ton days before his examination. The Doctor also said that, from his examination, it was consistent that the offence had been committed, and also that it was not so—that was that the child might have had some natural ailment to have covered the appearances. There appeared to have been some ill-ieeling between the prisoner and the girl's father t bout some wages, and the charge did not appear to have been brought until after he (the prisoner) had left the service of the girl's father. It would also appear that considerable time was allowed to lapse before the charge was made. The case therefore presented some difficulty, because (1) The child was very young. (2) The doctor’s evidence did not support the charge. He said the crime was consistent, and not consistent with the examination. The charge of forgery he would not touch upon, and he would only say a few words as regards the libel case. The alleged libel was upon a Mr. Baldwin, and wa« to the effect that he went to a hospital m' ’ '.ml there misbehaved himself whilst dr.. 1- It was not for the jury to enter into he ■; nation of truth or untruth. If a bi’l r l found 1 the question of truth mig ’.j raised. • The question was: Was it a libel and was it published ? Anything written or published calculated to injure a man’s character or lower him in the estimation of others was libellous. They would probably have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the publication of such a statement was libellous. Again the Jury would l"ve to consider whether the accused ought to have been indicted when an action for damage* could have been brought. It the publication of the sort was allowed it might be that it would ba likely to provoke a breach of the , peace. It was for them to say whether they would find a bill. It was not usual that anon bills were preaented and found on. It wee generally found that such a charge was brought by civil action for damages, unices the Jury considered the charge ahould to • a case for publio prosecution. The Jury then retired. Tauz Bills.

True bills were found against P. Maher, rape; Aporo Paorata, Te Uri Maronga, Te Hau Porourangi, and Rina Parewhai, faultier; Tarnati Hautapu, forgery,

P. Maher was charged with rape upon Edith Emily Herbert, a child under ten yeare of ago. Mr Braewy appeared for the accused, and pleaded not guilty. The following jurors were sworn I—F, Shelton (foreman), G. Litesell, T. Price, J, Hansen, J, Lewis, B, Goldsmith, J. Sisterton, G. Banks, K. Smith, J. B, Cooper, and?, O’Meara,

.AU females and young children wen ordered to leave the Court.

The evidence was totally unfit for publication.

The Jury retired at 4.80. p.m. and at 19 W, the foreman intimated to His Honor that there was ao likelihood of their agreeing. His Honor said the jury would have to w looked up for twelve noun from the time ot retirement. The law was very absurd on thia point, and although it had been brought under the notice of the law officers of ths Government, nothing had been done. The Court then adjourned until 10 o'clock to-day. ___________