COUNTY COURT, NELSON. TUESDAY, MARCH 19.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 107, 23 March 1844, Page 10

COUNTY COURT, NELSON. TUESDAY, MARCH 19.

[Before his Honour C. B. Brewer, Esq.]

The recently passed Jury Ordinance having at length afforded the means of trying criminal cases, all offences within the jurisdiction of the Court committed since the founding of the settlement were brought forward for trial. His honour the County Judge having taken his seat, a list of the jurors summoned was called over, and those who failed to answer to their names were fined £5 each.

His Honour then delivered the following address : —

" Gentlemen — The period has at length arrived when you are called upon to fulfil the duties of the office of jurors; an office of so great importance, that it has always, and justly, been considered the bulwark df the liberties of England. It is a matter of congratulation that this noble institution originated with Englishmen. And so well has it worked, and so great have been the benefits derived from it, that it has been almost universally adopted (with certain modifications) by nearly all the different nations of Europe, independently of the fact of our having, through the medium of our colonies, extended its advantages over the four quarters of the globe. If such is the importance of the institution, how careful ought you to be in maintaining it in all its beauty and purity. How anxious ought you not to be to gain all the information and knowledge necessary for you to discharge with efficacy the duties imposed upon you by it. Some of you, no doubt, have already served on juries in the mother country. The greater number, however, I apprehend are now called upon for the first time to serve in that capacity. For the information of the latter class, and incidentally to refresh the memories of the former, I will briefly touch upon the general principles by which you ought to be guided in the performance of the important duties confided to you, leaving the details to be commented upon when particular cases shall be brought before your notice. In all cases you are the sole judges of the facts, and of the credibility of the witnesses brought forward in support of those facts. With the law of the case you have nothing to do ; that will be stated and explained to you by the Court. By that statement of the law you are bound, and you must give your verdict in accordance with it, whatever your own impressions may be. Should any of you, however, not understand the statement of the Court, or should theie be any difference between you as to its meaning, you can apply to the Court for explanation, and the Court will always have much pleasure in affording you every assistance in its power. During the investigation of cases at the Police Office, reports having a tendency to operate favourably or unfavourably for the prisoner often, nay, almost invariably, get into circulation. All such you must strictly dismiss from your minds. You must come into Court with minds (if I may be allowed so to express myself) perfectly blank as to the case which you are called upon to try, and ready to receive the impressions which which will guide you to the formation of a correct and proper verdict from the evidence of the various witnesses examined before you. From that evidence, and that evidence only, can you form your verdict. All previous knowledge of the case mast imperatively, at least for the time, be blotted out of your memories, You must not allow yourselves to be influenced in any way by feelings of friendship, companionship, or compassion. Recollect, the welfare of the community at large, and your own individual welfare as members of that community, in a great measure depend on your proper perception of this rule; on your firmness in strictly carrying out by your verdict the ends of justice. Crime is always hateful, under whatever circumstances it may have been committed. Your province is to decide whether crime has been committed. Mercy is in tbe province of her Majesty the Queen, and, through

her, in the hands of her representatives, the judges. But, however stern justice may compel you to pronounce the verdict of guilty, you still have it in your power, should you consider the prisoner worthy of such interference, to exercise the gentler feelings of your nature by recommending him to the mercy of the Court. But here I cannot refrain from reminding you that very great mischief is likely to arise from an indiscreet exercise of this privilege. You must be unanimous in your verdict. But, gentlemen, let no considerations of private business, or of the grosser parts of human nature, such as appetite or weariness, induce you rashly and without mature deliberation, in cases of doubt, to agree in your verdict for the mere sake of immediate relief. However arduous, self-deny-ing, and tedious the duties of a juror may be, he should recollect that they are part of the social compact he has entered into by living with a community of his fellow men, and that they, in a measure, are the price of his own individual liberty and of its protection by that community; he should reflect that he cannot tell how soon he himself may, by some untoward event, be placed in the same situation as the prisoner he is trying, and thus participating in the benefits and advantages of the system instead of performing his share of its disagreeable duties. Gentlemen, taking into consideration the length of time that this settlement has existed without a Criminal Court, and that we have now before us nearly all the cases of crime which have occurred since the formation of the colony, I cannot but congratulate you on the lightness of the calendar; it speaks volumes in your favour. lam happy to be able to add that most of the cases for trial are not of a very grave character. One word more, gentlemen, and I have done. The ninth clause of the Jury Ordinance provides as follows : ' If any man having been duly served with such summons shall fail to attend, or being present shall not appear when called, or after appearance shall withdraw himself without the permission of the Court, the Court shall (unless some reasonable excuse shall be proved by oath or affidavit) set upon the person so making default such fine not exceeding the sum of £10 as to the Court shall seem meet.' The custom of not imposing the fine for non-attendance on the first sitting of the Court is one which I consider more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I have therefore inflicted a fine of £5 on every person who has failed to answer to his name this day. This fine will be enforced. And so long as I have the honour to preside over any court of justice in this colony, I shall, in every instance, impose a fine, in some cases even the highest fine of £10, on all those who, regardless of the civil and moral obligations imposed upon them, basely desert their post, and attempt to shift the whole burden of the institution on the shoulders of their more conscientious fellow-citizens, at the same time that they themselves are always ready and willing to participate in all its advantages and benefits." There being no Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Shepherd, clerk of the courts performed the duties of that officer, and Mr. Marshall, the sheriff, officiated as clerk.

