SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8149, 21 April 1887, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

[Pee Press Association.] TIMARU, April 20. At the Supreme Court to-day C. and G, Parker and F. J. Slater were indicted for an indecent assault on a young girl at Fairlie Creek. The theory for the prosecution was that George Parker was engaged to marry the girl, and that Charles disapproved of the match, knowing her to be unfaithful, and offered to test the girl’s fidelity on a certain evening, while George and Slater should secretly observe. The result of the arrang- ment was the assault. Mr Joynt, for the defence, asked the Judge to exercise his discretion, and allow Charles, charged with the actual assault, to be tried first, the other prisoners to be allowed to give evidence. The Judge complied. [from our own correspondent,] George Parker and Slater were accordingly removed from the dock and taken out of Court, where they were kept apart. G. Parker pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The prosecutrix recapitulated the evidence given by her in the lower Court. In cross-examination she steadfastly denied that any impropriety took place between her and the prisoner. She repudiated the allegations of loose and indelicate conversations between them, and of her consent to the conduct of the prisoner. She also denied that she had ever been familiar with him, or unfaithful to George, her betrothed. The other witnesses threw no new light on the case. Dr Hogg, as an expert, said he had found none of the alleged marks of violence. Such injury as the girl alleged she received should have resulted within a few hours in dark marks. For the defence, Mr Joynt called George Parker, the second originally accused, who deposed that when he told his brother Charles of his approaching marriage with the girl, his brother had warned him that she had been unchaste. He accordingly taxed his bethrothed with her unfaithfulness with his brother, and she denied it, whereupon a plan was arranged for testing her fidelity and his brother's veracity in the presence of witness and Slater. The plan was carried out, and enough took place to discredit the girl’s story. Witness, suddenly appearing, reproached her, and broke off his engagement with her, she replying that his brother was a "mean little sneak to tell about it.” Mr Joynt, addressing the jury for the defence, said the girl’s story was contradictory and unconfirmed, and the evidence of Geovge Parker and Slater consisten L and

probable; and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecutrix’s story. The assault was a motiveless one, for the purpose of the arrangement could have been achieved without any assault. Mr While, for the Crown, said the evidence of the girl was uncontradicted. His Honor, in summing up, remarked upon the want of corroboration of the girl’s evidence. The first corroboration of that might be looked for, would be a complaint made by the girl to her betrothed, George. Yet there was no evidence of her having made any complaint. The jury immediately returned a verdict of "Not Guilty.” The other accused, Parker and Slater, were then placed in the dock, and, by his Honor’s direction, acquitted. His Honor, on discharging accused, said he congratulated them on the satisfactory termination of the trial. He had not the slightest dvubt that they acted with the best intention in the matter. He thought Charles’ motive was good but he warned them all that designs and plans, however wellintentioned, were apt to recoil upon those who formed them. Accused weie discharged. [Per Press Association.] NBLSON, April 20. The Supreme Court sittings opened this morning, and lasted till 9 this evening. In his charge to the Grand Jury, Mr Justice Richmond referred to the criminal cases, there being six charges against five persons. Referring to two charges of forgery against the same person, he said :—“ The circumstances are extraordinarily alike in each case. The cheques passed were for the same sum, .£lO ss, and purported to be drawn by the same person, though on different banks. They were passed on the same Saturday night, in both cases to clothiers, for purchases, which in one case amounted to £3 9s, in the other to £3 18i, the prisoner receiving the change. What is stranger still, though this must be a casual resemblance, they were passed to two different' tradesmen who bear the same name, Robert Allan—one carrying on business in Trafalgar street, the other in Bridge street. Now these two eases, though so strangely similar, have been properly treated by the committing Magistrate as completely unconnected. The history of each may be told without referring to the circumstances of the other case. These twin cases remarkably illustrate the principle of the English Criminal Law which has so recently attracted public attention in Regina v. Hall. According to that law you cannot, as a general rule, use the evidence of one crime to establish another. In order to do so, you must first show that there exists some connection between the two, and the mere similarity of the circumstances is not enough to justify the admission in one case of tbe evidence relating to the other. That, however, is subject to this further principle that the Crown may sometimes refer to the evidence of a case other than the case before the jury, for the purpose of proving what the lawyers call guilty knowledge. Thus in the present cases, if you should have any doubt as tp whether the prisoner, when be passed either of these cheques, was aware that it was forged, it would be legitimate to call in aid the evidence in the other case, to show that he had done the same thing twice over on the same night, in order to show intention. But before this can be done, it must first be established in the case before you that the prisoner actually passed the cheque referred to in that case. No doubt this restriction often operates unduly in the prisoner’s favour, but such is at present the law. J uries are to go to their work, as it were, with blinkers on, preventing them from looking either to right or to left, and confining tbeir attention to the case immediately before them. No bill was found against John Evelyn, charged with larceny of a saddle. True bills were returned in all the others. George Strathallan Hayes was charged with feloniou-ly shooting a sheep. The jury retired at 2 p m., and as they had not agreed before night. His Honor ordered them to be locked up till 9.30 in the morning. Frank James, charged with stealing .£9 from Patrick Conway at a lodging-house, pleaded “ Guilty.” His counsel applied that prisoner might be dealt with under the First Offenders Act. His Honor said the Probation Officer’s report was not favourable, but he would defer judgment till to-morrow morning. Emily Amelia M‘Gee was charged with setting fire to a dwelling-house. It was not alleged that she had any interest in the destruction of the place, but it was evident that she was under the influence of liquor at the time. The jury returned a verdict of ” Not guilty,” and his Honor said that as the jury considered it consistent with their oath to find her “ Not. guilty,” the accused must be discharged. The only charges not heard are the two of forgery against John Robinson. INVERCARGILL. April 20. At the Supreme Court J. Salieman, a native of Java, was sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude for criminally assaulting a half-caste girl, under twelve years of age, at Stewart Island. The first jury were unable to agree, after being locked up all night. The case was re-heard by a second jury this morning, and they found the prisoner guilty after twenty minutes’ consideration. This concluded the criminal business.