SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSION.

North Otago Times, Volume IV, Issue 69, 15 June 1865, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSION.

Wednesday, June 7th, 3865. ROBBERY BY A BAILEE. "William Boycott was indicted for having, in January last, feloniously converted to his own use a grey mare and foal, saddle, bridle, and martingale, the pioperty of John Bock, with which he had been entrusted as bailee ; a second count charging the stealing of the animals and articles. The case should have been tried at the previous sitting of the Court, in its Criminal Jurisdiction ; but there was a postponement, because the prosecutor was so ill as to prevent his attendance. The Crown Prosecutor and Mr Henry Howorth, conducted the case ; and Mr Wilson appeared for the prisoner. The short facts of the case were — The men were pai'tners in an hotel on Wain's station, 18 miles up Shag Valley ; the understanding being that Bock was to carry on the business, the prisoner continuing to cart for Mr Saxton, in whose employment lie was. The prisoner had put L45 into the business. On the 16th Jan., Bock entrusted the prisoner with the mare and foal, the saddle, &c, for the purposo of taking the articles to Waikouaiti and getting them shod ; the anangement being that he was to return with them at once. Bock stated most positively that the mare and foal were his own piivate property, and were never mentioned in any way in connection with the hotel partnership. Instead of going southerly to Waikouaiti, the prisoner went to the north, passed through Oamaru, and at the Marewhenua Hotel, on the Waitaki, lie gave to Mr Little, the landlord, L5 and the mare in exchange_ for another mare. This exchange was not effected in the name of Boycott, but in the name of William Jones, the receipt given to Mr Little, by the prisoner, being so signed by him. The prisoner was apprehended at Mackie's Accommodation House, in the Canterbury Province, by Mounted Constable T. M. Smith. After evidence was heard, Mr Wilson for the defence, contended, that the mare was, and_ always had been intended to be, treated as partnership property. The prisoner put in L45, as against Bock's L23 ; the value of the mare would make the contributions equal j and then it would be comprehensible that there was to be an eqiial division of profits. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to leniency. The prisoner who has been in gaol since the end of January, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, with, hard labor.

STEALING A WATCH. Richard Young and Mary Ryan were indicted for having stolen a silver watch, the property of David Thompson ; a second count charging that the prisoners received the watch knowing it to have been stolen. After the evidence had been heard, the jury found the prisoners Not Guilty.

Thuksday, June 8th, 1865. ASSAULT AT MOERAKI.— MAORI CASE. Te Tira, was indicted for assulting Andrew Pori, another Maori, ab the kaik npar Moeraki, on the 20th March ; there being three counts, charging .respectively that the intent was to kill, to do grievous bodily harm, and to wound. The Maoris at the Kaik wore threshing with a steam machine, four horses being used as motive power, and Tira being their driver. Pori, who had been opening sheaves on, the top of a stack, for the purpose of feeding the machine, jumped down, and frightened the horses ; a dispute arose ; Tira ran and picked up a hatchet, and during a struggle, ho struck Pori with the back of it on his forehead, thus inflicting a wound which proved to be but slight. There were 17 Maoris summoned, they being all who were returned as capable of serving as jurors, to be found within a radius of 20 miles of the Resident Magistrate's Court— that being the area prescribed by the Jury Law Amendment Act, which enables a Maori charged with an outrage upon a Maori to claim to be tried by his countrymen. The piisonev, who was defended by Mr W. W. "Wilson, " challenged" one of those whose names were drawn. The usual form of oath was administered to tho jurors ; the Rev. Mr Remenschneider, missionary to the natives, who acted as interpreter, stating that all who were in- the box professed Chiistianitv. The Court was crowded, to witness the novel spectacle of a jury-box so occupied. The conduct of the jurors was most exemplary, as regarded gravity and attention to the evidence. When Mr Wilson rose to cross examine, the judge told the jurors to attend to what the witnesses said, but, that they were not to believe what the lawyeis said, on either side. The Judge said — There were three courses for the jury. He advised them not to find Tira guilty of the great offence, but to consider, whether he is guilty of wounding with a wicked heart, or only of wounding? They were to hold the scales, and to keep a straight course, not leaning to either side, to have neither love for the prisoner nor hate for him, but judge according to the truth. The jury were out of Court nearly half an hour. When they returned, the Interpreter said that they wished to give reasons for their decision. The Judge : Tell them they are not to do that. Bartolomu (foreman) spoke for a minute or two; and the Interpieter said, "They pass by the first offence ; they pass by the second ; and they find him Guilty of the third." The Judge : Record a verdict of Guilty of unlawfully wounding. The Piisoner was asked his age ; and he replied, ha English, "Twenty-five." He declined to say anything why sentence should not be passed; and the Judge sentenced bin to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labor.