The first case was a charge against William Beakley, by John lister, of stealing a waistcoat, brush, spoon, and other articles. The plaintiff and prisoner were fellow passengers in the Indus, and after their arrival in the colony had lived together for a short time in the Company's depot. On one occasion the plaintiff recognised a waistcoat worn by the prisoner as his own. upon which he got a search-warrant, when that and the other things were found in his possession.

Mr. Poyntkr, in defence of the prisoner, contended that the waistcoat was one which was just as likely to belong to the prisoner as to the prosecutor, and that the other articles were of such a nature as might, in the bustle of disembarking, have been left about the ship. The jury, without retiring, found the prisoner guilty. Sentence, six months' imprisonment and hard labour.

John Ferme was charged with stealing a pig, the property of John Ponsonby. The evidence being by no means conclusive, the prisoner was acquitted ; and his Honour informed him that he left the Court without the slightest imputation on his character.

John Nisbit appeared to answer the charge of an assault on Elizabeth Butterfield. The prosecutrix not appearing the case was dismissed.

Henry Roil was charged with assaulting the late Thomas Tyrrell, one of the unfortunate men who fell at Wairau. It appeared that the prisoner, whilst intoxicated, had quarrelled with his father, and on Tyrrell interposing he struck at him with a knife and wounded him in the arm. By the death of Tyrrell and the lapse of nearly two years since the offence was committed the evidence was defective.

His Honour, after commenting on the perilous situation in which tbe prisoner would have stood had Tyrrell lived, directed the jury to acquit him. Robert Bright, committed on a charge of felony, had escaped from gaol. William Flower was charged with stealing a plank, the property of Stephen Close and John Fuller. The prosecutors are sawyers, and having missed some planks from their pit on the bank of the Mated, they found them lying against the garden fence of the prisoner, lower down the river. One of the planks was clearly identified, having the initials of the prosecutor on it in pencil. Tbe defence for the prisoner was that tbs planks had been floated down the river by a fresh, and had not therefore been feloniously taken.

The jury, after a abort deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence, one month's imprisonment.

George Gedge, who had been bailed on a charge of assaulting John Collins, had foreited his recognizances and left the colony. Ann Thompson, charged by T. K. Warburton with stealing a tub and other articles, was acquitted.

(Wednesday, March 20.

Thomas Harmen was charged with stealing a £1 note, the property of Samuel Newport. It appeared that Newport lost the note, and suspected that he had drawn it from his pocket whilst in conversation with the prisoner, who had been seen to pick up something near .the spot; but as there was no evidence to prove that it was the note, the prisoner was acquitted.

Peter Leonard, charged with stealing cash and other property from the dwelling-house of John Collins, was also acquitted. Pig Stealing. — Peter Crew was charged with stealing a pig from Robert Ross. The pig, which had been killed by the prisoner, who then followed the trade of a butcher, was sworn to very positively by a witness for the prosetion. Guilty. Sentence, six months' imprisonment.

William Scott, charged by Robert Ross with felony, had left the colony and escheated his bail.

Jane Hopgood was charged by Richard Mills, with receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen. Acquitted. Michael Peel and Samuel Jordan, charged by J. A. Wilson with stealing an anchor, had left the colony and forfeited their recognizances.

John Crousley, charged with stealing a watch and money from from Mr. Johnson, had made his escape from gaol. Richard Pearman was charged by chief constable Snow with presenting a loaded gun, and threatening to shoot him, while in the execution of his duty. Guilty. Sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

His Honour then addressed the jury as follows : " Gentlemen — I am happy to be able to inform you that your duties have come to a close for the present. I thank you for your attendance. I have witnessed the working of the present jury system in every part of the colony where it has been in force ; and this, I must in justice to you say, that nowhere in New Zealand have I seen the duties of this important office better or more impartially performed. I have much satisfaction in being able to state to you that I concur in every verdict which you have returned ; they do credit both to your hearts and to your understanding. Gentlemen, you are discharged."