SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1050, 3 December 1862, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW ZEALAND,

A session of the above Court was opened at the Town Hall, Christchurch, on Monday last, before the newly-appointed ; Judge of Otago, Mr. Christopher Wm. Richmond, in the absence of the Resident Judge, Mr. Gresson, unavoidably detained in Otago by the press of civil business m Dunedin. The followinc gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:—R. J. S. Harman, foreman, and Messrs. J. Field, S. Field, J. E. FitzGerald, G. Gould, C. H. Greenstreet, E. A. Hargreayes, J.. M. Heywood, W. Kennaway, J. McLean, G. Miles, E. C. Minchin, W. Morgan, J. Ollivier, J. B. Parkinson, 1. F. Peel, W. Reeves, and R. H. Rhodes. . ' . Messrs! S. Gundry, T. M. Hassall, J. Palmer, and J T. Peacock were, also called, but did not appear. Mr. Travers asked for Mr. Palmer to be excused on the ground that he was engaged on banking business; and Mr. Hargreaves intimated to the Court that Mr. Peacock was absent from the colony. The Grand Jury having been sworn Mr. Justice Richmond delivered the following charge Mr Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: The present circuit court is held by me at the reduestof your resident judge, made imder the authority of an Act of the General Assembly, passed in its late session, and intituled " The Supreme Court Amend-, merit Act 1862." This request is conveyed to niein; the instrument which you have just heard read. Mr. Justice Gresson, as. you are aware, is still occupied with the civil business of the court at Dunedin. ; T am informed that 14 bills will be presented to vou, some of the charges being of a grave character. There is one charge of rape, two of attempt to commit rape, one of stabbing, and no less than three of nen 'ury. Besides these, there is one charge of larceny bv a bailee, and several of obtaining money and goods bv false pretences ; also several charges of assault of of so violent a character; that the magistrates have, thought fit to abstain from jurisdiction thereupon,, and to send the cases for trial into this court. The comparatively large number of cases in which; perjury is charged is worthy of notice. The crime

leg illy consists in wilful false swearing, in some judicial proceeding, on a material point, the oath bang duly administered. The legal proof is oi ten, ai most of you are well aware, a matter of great difficulty. You are not however expected to use great technical nicety if there appears to be substantial ground for the charge; Your particular attention will be required to ascertain, first, that the alleged false statement upon which the charge of peijury is founded was material to the issue; secondly, that the statement was actually false; thirdly, that it was intentionally false. These questions, or some of them, are likely to be the substantial questions in the cases to be brought before you. Upon the first of these points I may observe that false swearing in answer to questions which touch the credibility of the witness may be perjury, although the questions do not affect the issue otherwise than by their bearing on the credit of the witness. Where, for example, the plaintiff in an action for goods, swore falsely in cross-examination, that she had never been tried at the Central Criminal Court, and had never been in custody at the Thames Police Station, it was held to be perjury.. As to the second point (the falsity of the matter sworn to,) this cannot usually be established on the oath of a single witness, because this would be but one man's oath against another's, in which case the presumption of the prisoner's innocence Would turn the scale in his favor. In general, therefore, there should be a second witness who is able either to give a distinct contradiction to the statement of the accused person, or to swear to facts inconsistent with the truth of that statement. As to the third point (the corrupt intent) the of that must be, as in the case 9f intent, a matter of inference from the circumstances. It may be useful that I should mention that it may amount to perjury if a man falsely swears that he does not know or does not recollect a thing. The proof in such cases will be facts from which the witness's knowledge of that of which he has pretended ignorance may be certainly inferred. I am glad to learn that this province, is at last to be provided with a Court House; and that, by the erection of a Lunatic Asylum, the public scandal of confining lunatics in a small and crowded gaol is about to be put on end to. I have had laid before me a complaint by certain debtors confined in Lyttelton Gaol. Amongst other things, these persons state that "the sleeping and living room of the debtors is fifteen feet six. inches in length, by twelve feet in breadth, and in it ten men are confined from six o'clock in the evening until half-past six o'clock in the morning." Upon this complaint it is officially observed " The gaol is overcrowded; no other room can be set apart for the debtors.

