COUNTY COURT, NELSON. TUESDAY, APRIL 16.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 111, 20 April 1844, Page 26

COUNTY COURT, NELSON. TUESDAY, APRIL 1 6.

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

His Honour having taken his seat, the names of the persons summoned as jurors were called over, two of whom failed to answer. On the part of one a medical certificate was produced, stating bis inability to attend; and the other defaulter was fined £5.

His Honour then said to the jury—Gentlemea, I have much pleasure in meeting you for the second time. The fact of there being amongst to-day's panel several who, by their education and pursuits, are thoroughly acquainted with the duties of the office of juror releases me from the necessity of enlarging upon that topic, and will be a great saving, gentlemen, of your valuable time and of that of the Court. I am happy to be able to inform you that, although the calendar contains three cases for trial, only one of them has arisen since the hist sittings of the Court; the other two being cases adjourned, for the purpose of giving the parties an opportunity of appearing, to save the estreating of their recognizances. Since the hut sittings, I have addressed a letter to his Excellency the Governor on the subject of the enlargement of the Court House. I regret exceedingly the great inconvenience you are put tc by the confined proportions of your bos. I trust this is the last time you will have to put up with it. I have been applied to, out of court, by several parties, jurors, who were fined for non-attendance at the March sittings, for a remission of the fine. It not being perhaps generally known, it will be as well to inform you of the course to be pursued in such cases. Upon a fine being inflicted, or recognizance estreated,

a summons issues from the office of the court calling upon the party to pay such fine or the amount of such forfeited recognizance, or to appear on the day therein specified and show cause why the payment' thereof should not be enforced. The person fined, or whose recognizance has been estreated', can then show, upon affidavit (and the Court can only take notice of matter brought . before it by affidavit), any grounds he may have for the indulgence of the Court. I wish it to be understood that I cannot listen to any application whatever out of court. The sittings, of the Court are well known ; and for the future I must request all parties having any business with me, as judge of this court, to confine themselves to those days, and at the Court House. This request is not intended to apply to business coming under the denomination of chamber practice. I take this opportunity also of mentioning another circumstance. A few days ago a person, party to. one of the cases which were tried in March last, took the opportunity whilst I was walking out with my family, to accost me and thank me for the favourable way in which I had put his case to the jury. That person was little aware of the very poor compliment he was paying me, or rather of the insult he was conferring on me, or he would have refrained from acting as he did. You, gentlemen, and the public at large, will, I trust, give me credit for truth, when I assure you that no person who may appear before me, whether rich or poor, friend or foe (if I have any such), will meet with any other favour than what his case may entitle him to, and that, with God's blessing, 1 shall in all my decisions be guided by the strictest impartiality.

STEWART V. MORRISON.

The prosecutor having left the colony, and there being no evidence against Morrison, the case was. discharged.

WHALE V. MARTINI. ' The defendant in this case failing to appear, his bail came forward and stated that he was at Cloudy Bay, but that, since the last sitting of the Court, no opportunity of sending to him had occurred until within the last few days. The Court did not think the excuse a sufficient one. As the case had been already adjourned, it was the duty of bail, if.no opportunity offered by which Martini might be made acquainted with the time appointed for his trial, to have sent a boat specially for that purpose. Bail estreated.

A jury was then impanneled to try William Thompson for obtaining goods under false pretences from Mr. Alexander Perry. Mr. M. Campbell, one of the jury, objected to take the oath from conscientious scruples. On being questioned by the Court, he admitted that he was not a Quaker, and that at the time he left England he was a member of the New Connexion of Wesleyan Methodists. The Court then informed Mr. Campbell that the only denominations exempt from taking oaths in British Courts of Justice were Quakers and Jews. Mr. Campbell still refusing to be sworn, his Honour said he would refer the matter to the Judge of the Supreme Court. Another juror was then called.

Against the prisoner Thompson it was alleged that in October, 1842, he obtained from the store of Mr. Perry two shirts and a handkerchief, on Mr. Duffy's account, with intent to cheat, &c. The prisoner admitted that he obtained the goods, but denied that it was on Mr. Duffy's account.he got them. The jury, after a short deliberation, acquitted the prisoner. His Honour, addressing the jury, said — Gentlemen, I am happy to inform you that for these sittings your labours are at an end. They have been very light, and I hope for the future they will be equally so, if not lighter. Gentlemen, I thank you for your