SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 12, Issue 997, 17 November 1868, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

Thursday, November 12. The Court was opened at 10 a.m., before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston. The Grand Jury having been empanelled,~~ His Honor proceeded to address the Grand Jury. He commenced with an allusion to the sad news which had arrived the night before, to the following effect: — " I trust that no Judge of New Zealand ■will ever again meet a Grand Jury, at a moment when their minds are so profoundly affected as ours must be at this moment. I fear it will be difficult for us to distract our thoughts from those terrible scenes of which we have so recently heard, and apply ourselves with calmness to the performance of our respective duties in this . place. We can hardly help picturing v to ourselves at every moment the ghastly spectacle, the description of which has so harrowed our feelings. Dauntless manly courage — perfect feminine devotion — helpless and innocent infancy—all bleeding victims of murderous butchery. It is not easy to be calm and self-possessed with such a frightful picture before our eyes. We can only fervently hope and pray that as the ever-ruling providence of the Almighty often brings good out of cvil — as man's necessity is God's opportunity — it may please him so to direct the hearts and minds of our rulers, and those who serve under them, that, inspired with wisdom from above, and strengthened by the hand of Omnipotence, they may so conduct the affairs of the country that peace and prosperity may be again restored, where now murder and rapine reign paramount. I should have doubted the propriety of going on at present with the business of the Court, had it not fortunately happened that the calendar is a very light one, presenting no features of difficulty, and including Trot few serious charges. His Honor then adverted to the several cases on the calendar. The Grand Jury then retired, the following indictments having been placed before them : — Queen v. Prank Brown ... Larceny. „ „ „ ... Escaping from custody. „ „ James M'-Namee Housebreaking. „ „ - „ Assault. „ „ 4 natives Cattle stealing. „ . „ Richard Hogan Stealing a post letter. In due time, they found as follows :■ — Prank Brown — No bill for larceny (the two principal witnesses having gone to the diggings), and true bill for the escape ; ■J-ames M'Namee — No bill for housebreaking, true bill for assault ; four natives, cattle stealing — True bill against three of their number ; Richard Hogan, stealing a letter — No bill. A petty jury having been empannelled — Escaping from Custody. Frank Brown was charged with escaping from the custody of Joseph Edwards, the constable into whose charge he was given to bring him to Napier. He pleaded not guilty. The constable gave evidence to the effect that as there was no lock-up at Porangahau, he had taken the prisoner to the public house at Wallingford to lodge him for the night, and left him warming himself at the fire while he turned to the bar in the same room to answer a question of the landlord as to who was to pay for prisoner's board and lodging, and that when he turned round again the prisoner was gone. In cross examination by prisoner, he denied being the worse for liquor, but admitted having taken two . glasses of brandy while in the bar. Inspector Scully deposed to having afterwards taken the prisoner near Mana- .. watu, ' Prisoner handed in a written defence Jo the effect that the constable was under the influence of liquor' the whole time he had him in charge ; that he could at any time have escaped, but did not make the attempt until " almost asked to do so" by Tseing left by himself for several hours in a room opening into a verandah ; that he Walked up and down the verandah, and Ending, no one seemed to care where he "was, at length took his departure and sought for work. He denied the larceny, - said he had been respectably brought up, and had never been previously before a . Court. He had been 171 days in prison awaiting trial, and hoped that would be taken into consideration. His Honor said that the prisoner's proJ>er course would have been to have alowed the law to clear him, and not have taken the opportunity of escape which offered; but only a very well disciplined mind could have resisted the temptation ; .in fact he (the Judge) would have done : the same himself. The prisoner had neither used deceit nor violence, and had . only acted as almost any one else, guilty , or not guilty, would have done, and no one would think the worse of him for it. He had already suffered a much heavier penalty than he deserved, and the punishment would accordingly be a merely nominal one— four days' imprisonment from the opening of the court — virtually releasing him as soon as the Court rose. His Honor then severely reprimanded the constable, reading for his benefit the law on the subject, which showed that he should have been proceeded against for allowing the escape ; informed him that he had put the colony to great and unnecessary expense, and was, in fact, not fit for the office he held. Assault. James Macnamee was charged with an assault committed upon one Mary Ann Brown. The principal witness did not appear, and her recognisances were ordered to be estreated. . Mrs.. Down gave evidence to the effect that she was in the house at the time ; that McNamee came after dark, and applied for admittance; that this was re- * fused ; that he then broke open the door and entered ; and that, when inside, he put his hand on Mrs. Brown's shoulder and presented a bayonet at her. The Judge summed up— saying the evidence was clear as to the assault. The jury returned a verdict of " Not guilty." The , , Judge expressed unbounded astonishment, saying he never heard such a verdict in nis life ; he then ordered the discharge of the prisoner. ...... Cattle Stealiug. Three Maoris, named Timoti, Eotene, and Matene, were charged with stealing a heifer, the property of Mr. Thorpe, of Wairoa. ' Mr. Mayo, storekeeper, Fraser-town, deposed to having purchased from the prisoners the heifer in question. At that time ia brand was not visible, but afterwards, upon being wetted, Mr. Thorpe's brand appeared. The ears were cut down close so as to prevent any ear-mark from being seen. .Mr. Thorpe proved the heifer in question to be his property. The prisoners said that they considered the heifer to be wild, belonging to no one, and that they had a right to run it down. His Honor, in summing up, said that, even had it been a wild animal, the prisoners could not assert a right over it. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoners were sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labor.