SUPREME COURT, NELSON. Wednesday, October l.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 187, 4 October 1845, Page 121

SUPREME COURT, NELSON. Wednesday, October l.

[Before Mr. Justice Chapman.] crown side. This Court was opened here on Wednesday, the Ist instant. There was only one prisoner, Richard Conway, awaiting his trial, who had been committed for three separate offences. The Grand Jury, by their foreman, William Fox, Esq., found true bills on all the indictments. Mr. Poynter conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner defended himself. It will be recollected that Conway was tried at the last sitting of the Court, in April,

charged with robbing Mr. Spershott of a Bank cheque for £5, and ten one-pound notes of the Union Bank of Australia, and, after a long trial, was acquitted. He was now tried for assaulting, on the 4th of June last, one William Harding, formerly a constable, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm: the indictment contained other counts. . It appeared from the -evidence that the prisoner had threatened "to do," for Harding, Harding having searched him when charged with the robbery of Spershott; that he bore Harding a grudge ; and, on the 4th of June, when in Johnson's Tavern during a scuffle between the prisoner and a person named Crew, the prisoner took up from the fireplace a large billet of wood, and struck Harding on the left side of the head, inflicting a long and deep wound, attended with concussion of .he brain, and, had inflammation ensued, it appeared from the medical testimony might have terminated fatally. Five witnesses were examined, who proved the opening statement of the counsel for the prosecution, who considered his case «o clearly made out, that he did not address the jury, leaving the evidence with the Court. The prisoner cross-examined all the witnesses at great length ; and read from a written paper a long defence, remarking on the absence of all malice, which he had endeavoured { to show from his cross-examination of Harding did not exist ; that the blow was altogether ac- j cidental; but he did not deny, on the contrary he admitted most fully, it was intended for Crew, who, he said, had first picked a quarrel with him, struck him several blows on the face, and, in self-defence, he maintained he was justified in resorting to the use of the stick, with which, j unfortunately, Herding had been struck. He appealed to the jury whether the punishment he had already endured, for several months shut up in a loathsome hole, six feet by four, chained to the ground and manacled so that he could not wash himself, Was not punishment enough for all the injury he had unintentionally inflicted on Harding, against whom he bore no malice; and implored the jury to give his case their most merciful consideration, by acquitting him of all the intents with which he was charged; and, if they returned a verdict of guilty at all, that it would be only one of common assault.

Mr. Justice Chapman, in summing up the evidence, told the jury that they would do well to confine their attention to the second count of the indictment. The first count laid the intent to maim William Harding : but the word "maim" had a technical meaning in law, which was not supported by the evidence. The second count charged the intent to " do some grevious bodily harm," and on that he should comment when he bad called their attention to the evidence of the injury. Wi^iam Harding had described the circumstances of the altercation and. the serious nature of the wound. To constitute a wound, the skin must be broken, and of that the jury would probably have no doubt, of the nature of the wound, or of the hand that inflicted it, as Harding was confirmed by the other witnesses. Then as to intent. It was a rule, that where a certain result is produced, it must be presumed that the party who produced it intended to do so. As to the grievous nature of the wound, they had the evidence of the surgeon. It was severe in two ways ; a little more, and the skull might have been fractured ; and the injury was so severe that inflammation was to be apprehended. If they thought "grievous bodily harm" was in fact done, they might infer that such was the intent. The prisoner has set up two grounds of defence. Ist, That he had no malice against Harding ; and, 2d, that the blow was intended for another. Previous malice was not an ingredient of the offence. Evidence of threats were given to help the jury to decide upon the intent, should they have any doubts from the nature of the injury. As to the second ground of defence, also, supposing the jury took the view the prisoner wished ■ them, it did not amount to a legal defence. , It was laid down as a general rule, that a man is answerable for the consequences of his wrongful acts ; so that if a man make a stab at A, and missing him stab B, the intent may be laid to do grievous bodily harm to B. In this case, therefore, it will make no difference if the jury should think the injury was intended for Crew. The Jury retired for about ten minutes, and returned into Court, finding the prisoner guilty. The learned Judge then sentenced the prisoner to transportation for fifteen years. Mr. Poynter stated that he would not proceed with the other two indictments which had been found, viz., one for an assault on F. A. Saundere, chief constable, on the 4th June: the other for an assault on Richard Mills; gaoler.