Monday, June 12th, 1865. riordan's case. Mr James Smith (with him Mr Wilson) moved in arrest of judgement in the case of John Biordan, on the ground that the indictment was had, from want of certainty in two particulars. The mode of committing the crime was not stated ; and the person, or persons whom it was alleged that it was meant by the crime to defraud, were not specified or properly named. As to the first point, the indictment was one at common-law for a misdemeanor ; but what it charged was merely an attempt — or, in other words, it imputed no more than a guilty intention. The Judge : I shall not say that I am not to be bound by authority, in matters of criminal pleading ; but I was not aware that such and indictment was not sufficient, without specifying an overt act. Mr Smith : The only indictment at common-law on the subject, in the books, was that in " Rex v. Schoefield," which was adopted by Starkey in his Precedents (2, 664). The Judge: You would co ntend that all the ancient strictness in criminal pleading is maintained, except where it is actually done away with by the statute. Mr Smith did contond t hat whatever was the motive for laying down so strict a system, it was in force still. Murder and manslaughter were the only cases in which, it had been provided that the mode and msans of com-

mitting the offence need not be set out. No doubt, tbe fact that it was so provided, supplied the reason why the Crown had been led into so loose an indictment in this case. The only English Act on the subject which he knew of as being in force in the Colony, -was 1 Vic, c. 89. If he was not greatly mistaken, 24 and 25 Vic, c« 97, which made the attempt at arsoD, by an overt act, a felony, was not in force here. After a lengthened discussion, Mr Smith hoped that His Honor would be thoroughly satisfied that he had the power to retain the prisoner in custody. The prisoner had been in custody on an indictment which was admitted to be thoroughly bad — that was to say, ho was not charged with any offence at all under it. He was not now charged with any offence ; and, therefore, he was at liberty. The Judge : I am not satisfied of that. I may admit that the prisoner has not been in peril from this indictment, and that it is open to the Crown Prosecutor to present a fresh one ; but I shall not at present accede to the arguments addressed to me. I have a duty to perform, quite indifferent to any contention between private parties. I shall look into the matter ; and, meanwhile, the prisoner must be remanded to custody.

THE HIGH-STKEET MURDER. William Ford and Ellen Anderson were indicted for having, in Dunedin, on the 30th March, wilfully murdered George Kreuser (commonly called " German Charley"). Mr Wilson, for the prisoners, said that he wished them to be separately tried ; and that the mode of separate challenge would be adopted, if His Honor thought it necessary. The Judge thought that the courso should be taken. In reply to the Judge, Mr Wilson said that he should prefer to have Ford tried fii sfc. He certainly should not call witnesses if he could avoid doing so ; but he might have to call Anderson as a witness for Ford, if he could not get something he wished for on cross-examination. The first juror to " come to the book" was challenged by Ford, and the second was challenged by Anderson. The pri&oneis, adhering to their right to separate challenges, would not have been able to have the number to which they are entitled, out of the jurors in the box; and time would have been wasted in going through the panol, for no real object. The Judge accordingly directed that Anderson should be removed from the dock. There weie four challenges for the Crown. Ford was then indicted for the muider. The whole of the l'emainder of the day was occupied with the examination of witnesses, and the case was adjourned till Tuesday, the jury being taken to Hooper's Hotel, High-street. — Abridged from "Daily Times." (The report of Tuesday's proceedings has not arrived.)