I calculate that the area allowed to each of these individual debtors is about equal to what is allowed to, steerage passengers on the lower deck in emigrant ships. The removal of the lunatics, if promptly effected, may be relied on, I presume, to mitigate for a season the evil of an over-crowded gaol. But we must not forget the rapidity with which population is increasing, and that Canterbury may receive at any moment a sudden influx of people from Australia. It is quite plain that the gaol must soon be greatly enlarged, though I hope it may be deemed preferable to construct a new one in a more suitable situation.

Gentlemen. I am not aware that I need to say more ; you will now retire to consider the bills to be laid before you. The Grand Jury then retired, and shortly afterwards returned a true bill against Peter Johnson for stabbing a man named William Cavendish. The Crown Prosecutor preferred bills, and witnesses were called in order to be sworn previous to passing into the Grand Jury room, but many made no answer. Several of these were prosecuting witnesses and were called on their recognizances, but did not appear. His Honor complained that the business of the Grand Jury was being greatly retarded, but admitted that the Crown Prosecutor could not be blamed for this.

Peter Johnson, a Norwegian sailor, one of the crew of the Queen of the Mersey, now lying in Lyttelton harbour, was arraigned on the charge of having stabbed in the thigh another seaman named William Cavendish, a seaman attached to the same vessel. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded guilty. Sentence was deferred.

. John Heron was arraigned/for committing a brutal assault upon the person of Mary Younghusband, on the night of the 15th November: The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The Provincial Solicitor briefly stated the case and called the prosecutrix, and another female named Mary Ann Richardson, to prove the charge, These women were living at a brothel called the White House, in Kilmore street, the property of Martin Cash. On the night of Nov. risth prisoner was at this brothel, drinking in company with other men. About daybreak he broke into the prosecutrix's bedroom and said he would sleep with her. She would not comply with his request, and struggled to prevent him getting into bed. He used some abusive term to her, and struck her on the foaehead with a glass bottle inflicting a wound three inches in length and penetrating the bone. A witness named Robert McMahon gave a different version of the affair, making it appear that the prosecutrix received her hurt by accidentally falling upon a bottle, she being very drunk at the'time. The jury accepted this version arid found the accused hot guilty. Richard Htnry Rumble was charged with committing an assault upon Martin Cash, at the Red House, Kilmore street.—The Grand Jury, threw out the bill, and Rumble was discharged. Benjamin D'Onai/, a native of South America, was indicted for committing an assault with intent to ravish Mary Ann Robertson. The indictment contained a second count for common assault. Prisoner, who pleaded " Not Guilty," was undefended. Mr. Duncan conducted the prosecution. The offence was alleged to have been committed about eleven o'clock on the "niglit' of the 17th Nov. within the enclosed part of Cathedral square. The woman herself made no charge against prisoner, being at the time of the alleged assault in a state of intoxii cation; but witnesses were called who-spoke to the ' question. The prisoner called no witnesses for his defence, merely saying that he was a stranger in Christchurch, and he was afraid that therefore an attempt was made by the witnesses to bring home to him the charge of which he was innocent. Mr. Justice Richmond read over the evidence and pointed out the bearing of it upon the charge. After a short consultation the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty" on the first count, and the prisoner was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. The Court then rose until ten o'clock on Tuesday. Tuesday, December 2. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond and a jury, of whom Mr. Henry Leake was chosen foreman.) Peter Johnson, who yesterday pleaded guilty to a charge of stabbing his messmate, was brought up for sentence. On being asked if he had anything to say in his defence, prisoner alleged in extenuation of his offence that he was much intoxicated at the time. The Judge, after some forcible remarks on the enormity of the prisoner's offence, sentenced him to six calendar months' imprisonment in Lyttelton Gaol with hard labour on the first counts of the indictment, to date from the peripd of his committal, viz., 3rd of November; and to one day's imprisonment, to date from the expiration of the previous sentence, on the count Which charged him with an attempt to disfigure. , . , , ■ , L . ■ Thomas Griffiths Rowley was charged with an assault with intent, &c., upon Mrs. Jane Gregson, on the 11th Sept., 1862. The Provincial: Solicitor prosecuted Mr. Travers appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded " Not Guilty." The details are, of course, unfit for publication. The jury retired and found a verdict of guilty on the second count, viz., a common assault. The Judge in passing sentence upon the prisoner (who had asserted his entire innocence of the charge) observed that he had been convicted on the clearest evidence of , a gross outrage. The sentence would be proportionately severe, viz., imprisonment for eighteen calendar months, with hard labour, in Lyttelton Gaol.